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

[Russ Phillips via Talk-GB]

I didn't even know there was an OsmAnd forum ;) I'll go look for it, thanks.

Russ

⁣Get BlueMail for Android ​

On 2 Oct 2019, 16:47, at 16:47, Nick Allen  wrote:
>Hi Russ,
>
>Somewhere in tbe Osmand forum you should find a link for a postcode
>player
>you can download & use. I think it was Harry, one of the main people
>answering queries who produced it.
>
>Regards
>
>Nick
>my phone is responsible for any spelling mistakes!
>
>On Wed, 2 Oct 2019, 17:12 Russ Phillips via Talk-GB, <
>talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> OsmAnd is what made me think of it. I'm using that for directions a
>lot
>> now, and it's common these days to give a postcode to plug into a sat
>nav,
>> but they frequently don't work in OsmAnd.
>>
>> I was somewhat surprised that it hadn't already been done, and I
>accept
>> all the reasons for not doing it.
>>
>> I'll look into alternatives.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>>
>> On 02/10/2019 15:52, SK53 wrote:
>>
>> I really see no point. The data are already present in Nominatim
>(albeit
>> perhaps not up-to-date) and search is the ONLY thing that so-called
>> postcode centroids can help with. DE24 (Sinfin) was imported long
>ago, see
>> this overpass query <http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MNZ>.
>>
>> What can be done is attempt to assign postcodes to streets, and
>various
>> incomplete efforts have been made over the years. Open Data provides
>full
>> addresses for around 70% of UK postcodes (principally Companies
>House, Food
>> Hygiene & National Register of Social Housing).
>>
>> What would be useful is a maintained set of postcode information
>based on
>> codepoint open/ONS postcode data/OS Local. The sorts of things which
>it
>> would be useful to know are:
>>
>>- Is the postcode centroid co-located with others (e.g., delivery
>>offices, some businesses, blocks of flats)
>>- Can the postcode be unambiguously assigned to a street & post
>town?
>>- Is the post code in use or not (ONS is now obviously 8 years
>old,
>>but still potentially useful). Greg's FHRS tracker does appear to
>indicate
>>a degree of churn with inner-city postcodes (although some of this
>will be
>>inadvertent use of more general rather than specific postcodes by
>people
>>filling in the FHRS forms)
>>- Is a postcode the sole postcode for that street?
>>
>> Somewhere I have an old CPO table with some of this data populated. I
>> think Geolytix had summary info associated with their post code
>sector
>> shape files as well.
>>
>> Adding addr:postcode to streets which have a single postcode is in my
>book
>> fine: numerous LAs put this on street signs (Rushcliffe & Gedling for
>> sure); it's an intermediate step to adding the addresses to houses
>Once
>> the postcodes which obviously belong to a single street are
>eliminated it's
>> often easier to work out where the others belong.
>>
>> Note that other than for FHRS we have no good source for Northern
>Ireland
>> postcodes at all. Equally assignment of rural postcodes is quite a
>bit
>> harder than urban ones. In re-reading bits of Chris's blog last night
>I
>> came across a post of his
>> <https://chris-osm.blogspot.com/2017/03/have-you-moved.html> showing
>that
>> some postcodes move huge distances between releases.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> PS. The Sinfin postcodes possibly should be removed as they were
>added
>> IIRC before Mike Collinson's discussions with OSGB about OS Open
>Data.
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 13:44, Russ Phillips via Talk-GB <
>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if it would be feasible and advisable to import the UK
>>> postcode data from OS OpenData Codepoint
>>>
><https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData#Code-Point_Open>
>>> .
>>>
>>> The licence is OSM compatible. My thinking was that we could create
>a
>>> node for each data point and set the addr:postcode tag. This would
>be
>>> useful for routing software like OsmAnd, since it would allow a user
>to
>>> enter a postcode as a destination.
>>>
>>> I'm happy to do the work, but the import guidelines
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines> say that
>imports
>>> should be discussed on the imports@ list and the appropriate local
>>> communities, hence this email.
>>>
>>> Russ Phillips
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Import UK postcode data?

[Russ Phillips via Talk-GB]

OsmAnd is what made me think of it. I'm using that for directions a lot 
now, and it's common these days to give a postcode to plug into a sat 
nav, but they frequently don't work in OsmAnd.


I was somewhat surprised that it hadn't already been done, and I accept 
all the reasons for not doing it.


I'll look into alternatives.

Russ


On 02/10/2019 15:52, SK53 wrote:
I really see no point. The data are already present in Nominatim  
(albeit perhaps not up-to-date) and search is the ONLY thing that 
so-called postcode centroids can help with. DE24 (Sinfin) was imported 
long ago, see this overpass query <http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MNZ>.


What can be done is attempt to assign postcodes to streets, and 
various incomplete efforts have been made over the years. Open Data 
provides full addresses for around 70% of UK postcodes (principally 
Companies House, Food Hygiene & National Register of Social Housing).


What would be useful is a maintained set of postcode information based 
on codepoint open/ONS postcode data/OS Local. The sorts of things 
which it would be useful to know are:


  * Is the postcode centroid co-located with others (e.g., delivery
offices, some businesses, blocks of flats)
  * Can the postcode be unambiguously assigned to a street & post town?
  * Is the post code in use or not (ONS is now obviously 8 years old,
but still potentially useful). Greg's FHRS tracker does appear to
indicate a degree of churn with inner-city postcodes (although
some of this will be inadvertent use of more general rather than
specific postcodes by people filling in the FHRS forms)
  * Is a postcode the sole postcode for that street?

Somewhere I have an old CPO table with some of this data populated. I 
think Geolytix had summary info associated with their post code sector 
shape files as well.


Adding addr:postcode to streets which have a single postcode is in my 
book fine: numerous LAs put this on street signs (Rushcliffe & Gedling 
for sure); it's an intermediate step to adding the addresses to 
houses  Once the postcodes which obviously belong to a single street 
are eliminated it's often easier to work out where the others belong.


Note that other than for FHRS we have no good source for Northern 
Ireland postcodes at all. Equally assignment of rural postcodes is 
quite a bit harder than urban ones. In re-reading bits of Chris's blog 
last night I came across a post of his 
<https://chris-osm.blogspot.com/2017/03/have-you-moved.html> showing 
that some postcodes move huge distances between releases.


Jerry

PS. The Sinfin postcodes possibly should be removed as they were added 
IIRC before Mike Collinson's discussions with OSGB about OS Open Data.


On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 13:44, Russ Phillips via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


Hi,

I'm wondering if it would be feasible and advisable to import the
UK postcode data from OS OpenData Codepoint

<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData#Code-Point_Open>.

The licence is OSM compatible. My thinking was that we could
create a node for each data point and set the addr:postcode tag.
This would be useful for routing software like OsmAnd, since it
would allow a user to enter a postcode as a destination.

I'm happy to do the work, but the import guidelines
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines> say that
imports should be discussed on the imports@ list and the
appropriate local communities, hence this email.

Russ Phillips


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

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

[Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?

[Russ Phillips via Talk-GB]

Hi,

I'm wondering if it would be feasible and advisable to import the UK 
postcode data from OS OpenData Codepoint 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData#Code-Point_Open>.


The licence is OSM compatible. My thinking was that we could create a 
node for each data point and set the addr:postcode tag. This would be 
useful for routing software like OsmAnd, since it would allow a user to 
enter a postcode as a destination.


I'm happy to do the work, but the import guidelines 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines> say that imports 
should be discussed on the imports@ list and the appropriate local 
communities, hence this email.


Russ Phillips


___
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

[Will Phillips]

Hi Andrzej,

I feel a bit conflicted here. Having the choice of several tags does 
make things easier when adding complicated addresses, but for less 
experienced mappers it does also help if things are kept simple. For 
example, if better guidance regarding UK address mapping was added to 
the wiki, it would definitely be clearer to recommend one main tag for 
places below city.


I've noticed that iD varies the address fields shown depending on which 
country is being edited. Some countries have a field labelled 'Suburb', 
while for the UK the only level above street is 'City'. It would 
definitely improve things if another field could be added, but it would 
be difficult to argue for adding several fields. Therefore, it would 
probably be better to agree on one main locality tag. Whatever happens 
tags such as addr:suburb and addr:village are already in use and will 
most probably continue to be used.


Cheers,
Will

On 30/01/2019 22:24, Andrzej wrote:
Thank you for the discussion so far. I've been thinking about a 
solution for tagging localities that would work for both mappers who 
want to tag locality types and those who don't. Current proposals 
(addr:town|village and addr:locality|sublocality) are two distinct and 
incompatible tagging schemes so reaching a consensus may be impossible.


How about tagging localities as addr:locality|sublocality _and_ 
addr:locality|sublocality:type=city|town|suburb|village|hamlet|campus, 
so they can be added separately and at different times?


Best regards,
Andrzej

On 28 January 2019 04:40:26 GMT+08:00, Andrzej  
wrote:


Hi,

When working on post codes in East Anglia I realised the current
address tagging scheme is insufficient for even fairly basic
scenarios. I have already discussed the issues with some of the
most experienced mappers and like to bring these issues to your
attention. Robert has summarised his ideas in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping

The bottom line is, I would like to be tag commonly used addresses
without losing information and without resorting to addr:full.

Issues:
1. Post towns (most pressing one because there is a lot of
confusion around it). The UK is fairly unique in that not every
town is a post town. This makes it impossible to tag e.g. Station
Road, Histon, Cambridge CB24 9LF.
Wiki recommends addr:city to be used for tagging post towns
(Cambridge) but then how do we tag Histon?
- Robert recommends sticking to the current meaning of addr:city
and using addr:town and addr:village for town and village names,
which, although not in wiki, are already being used in the UK. I
like this solution because it is very explicit in what each addr:
key means and it doesn't redefine addr:city.
- SK53 prefers using addr:city for everything (towns, even
villages) and either not tagging post towns (they can be seen as a
an internal detail of a closed Royal Mail database) or using a new
tag for it, like addr:post_town. It is a simple solution, results
in Histon being called Histon and not Cambridge (without
introducing new tags for town and village names) and is commonly
used. It is also a bit confusing (what exactly is a city?) and I
think we we should at least support tagging post towns.

Key questions:
a) addr:city for post towns or towns and villages?
b) how to rag remaining information (respectively, towns and
villages or post towns,)

2. Tagging addresses within campuses, business parks etc. There is
addr:place but it is supposed to be used instead of addr:street.
Again, Robert has a fairly decent proposal for that using
addr:place or addr:locality and addr:parentstreet. Please comment.

2a. should buildings in campuses be tagged with
addr:buildingnumber/name or addr:unit? I would prefer
buildingname/number (as they are often subdivided) but these seem
to be associated with addr:street.

3. Similar to (2) but for buildings. Tagging buildings that have
e.g. a single name but multiple house numbers?

Best regards,
ndrw6


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Checking UK Towns

[Will Phillips]

I've already raised concerns I have in a changeset comment about these 
edits adding admin_level=10 administrative boundary relations for voids 
between civil parishes. They are tagged with 
designation=non-civil_parish. This has been discussed on this list 
previously. My main objection is that these areas aren't really 
administrative entities at all. Gregory correctly points out they are 
sometimes used for statistical purposes, but I don't think that 
justifies tagging them as administrative.


Another concern is that these admin_level=10 voids often include several 
former civil parishes, so they cover a wider area than the name given to 
them suggests. An example is Beeston: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9246079
This new relation covers five former civil parishes (Attenborough, 
Beeston, Bramcote, Chilwell and Toton) and so includes a wider area than 
what is usually considered to be Beeston. If Beeston is mapped as an 
area I think it would be better to use something closer to the area of 
the former civil parish.


Gregory has already agreed to think about alternative tagging for this, 
but I thought it was worth raising here, in case other people have any 
thoughts.


Cheers,
Will

___
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

[Will Phillips]

Hi Paul,

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.
I've encountered this situation where RM addresses for a village don't 
include the street names, even though the streets have signed names.  My 
view is do include the street names. I've no idea why they are left out, 
because finding addresses in a village where the houses have names 
rather than numbers can be difficult, even when the street is known.


I wouldn't worry about the validator as long as you are reasonably sure 
the data you have added is accurate. These validation tools are very 
useful, but they are only intended to suggest things that might be 
wrong.  Mappers sometimes fall into the trap of tagging for the validator.


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.
For outlying properties, I don't think there is any harm in including 
addr:street, regardless of official practice, assuming there is a 
logical street to use. Sometimes remote properties are grouped by a 
sub-locality name, in which case I would use addr:place.


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).
I would recommend not duplicating addr:housename and name. Generally 
it's best to avoid putting the same information in more than one address 
tag. For most addresses addr:housename is the best choice and name can 
then be used for things like business names.


Cheers,
Will


On 28/01/2019 22:45, Paul Berry wrote:

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 <mailto:rich...@systemed.net>> 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

___

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Will Phillips]

On 28/01/2019 15:06, Richard Fairhurst 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. In cases where local 
people feel this is wrong, then by all means don't use the post town 
or use addr:posttown instead.


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.


I 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 
still give it as defined by Royal Mail. In cases where local people feel 
this is wrong, then by all means don't use the post town or use 
addr:posttown instead.


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.


Cheers,
Will

On 28/01/2019 15:06, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Colin Smale wrote:

As you will know RM have their own particular ideas of the
geography of the UK, all done for their own convenience. It
would certainly avoid some confusion if we used addr:posttown
instead of addr:city.

Fully agree.

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. In 
cases where local people feel this is wrong, then by all means don't 
use the post town or use addr:posttown instead. 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.



Richard

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34514024



--
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] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Will Phillips]

On 28/01/2019 17:28, Lester Caine wrote:
The reality is that for the UK ALL we need is the Postcode to supply a 
reference to the Royal Mail 'postal address' as that is purely a Royal 
Mail invention anyway.  I personally don't see the need to add 
'addr:street' everywhere but that is what people seem to prefer. 
Adding several more addr: fields to EVERY building is just taking 
things too far? 


There are certainly occasions when the street name is needed. For 
example, I recently surveyed a single postcode (DE72 2HP) containing two 
houses with the same house name, but different street names.  Postcodes 
do sometimes cover two streets in rural areas. In these cases one might 
technically be a subsidiary street, but it's often not obvious which one.


More generally, if we only included the postcode surely there would 
often be no way to discover the correct street without referring to 
closed proprietary data, and a key motivation for adding addresses to 
OSM is to avoid that.



___
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

[Will Phillips]

Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to addr:town 
and addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address 
where they wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but 
locality sounds almost offensive. 
To me 'locality' just sounds neutral. I don't particularly object to 
addr:town and addr:village, but it does mean we end up with at least 
three tags rather than one, because in cities suburbs often don't fit 
easily into those tags, hence the use of addr:suburb.


Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names are 
written before street names, not after them.
In my experience this often isn't true, perhaps look at more examples. 
It is relatively common for business park and industrial estate names to 
appear after street names.


Examples:
Lenton Lane Industrial Estate, Nottingham
http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16=-1.17632=52.93295=OSM,1,15=%22Lenton%20Lane%20Industrial%20Estate%22=SearchOpendataJson=1

Trent Lane Industrial Estate, Castle Donington
http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16=-1.34152=52.85018=OSM,1,15=%22Trent%20Lane%20Industrial%20Estate%22=SearchOpendataJson=1

Sherwood [Business] Park, Annesley,
http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=16=-1.25353=53.07037=OSM,1,15=%22Sherwood%20Park%22=SearchOpendataJson=1

Regards,
Will



On 28/01/2019 15:06, Andrzej wrote:
Is it possible to use addr:locality for both towns and villages? That 
could simplify things quite a bit and I have yet to see an address 
that needs a post town and two levels of localities below.


Having said that, I still don't understand the objections to addr:town 
and addr:village. Can anyone come up with an example of an address 
where they wouldn't work? I normally don't care about names but 
locality sounds almost offensive.


Business parks and other campuses are not localities - their names are 
written before street names, not after them. They're IMO what RM calls 
"dependent thoroughfares". For these I would simply use addr:place, 
which can already be combined with addr:housename and 
addr:housenumber. Alternatively we could make a new tag like addr:campus.


Best regards,
Andrzej


On 28 January 2019 20:36:24 GMT+08:00, Colin Smale 
 wrote:


Hi Will,

On 2019-01-28 13:19, Will Phillips wrote:


Hi,

I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For
this I have usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas
and addr:locality elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to
have just one recommended tag, perhaps addr:locality, because
having addr:town addr:village and addr:suburb seems too
complicated. Eventually it would be good if editing software, in
particular iD, could provide an extra field to enter the
locality, and it would perhaps be easier for that to happen if
there was only one tag. New mappers often seem to have difficulty
entering addresses to the form that they wish and I think the
lack of a locality field is part of the reason.

For what Royal Mail calls 'Double Dependent Localities' using
addr:sublocality is a possibility, although I wonder whether just
sticking with addr:village for this less common situation would
be easier. It depends a bit on whether this tag is only likely to
be used for villages and hamlets, or whether it might be useful
in other cases. For example, sometimes names of industrial
estates appear in addresses in a similar way to sublocalities.

I don't see any advantage in "addr:village" and "addr:suburb" just
because they sound familiar or are existing tags. What we are
discussing here is a UK-specific solution. The (Double) Dependent
Localities may or may not correspond to what people perceive as a
"village" or "suburb". In the quoted example, "Cambridge Science
Park" is IMHO neither.


I only use addr:city for post towns, although I recognise not all
mappers agree with this, and I appreciate there are arguments
both ways. I was thinking about this recently when adding
addresses in Lees near Derby. The post town is Ashbourne, but
this seems slightly incongruous because the village is much
nearer to Derby. I chose not to include addr:city and only used
addr:locality for the village name.
I feel the main argument in favour of using post towns for
addr:city is that it helps to keep the data consistent because
what to use often becomes confusing otherwise. To use the example
of Lees I mentioned above, it would be easy to end up with a
situation where addr:city contained perhaps four values if the
data was entered by different people without any guide as to what
to use (the most likely possibilities being Lees, Dalby Lees,
Derby or Ashbourne).
In cases where local residents consider Royal Mail's choice of
post town to be contentious, usually because it is miles from
wher

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK

[Will Phillips]

Hi,

I agree we need another tag below addr:city for localities. For this I 
have usually used addr:suburb when mapping in urban areas and 
addr:locality elsewhere. Ideally I think it would be best to have just 
one recommended tag, perhaps addr:locality, because having addr:town 
addr:village and addr:suburb seems too complicated. Eventually it would 
be good if editing software, in particular iD, could provide an extra 
field to enter the locality, and it would perhaps be easier for that to 
happen if there was only one tag. New mappers often seem to have 
difficulty entering addresses to the form that they wish and I think the 
lack of a locality field is part of the reason.


For what Royal Mail calls 'Double Dependent Localities' using 
addr:sublocality is a possibility, although I wonder whether just 
sticking with addr:village for this less common situation would be 
easier. It depends a bit on whether this tag is only likely to be used 
for villages and hamlets, or whether it might be useful in other cases. 
For example, sometimes names of industrial estates appear in addresses 
in a similar way to sublocalities.


I only use addr:city for post towns, although I recognise not all 
mappers agree with this, and I appreciate there are arguments both ways. 
I was thinking about this recently when adding addresses in Lees near 
Derby. The post town is Ashbourne, but this seems slightly incongruous 
because the village is much nearer to Derby. I chose not to include 
addr:city and only used addr:locality for the village name.


I feel the main argument in favour of using post towns for addr:city is 
that it helps to keep the data consistent because what to use often 
becomes confusing otherwise. To use the example of Lees I mentioned 
above, it would be easy to end up with a situation where addr:city 
contained perhaps four values if the data was entered by different 
people without any guide as to what to use (the most likely 
possibilities being Lees, Dalby Lees, Derby or Ashbourne).


In cases where local residents consider Royal Mail's choice of post town 
to be contentious, usually because it is miles from where they live, it 
might be sensible to recognise addr:posttown as an alternative.


Regards,
Will

On 27/01/2019 20:40, Andrzej wrote:

Hi,

When working on post codes in East Anglia I realised the current 
address tagging scheme is insufficient for even fairly basic 
scenarios. I have already discussed the issues with some of the most 
experienced mappers and like to bring these issues to your attention. 
Robert has summarised his ideas in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping


The bottom line is, I would like to be tag commonly used addresses 
without losing information and without resorting to addr:full.


Issues:
1. Post towns (most pressing one because there is a lot of confusion 
around it). The UK is fairly unique in that not every town is a post 
town. This makes it impossible to tag e.g. Station Road, Histon, 
Cambridge CB24 9LF.
Wiki recommends addr:city to be used for tagging post towns 
(Cambridge) but then how do we tag Histon?
- Robert recommends sticking to the current meaning of addr:city and 
using addr:town and addr:village for town and village names, which, 
although not in wiki, are already being used in the UK. I like this 
solution because it is very explicit in what each addr: key means and 
it doesn't redefine addr:city.
- SK53 prefers using addr:city for everything (towns, even villages) 
and either not tagging post towns (they can be seen as a an internal 
detail of a closed Royal Mail database) or using a new tag for it, 
like addr:post_town. It is a simple solution, results in Histon being 
called Histon and not Cambridge (without introducing new tags for town 
and village names) and is commonly used. It is also a bit confusing 
(what exactly is a city?) and I think we we should at least support 
tagging post towns.


Key questions:
a) addr:city for post towns or towns and villages?
b) how to rag remaining information (respectively, towns and villages 
or post towns,)


2. Tagging addresses within campuses, business parks etc. There is 
addr:place but it is supposed to be used instead of addr:street. 
Again, Robert has a fairly decent proposal for that using addr:place 
or addr:locality and addr:parentstreet. Please comment.


2a. should buildings in campuses be tagged with 
addr:buildingnumber/name or addr:unit? I would prefer 
buildingname/number (as they are often subdivided) but these seem to 
be associated with addr:street.


3. Similar to (2) but for buildings. Tagging buildings that have e.g. 
a single name but multiple house numbers?


Best regards,
ndrw6




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

[Will Phillips]

On 09/11/2018 14:44, SK53 wrote:
The available sets of open data which can be used to resolve postcodes 
are: Food Hygiene (the best, easiest to resolve, coverage of the whole 
UK - even Rutland); Companies House Open Data (surprisingly useful 
even in areas of social housing); the National Register of Social 
Housing (NROSH, not updated since 2011, but still very useful); CQC 
(medical practices, care homes etc). I haven't looked to see how many 
postcodes are covered by these in total, but it should be a reasonable 
proportion of the total. If you aren't aware Will Phillips 
OSM-Nottingham site does allow searching of various open data sets 
across the UK (I would recommend searching only in the viewport, so 
you need to zoom out and in to the target area). The quickest way to 
ensure at least one address is mapped for a given postcode is using 
Greg's FHRS tools.


The datasets used by OSM Nottingham currently include 1,278,680 unique 
postcodes. I've not checked how many of these are valid postcodes. 
Sources such as Companies House don't validate their addresses, so this 
total will certainly include some proportion that are incorrect.


There are 1.76 million postcodes in the UK (from Codepoint), so the open 
data covers at most 73% of the total.


Regards,
Will





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bottle Kilns

[Russ Phillips]

>
> From: Mark Goodge 
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 20:48:18 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bottle Kilns
>
>
> On 06/04/2018 18:58, Brian Prangle wrote:
>
>> Hi Russ
>>
>> If any are listed buildings it would be good to tag them
>>
>> heritage=2
>> heritage_operator=Historic England
>> listed_status =  Grade I  Grade II* or Grade II as appropriate
>>
>
> All surviving bottle kilns in Stoke-on-Trent are listed. But sometimes
> they are listed as part of the factory to which they are attached, rather
> than individually. If you're trying to search for them, on the British
> Listed Buildings site or elsewhere, it's worth noting that, in the
> Potteries, they're generally referred to as bottle ovens in the listings
> rather than kilns.
>

Thanks both. I'll use the listed buildings tags.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bottle Kilns

[Russ Phillips]

Forgot to add:

Elsewhere, someone suggested using kiln=bottle_kiln and building=industrial
instead of building=bottle_kiln. Any thoughts?

Russ


On 6 April 2018 at 07:38, Russ Phillips <russ.phillips.nos...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Right, I'm now thinking I'll tag as:
>
> building=bottle_kiln
> kiln=pottery
> disused:man_made=kiln
> former_product=pottery
> historic=kiln
>
> and add tourism=museum where appropriate.
>
> Ideally
> I'd have the building as a way.
> Then the kiln as a node with the product.
> This allows the building to remain 'intact' while the kiln could go
> disused to abandoned depending on how bad it is.
> I note that the kiln requires more than the building, for example heat
> proofing, venting.
>
> Most of the bottle kilns in Stoke-on-Trent are stand-alone brick
> structures, and the whole building is the kiln. They were filled with
> pottery, the doorway was bricked up, and fires were lit at the bottom.
>
> However, this brings up a related point. Some bottle kilns are inside
> another building (eg the one at Moorcroft: https://www.flickr.
> com/photos/83551695@N00/4794476050/) How would I map those? I'm guessing
> I'd have two ways - one for the outer building, and one for the bottle
> kiln, with a relation to tie them together. If so, what type of relation
> should I use?
>
> Thanks for all the help and advice.
>
> Russ
>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bottle Kilns

[Russ Phillips]

Right, I'm now thinking I'll tag as:

building=bottle_kiln
kiln=pottery
disused:man_made=kiln
former_product=pottery
historic=kiln

and add tourism=museum where appropriate.

Ideally
I'd have the building as a way.
Then the kiln as a node with the product.
This allows the building to remain 'intact' while the kiln could go disused
to abandoned depending on how bad it is.
I note that the kiln requires more than the building, for example heat
proofing, venting.

Most of the bottle kilns in Stoke-on-Trent are stand-alone brick
structures, and the whole building is the kiln. They were filled with
pottery, the doorway was bricked up, and fires were lit at the bottom.

However, this brings up a related point. Some bottle kilns are inside
another building (eg the one at Moorcroft:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/83551695@N00/4794476050/) How would I map
those? I'm guessing I'd have two ways - one for the outer building, and one
for the bottle kiln, with a relation to tie them together. If so, what type
of relation should I use?

Thanks for all the help and advice.

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

[Talk-GB] Bottle Kilns

[Russ Phillips]

Hi,

I'm intending to map the bottle kilns in Stoke on Trent. For those that
don't know, they're an important part of the area's industrial heritage
(there were several thousand of them at the height of the pottery
industry). There are 47 now, and just under half are currently mapped.

Based on feedback from a few people, I'm planning to use the following
tags, although I'm still open to suggestions.

* building=industrial
* kiln=bottle_kiln
* man_made=kiln
* product=pottery
* disused=yes
* historic=building

I'm planning to update the tags of any already-mapped kilns, and add any
that aren't already mapped.

Is it worth adding something to the wiki about this? There doesn't appear
to be a Key:kiln page, so would it be better to create one, or to add the
information to the Proposed_features/kiln
 page?

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

[Talk-GB] Problematic edits to access and oneway tags

[Will Phillips]

Over the last two days there have been a series of edits with users 
removing or changing access and oneway tags. Around Nottingham the 
quality of these edits has been very poor with 6 of the 7 changesets 
appearing to remove or change accurate information. My impression is 
that some sort of validation tool is being used and tags are being 
indiscriminately changed to make supposed 'errors' go away.


The editors making these changes are operating across the world, so they 
are unlikely to be using any local knowledge. Three of the edits in 
Nottingham have targeted areas where recent highway alterations have 
been made. These areas have already been at least partially updated by 
local mappers on the ground. It's disappointing to see this survey data 
being fouled up.


The purpose of this message is mostly to suggest other mappers might 
wish to check areas they are familiar with to see whether similar 
problematic edits have been made.


Also, does anyone know which validation tool is being used and whether 
these are paid mappers? The 7 changes around Nottingham have been made 
by 5 different editors all operating in a very similar way. None of them 
has yet responded to changeset comments.


Regards,
Will


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

[Will Phillips]

On 31/01/2018 09:07, Mark Goodge wrote:

Which is the more correct usage here? Do we

a) tag the dependent street as the addr:street, and the main street as 
addr:parentstreet, or should we


b) (following Royal Mail practice as found in the PAF), tag the 
dependent street as a addr:substreet and the main street as addr:street?


My personal preference would be the latter, it's not only consistent 
with official addressing practice but it's also how most people 
perceive these kind of addresses as well. But, on the other hand, most 
map editors are likely to use addr:street for the dependent street, 
simply because the editor UI doesn't make it obvious that 
addr:substreet is a possibility. So it might be simpler to fix these 
by adding addr:parentstreet as necessary rather than trying to get 
everything pedantically correct.


Mark


I favour using addr:parentstreet rather than addr:substreet for the 
following reasons:


1. The majority of OSM data users and tools/services using OSM data 
don't know that either addr:substreet or addr:parentstreet exist. They 
will recognise addr:housenumber and addr:street. Therefore I think the 
most important part of the address should use these tags, which is 
usually the dependent street and number. If someone is searching for an 
address, I think this is usually the part they will enter.


2. When mapping addresses I consider the addr:housenumber and 
addr:street to go together. Otherwise it is ambiguous, because there is 
no way of knowing whether the number relates to the dependent or parent 
street. This can get very confusing because the same numbers will often 
be used for addresses along the main part of the street and again on any 
subsidiary parts. If we wanted to use addr:substreet without any 
ambiguity, we would need something like addr:substreetnumber as well.


3. Using addr:substreet is just more confusing. New mappers aren't going 
to understand it. If a street has its own name and is separately 
numbered, it's intuitive to put this into the widely recognised 
addr:housenumber and addr:street tags. I know from surveying a lot of 
addresses that is difficult to guess whether Royal Mail considers a 
street to be dependent or not: such streets often don't look any 
different from other nearby streets that aren't. It's not something 
mappers should have to worry about in the majority of cases.



Just to add, I don't think addr:parentstreet it always the best 
approach. Where a 'dependent street' is say a block of flats without a 
physically separate street, using addr:housename and addr:flats is often 
simpler.


Regards,
Will

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Import process

[Will Phillips]

Looking at the data that has been imported, my first reaction is that 
some of the keys/values do look rather non-standard. This suggests to me 
that the process might have benefited from wider discussion.


With the tree data, what jumps out is that every single tree has 
'constituency' and 'ward' tags. I thought there was a general consensus 
that this sort of boundary information should not be added to individual 
objects? What purpose do they serve? Isn't it likely that these 
electoral boundaries will change in the near future?


There are other things -
There is a 'site_name' key which contains the street name written in all 
capitals. Did this need importing, and if so, did it have to be in capitals?
What is the purpose of the 'usrn' tag and has it been documented? I 
wonder whether local_ref or ref:usrn would have been clearer.

The height values are formatted in a non-standard way.

The West Midlands community does appear to be happy with these imports 
and in my view that counts for a lot. However, I certainly don't 
consider them an example of good practice. I don't understand why 
sensible import rules have not been followed, like using a separate 
dedicated OSM account.


Regards,
Will

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging a multilvel building

[Will Phillips]

On 12/01/2017 11:25, Mark Goodge wrote:

OK, I've done that for now. We'll see how it looks when it updates.

On a related note, should a cafe-bar be tagged as a cafe, or a bar? 
There doesn't seem to be an option for cafe-bar, despite this being an 
increasingly popular form of catering outlet!


Mark 


There is no rule whether a cafe-bar should be tagged as a cafe or bar. 
Personally I tend to have a look inside and use my judgement over which 
seems more appropriate. Often these places function more like cafes 
during the day or more like bars in the evening, so it can be hard to 
decide.


You can't tag an establishment as both using the main amenity tag, but 
you could use the secondary tags bar=yes or cafe=yes. This won't affect 
the rendering, but does at least record the extra information.


Will

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging a multilvel building

[Will Phillips]

Great to see some new mapping taking place in Evesham. I do visit 
occasionally and last year did some updates around the centre. 
Unfortunately I haven't had much time during recent visits.


Tagging multi-level buildings can be difficult and there isn't one 
agreed way to go about it. Generally I would try to keep it as simple as 
possible while adding the information you consider important.


The easiest option in this case would be to place a node inside the 
existing Town Hall building outline. Tag the node as a cafe, add the 
name and other details as you wish. Also add level=0 to show it is on 
the ground floor.


A somewhat more complicated approach would be to add the outline area of 
the cafe inside the town hall building. This would probably cover the 
whole of the building, except for the access to the first floor. You 
could then tag this outline as a cafe and again include level=0 and 
other details.


The Town Hall is currently mapped on this way:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/80273740
It might be worth changing the name from 'Town Hall' to 'Evesham Town 
Hall'. The address could also be added.


I hope this helps,
Will (will_p)

On 12/01/2017 10:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
I'm currently trying to tidy up some of the tagging and locations of 
the town centre where I live. I've already moved a pub to be in the 
right place, and updated some labels for shops that have changed hands 
since the previous edit. However, one that also needs updating is a 
multi-use building with different uses on different floors, and I have 
to confess that I can't really work out how to tag it from the 
information on the wiki.


Specifically, the building is Evesham Town Hall. Like a lot of English 
market town Town Halls, it was originally built on arches at first 
floor level, the ground floor open space being used as a market space. 
But then the ground floor was later enclosed, and used separately - it 
was, for a long time, the town police station and jail, and now has a 
commercial tenant as a cafe-bar.


What I'm trying, and failing, to work out how to tag is some way of 
representing the following:


1. The entire building is "Evesham Town Hall".
2. The top floor comprises two parts: the Council Chamber and the Town 
Hall.
3. The ground floor (excluding the access to the first floor) is the 
Valkyrie Cafe-bar.


I don't think it's necessary to map all the distinct parts, including 
the staircase that gives access to the top floor. And tagging the 
Council Chamber may be unnecessary, too. But I do think it needs to be 
tagged as both the Town Hall and the cafe-bar, with the latter being 
represented as being contained within the former at ground level.


Does that make sense? If so, how do I do it?

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] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Will Phillips]

On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:


Hi,

I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with 
ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in 
hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and also 
redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the geometry 
anyway. When I queried this with the mapper (user alexkemp) via a 
changeset discussion [1] I got the following response:


"This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be 
able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest 
in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"


Any thoughts about the tagging?

Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a discussion on 
another one of his changesets where he unilaterally diverged from the 
established tagging [2].


Colin

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134

 _



Regarding the 'ref:hectares' tag, it does seem wrong to me. It's not 
consistent with other uses of the ref tag in OSM. Also, I agree that 
tagging area values seems redundant, but perhaps doesn't do any harm in 
this case. I do think at least, they should be retagged, perhaps to 
area:ha or area:hectares?


Will

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

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Will Phillips]

Hi,

This user is currently adding admin_level=10 admin boundaries, which we 
use for civil parishes (or communities), to areas where no such 
administrative unit exists. To me this seems problematic because my 
understanding is that these are legal entities which either exist or 
they don't. Additionally, it makes OSM boundary data harder to use. If I 
run a query to find which boundaries a node is within, I'd only expect 
real admin boundary areas to be returned. The user is adding designation 
tags (designation=non-civil_parish) to indicate they aren't real, but 
this is undocumented and data users shouldn't have to check a secondary 
tag to find out whether a relation is a real civil parish or not.


The aim seems to be to improve the results returned by Nominatim and 
other geocoders, but surely this is the wrong way to go about it.


Here is an example of one of these non-civil parish relations covering 
the whole of the City of Nottingham, where no such administrative unit 
has ever existed: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6448042


I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has turned 
unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening.  I accept my initial 
comment suggesting that one of these relations should be deleted could 
have been worded much more tactfully, but I don't feel in justifies his 
aggressive responses since. I was frustrated at finding one of the these 
non-existent boundaries covering my local area with an inaccurate name.


Will

On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:


Hi,

I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with 
ref:hectares=* with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in 
hectares. This feels to me like an inappropriate use of "ref" and also 
redundant as the area can be calculated simply from the geometry 
anyway. When I queried this with the mapper (user alexkemp) via a 
changeset discussion [1] I got the following response:


"This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be 
able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest 
in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"


Any thoughts about the tagging?

Any thoughts about engaging the user? There is also a discussion on 
another one of his changesets where he unilaterally diverged from the 
established tagging [2].


Colin

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449409

[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41371134



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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] New OS open data now available

[Will Phillips]

I have had an initial look at the three new open data products that 
contain road names: OS Open Map, OS Open Names and OS Open Roads. I was 
hoping they might provide new information for improving the accuracy and 
completeness of road naming, but my preliminary conclusion is that they 
offer very little for this purpose. They all contain the same 
misspellings as OS Locator. It has been noted that some OS paid-for 
products (MasterMap in particular) don't contain most of the 
misspellings, so I thought there was a small chance that one of these 
products might not as well. I was also hoping that OS Open Names might 
have included named residential paths (those where the names function as 
a 'street' in an address), but that isn't the case. I suspect OS Open 
Names includes exactly the same street names as OS Locator.


Secondly, I looked at whether OS Open Map or OS Open Roads could be used 
to check whether segments of streets in OSM have the correct name - for 
example whether names start and end in the correct position - but I have 
found the naming of the streets in these data sets has been simplified 
in a way that makes them unreliable for this purpose. For example, I 
immediately noticed the name of the street on which I live is missing. 
The street is present but is combined with an adjoining street and only 
given the name of the other street. This simplification seems to have 
been done everywhere. Therefore, please don't assume part of a street is 
wrongly named based solely on this data, because it is unsuitable for 
that purpose.


Will

On 24/03/2015 17:58, Rob Nickerson wrote:


Hi all,

So the new OS OpenData that was discussed a few weeks ago is now 
available:


https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2015/03/new-os-opendata-products-now-live/

I think there could be many good uses of this including to help 
validate some of our data.


If anyone is using this then let us know so that we don't duplicate work.

Rob



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Voting mechanical edit: UK shop names

[Will Phillips]

On 01/11/2014 09:15, Ed Loach wrote:


The logo is the symbol at the top, the shop name is Brantano Footwear, 
the operator is Brantano (UK) Limited. This is (was) the shop sign at 
the one I mapped (as Brantano Footwear, as that is the name on the sign):


https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.9411882,1.2588319,3a,15y,222.14h,92.11t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sp87biBi-D33C1-NHe_jULw!2e0 
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.9411882,1.2588319,3a,15y,222.14h,92.11t/data=%213m4%211e1%213m2%211sp87biBi-D33C1-NHe_jULw%212e0


I’m surprised I haven’t also mapped this one:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.892658,0.8917593,3a,15y,244.38h,92.28t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sozacGrQTk-TQHJxT3s2dxQ!2e0 
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.892658,0.8917593,3a,15y,244.38h,92.28t/data=%213m4%211e1%213m2%211sozacGrQTk-TQHJxT3s2dxQ%212e0


in Colchester, as I think I bought my shoes there. But thinking more 
about it I bought the shoes in 2004 and didn’t start mapping until 2008.





Here is a survey photo of mine, which is similar to the ones Ed posted:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/97133921@N03/15494864347/

We should be using the name displayed on the sign, which in the examples 
above is clearly 'Brantano Footwear'.  I would object to any change to 
the name tagging in these examples.


Will

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

Re: [Talk-GB] addr:place

[Will Phillips]

On 26/10/2014 10:36, Andy Street wrote:

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 07:28:42 +
SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote:


The tag addr:place has been used to locate one element inside another
addressed element. See this example for shops within a Tesco Extra
store http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/5CN.

Surely that could be inferred from the fact that the object is
spatially within the parent?


Sure it can, but I think there is something to be said for tagging 
things explicitly. I would only tag it in this way when it is part of 
the official address.



This usage is useful but probably a little difficult to consume,
particularly as there seem to be rather more usages of addr:place as a
synonym of addr:city.

The way I've always undersood addr:place was not as a synonym
for addr:city but rather to specify the bit of the address between
the road (addr:street) and the post town (addr:city).


My understanding has always been that addr:place is similar to 
addr:street, except when the unit in question isn't a street but some 
other grouping of addresses such as a business park, retail park or 
shopping centre, which serves a similar function to a street in the 
address.


For example:
Unit 5
XYZ Retail Park
Suburb
City

As far as I'm aware this has been what the wiki has said since the tag 
was first proposed and I remember mailing list discussions broadly 
agreeing. The wiki page - 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:place - does explicitly 
state it shouldn't be used instead of addr:suburb.


It's unfortunate when a tag is used by different people to mean 
substantially different things, because it makes the data less useful. I 
think there should be a wiki page dedicated to UK addresses, which would 
suggest best practices for tagging more complicated addresses. The only 
reason I haven't already created one is the lack of discussion and 
consensus over issues like parent/subsidiary streets, usage of 
addr:interpolation on buildings, and so on.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC Mechanical edit: shop=betting to shop=bookmaker for selected names

[Will Phillips]

Matthijs,

I'm confused by your actions. Yesterday you started the formal process 
for making an uncontroversial change to the tagging of bookmakers, but 
since then you have made a series of considerably more controversial 
edits with no discussion at all. I wish to register my objection to 
these changes.


You are standardising the tagging for particular brands, removing the 
original judgements made by mappers who looked at them on the ground. I 
find it particularly de-motivating when these mass changes strip meaning 
from my tagging, changing a specific tag to a more general one. I'm not 
against my tagging being changed through discussion, but distinctions 
should be kept, even if moved to a sub-tag (e.g. shop=bed versus 
shop=furniture furniture=bed).


I have other concerns about these sorts of edits:

Are you sure all the shops belonging to a chain sell the same thing and 
offer the same services? In my experience this isn't always the case. 
For example, WH Smith at train stations and airports sell a much 
narrower range than their larger high street stores.


Where you are 'correcting' tagging based just on the name tag, how can 
you be sure its not an administrative office, distribution depot or 
something else other than a shop?


Regards,
Will

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

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC Mechanical edit: shop=betting to shop=bookmaker for selected names

[Will Phillips]

Thank you for the constructive reply. I don't doubt you are acting in 
good faith and with more care than my initial message might have 
implied. However, I do think it is very important that these sort of 
systematic changes are fully discussed first. There have been a number 
of cases where such changes have been done badly in the past, so I do 
tend to view them with concern, especially when they are done unexpectedly.


The specific change you made that led to my original message was 
shop=tyre being replaced with shop=car_repair. I'm not familiar with any 
of the locations changed, but shop=tyre seems to me to be a more 
specific tag than shop=car_repair, so I don't think it should have been 
replaced without consultation (and preferably checking on the ground).


I'm not very keen on the shop=tyre tag, but it does at least indicate a 
garage that specialises (sometimes only) in selling and fitting tyres, 
which is something worth tagging in my view. There are about 10 such 
places tagged in Nottingham currently (Tyre Link, Tyre Point, Tyre Zone, 
etc...).


I do certainly support the idea of discussing and agreeing recommended 
tagging for high street chains, but I think mappers on the ground should 
make the final judgement, because as I wrote in my earlier message, 
different branches of the same chain can sometimes vary depending on 
things like size and location.


Cheers,
Will

On 24/10/2014 12:38, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

Hi Will,

On 24 October 2014 11:42, Will Phillips wp4...@gmail.com wrote:

I'm confused by your actions. Yesterday you started the formal process for
making an uncontroversial change to the tagging of bookmakers, but since
then you have made a series of considerably more controversial edits with no
discussion at all. I wish to register my objection to these changes.

As far as I am aware, the bookmaker tagging is more controversial than
the changes I did today and yesterday.  Bookmaker versus betting is a
longstanding controversy, with (until recently) nearly equal tagging
and strong proponents for both sides. Moreover the numbers for the
bookmaker changes are quite large (hundreds on both sides). On the
other hand, the changes I made today and yesterday are shops where
mappers have expressed a strong preference for a particular tagging,
and only involve small numbers (mostly less than 10 shops), so easy to
revert manually.


You are standardising the tagging for particular brands, removing the
original judgements made by mappers who looked at them on the ground. I find
it particularly de-motivating when these mass changes strip meaning from my
tagging, changing a specific tag to a more general one. I'm not against my
tagging being changed through discussion, but distinctions should be kept,
even if moved to a sub-tag (e.g. shop=bed versus shop=furniture
furniture=bed).

I agree with that. Can you give examples of changes where I stripped
meaning from tags? That should not have happened. I noticed the
shop=bed situation myself, and already concluded myself that it would
be good to carry out this change, but not without advance discussion.


I have other concerns about these sorts of edits:

Are you sure all the shops belonging to a chain sell the same thing and
offer the same services? In my experience this isn't always the case. For
example, WH Smith at train stations and airports sell a much narrower range
than their larger high street stores.

I have surveyed 3016 shops myself (no, I'm not only an armchair
mapper), so I think I have a fairly good understanding of what
products shops sell. I might always have made a mistake of course, so
if you spot any, feel free to point them out. I know WHSmith is a
difficult case, so I won't touch it without prior discussion.


Where you are 'correcting' tagging based just on the name tag, how can you
be sure its not an administrative office, distribution depot or something
else other than a shop?

I look at location of course. I only changed high street / retail
centre locations. In other cases, I added OSM notes.

So personally I think I have sufficient checks in place to not
overwrite useful data.

That said, I don't mind reverting some or all of my changes if you
consider them controversial, and discussing them beforehand. If so,
please specify which changes you refer to.

-- Matthijs





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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses

[Will Phillips]

On 13/08/2014 09:11, Lester Caine wrote:

On 13/08/14 08:58, David Woolley wrote:

On 13/08/14 08:29, Lester Caine wrote:

rest can be cloned from the postcode - or some other unique ID for the
related object.

Only if you have purchased access to the PAF or National Gazeteer.
Capture of the former, on OSM, is patchy, and of the latter is
non-existent, or virtually so.

That data will be available, but it does not stop using the method to
add it to the OSM data currently. If you are adding 50 house numbers you
end up using the copy function to add a vast amount of data where one
only needs a small subset of that in practice! A lot of postcodes are
currently missing and it would be nice simply to import the raw missing
stuff, but it does not prevent good practice generally?

1. OSM data should be structured so that it is friendly for the people 
who go out and survey it. Having address tags on every object is 
inefficient, but it's also easy for everyone to understand. The option 
of using associatedStreet relations exists if you want to do it more 
efficiently. Personally I have stopped using them for now, because I 
have found inexperienced mappers don't know they are there and just add 
the data again on the individual objects.


2. I don't agree that tagging only postcode and 'addressable object' is 
a good idea. To convert that into a full address requires access to a 
closed database. Surely the whole point about OSM is creating useful 
data that is open? At the moment we don't even have sufficient open data 
available to add an accurate postcode to every address. I hope more 
address data will be made available under an open licence in the future, 
but at the moment we have to work with what we have got.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses

[Will Phillips]

I use addr:flats regularly. I've recently been mapping high density 
areas around the city centre where a high proportion of the residential 
addresses are flats, often in converted factories. Here it seems 
worthwhile to add flat numbers when they are displayed outside the building.


Here's an example of a street where 12 buildings/entrances have been 
tagged with addresses, but that expands to 191 addresses if the flats 
are listed separately: 
http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/?z=18lon=-1.14193lat=52.95324bgl=OSM,1,17s=%22Woolpack%20Lane%22st=AddressSearchJson


I use addr:unit as well. I use that for retail/commercial/industrial 
units rather than residential. If I tag addr:flats=1-10 then I'd assume 
that refers to 10 separate addresses, whereas I would assume 
addr:unit=1-3 is a single address. That's undocumented and others may 
disagree.


Cheers,
Will

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses

[Will Phillips]

Hi,

I think we could do with a wiki page dedicated to tagging UK addresses 
and covering how to tag the more complicated cases. The problem at the 
moment is that there has been little discussion and no consensus about 
certain situations such as tagging parent/subsidiary streets.


I have been active in mapping addresses around Nottingham for a while 
and do always try to record addresses as fully as possible. I have 
personal methods for handling almost all situations that I encounter, 
but these are sometimes not fully documented, which is obviously not ideal.


This is how I would tag Rob's examples:


Flat 2
8 Something Road,
Town,

addr:flats = 2
addr:housenumber = 8
addr:street = Something Road
addr:city = Town


6, The Hollies,
Birmingham Road,
Town,

If 'The Hollies' is a building I would use:
addr:flats = 6
addr:housename = The Hollies
addr:street = Birmingham Road
addr:city = Town

If 'The Hollies' is a subsidiary street I would use:
addr:housenumber = 6
addr:street = The Hollies
addr:parentstreet = Birmingham Road
addr:city = Town

Here the 'addr:parentstreet' tag is completely non-standard. I use it 
quite regularly in the interest of getting things done, but with the 
intention of changing it in future if consensus is reached regarding a 
standard way to do it.


I work on the assumption that addr:housenumber must refer to the 
addr:street tag (so it shouldn't be a flat number or refer to a 
different (parent or subsidiary) street.



Business Name,
Building Name,
Something Technology Park,
Other thing Road,
Town,

name = Business Name
addr:housename = Building Name
addr:place = Something Technology Park
addr:street = Other thing Road
addr:city = Town

This assumes that 'Something Technology Park' is not a physical street, 
but a named area that functions like a street for addressing purposes.


Localities:
I tend to use addr:suburb to record localities where they appear in the 
official address. I'm never sure which tag is best for village or hamlet 
names where addr:suburb seems wrong.


Cheers,
Will

On 12/08/2014 20:18, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi All,

Following on from my previous email to the list, this is a classic 
example where the wiki page has become so long and complex I can't 
make head or tail of it.


So... how do people tag UK addresses?

The standard for representing addresses in Britain is BS7666, which 
comprises:


* Primary addressable object name (PAON),
* Secondary addressable object name (SAON),
* street,
* postcode,
* locality (if available),
* town,
* county

This combination of PAON and SAON allows them to do easily capture 
addresses such as:


Example 1

Flat 2
8 Something Road,
Town,
...

Example 2

6, The Hollies,
Birmingham Road,
Town,
...

How would these map to OSM's tags?

Finally how would you tag something like:

Business Name,
Building Name,
Something Technology Park,
Other thing Road,
Town,
...


Thanks,
Rob


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses

[Will Phillips]

On 12/08/2014 22:46, Derick Rethans wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Tom Hughes wrote:


On 12/08/14 20:18, Rob Nickerson wrote:


Example 1

Flat 2
8 Something Road,
Town,
...

addr:flatnumber=2

I actually have used addr:flat here before (and addr:unit for slightly
related things in like parades).

cheers,
Derick


I have occasionally used addr:flat when tagging the entrance to a single 
flat, but usually use addr:flats. I did use addr:flatnumber originally 
but changed to addr:flats as that seems  to have become more widely 
accepted.


For what it's worth, there is a wiki page for addr:flats at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:flats
The information there seems correct to me, although I might add that 
flat numbers can sometimes be letters or even names. I have tagged real 
examples like:

addr:flats = 1-5;The Garden Flat;The Penthouse

Cheers,
Will


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

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

[Will Phillips]

This is a widespread problem and I wouldn't oppose a mechanical edit in 
this case. The one concern I have is the rare cases where C road 
references really do appear on signs, but perhaps even then official_ref 
is appropriate.


Similarly, some rights of way references appear on signs: I recall this 
is common on the Isle of Wight. Should this influence whether ref or 
prow_ref is used?


Cheers,
Will

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Marks Sparks...

[Will Phillips]

From a quick look, there seems to be a lot wrong with osmmaker's edits. 
It appears he has indiscriminately selected all objects in the world 
tagged with 'Marks and Spencer' (and variant spellings) and then added a 
load of tags. No checks seem to have been done to confirm whether the 
things he's changing are real 'Marks and Spencer' stores. This has led 
to tags like 'brand' and 'website' being wrongly added to things like 
bus stops, public transport stop areas and car parks. His earlier edits 
also wrongly changed an MS distribution warehouse.


I think consultation before making mass changes is essential. 
Undiscussed edits of this sort often degrade the data and should not be 
tolerated.


Regards,
Will


On 09/08/2014 10:35, Dave F. wrote:

Hi

So, apart from the non discussion being supposedly /wrong/. What are 
the errors in osmmaker's edits?


If they'd been done individually (not that hard) would people kicked 
up a fuss?


I'm not convinced 33 entity amendments can be described as a mass edit

Dave F.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
protection is active.

http://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] Marks Sparks...

[Will Phillips]

On 09/08/2014 11:16, Richard Symonds wrote:
Perhaps should not be tolerated is a bit strongly worded. Should be 
prevented?


Yes, I accept that was a little too strong.

In this case, an earlier version of the edit had already been reverted 
by a member of the Data Working Group, and I was a little frustrated to 
see it had been put back without addressing the issues raised the first 
time.


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

[Talk-GB] Recent edits to estate agents / companies adding their own branches to OSM

[Will Phillips]

Over the last few months user 'country_wide' has been systematically 
adding branches of estate agents as well as adding data to already 
mapped ones. Following recent communication I have confirmed that this 
is an official account for Countrywide PLC who own these branches.


I have been mildly concerned by some of their changes to my ground 
surveyed edits. Specifically:
1. The word 'lettings' was added to several branch names despite the 
fact it doesn't appear on the signs displayed outside. Also, the ones I 
have checked are not primarily letting agents. These changes have now 
been reserved as far as I can see.
2. Deleting building tags or changing building=shop/retail/office to 
building=yes. A minor matter, but still problematic when done 
systematically.
3. An incident where a branch was added at a location that closed a year 
or two ago. I then corrected this following a ground survey, but it has 
since been put back at the wrong location despite me appropriately 
tagging the now vacant shop at the old location.


Questions:
1. Is there an official policy regarding systematic edits of this sort? 
- i.e. companies who wish to add all their own shops/offices/etc.
2. Could these edits be considered an import? In this case hundreds of 
branches have been added over several months in separate changesets.


My view is that such data should be welcome and encouraged if things are 
done in the right way, but there should be as much transparency as 
possible. I think OSM accounts operated by commercial bodies should make 
this clear. Also, they should not be absolved from treating existing 
ground surveyed data with care.


Has this already been discussed elsewhere?

Cheers,
Will (will_p)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import

[Will Phillips]

I have recently resurveyed all the bus stops in the centre of Nottingham 
(NG1 area) and quite a few changes have occurred since the NaPTAN 
import: most often changes to stop names but some more complicated 
changes to stop layouts too.


I think the quality of the NaPTAN data must vary quite a lot between 
different areas, because I have generally found the position and names 
of stops in Nottingham to be accurate, other than the inevitable changes 
that have occurred since the import took place.


I do not believe the stop areas should have been imported at all because 
they are not verifiable on the ground. Also, I am often unable to find 
much logic in the groupings other than the stops are relatively close 
together, so I don't think they are really useful.


Like others I wouldn't support an automated update. Certainly in areas 
I've recently mapped, I believe this would be more likely to degrade 
rather than improve the data. However, it would be great to have better 
tools to check for discrepancies between the current NaPTAN data and the 
bus stops in OSM, including an easy way to merge the data on a 
stop-by-stop basis. Perhaps the NOVAM-Viewer could be extended for this 
purpose (as others have already suggested).


The NaPTAN data was never imported in Derbyshire. When I was 
systematically surveying all the roads in Erewash (south Derbyshire), I 
assumed the import was going to occur at some point soon, so I didn't 
bother recording any bus stops because I wanted to avoid having to deal 
with duplicates later. I regret not doing so now. I have added them in 
some of this areas since, but there is still a lot to do. In these 
areas, where the data was not imported, it would be very useful to have 
an easy way to import the data over small areas, where local mappers 
want it to take place.


Regards,
Will

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

[Talk-GB] OSM Nottingham

[Will Phillips]

For a while now I have been working on creating a website to showcase 
OSM data in the Nottingham area - http://osm-nottingham.org.uk/


My aim has been partially to create something that is useful for people 
searching for services and amenities locally, but in particular to make 
it easier for local mappers to spot errors and omissions, and I hope, 
motivate them to contribute more data.


I have tried to cover things that are well tagged, but don't necessarily 
appear in the standard renderings. For example:
* Listed buildings - I've been gradually tagging listed buildings for 
the last few months and it does increase my motivation to have somewhere 
to easily visualise my progress.
* Plaques - myself and another Nottingham mapper kevjs1982 have tagged a 
lot of memorial plaques around the city.
* Shops - a good proportion of Nottingham's shops have been mapped, with 
particular credit for this going to SK53. There are a series of layers 
for different categories of shop. Extra tags such as opening hours, 
website and wheelchair access are shown where used.


There is also an address search: Nottingham has 70,998 addresses tagged 
as of today. The search takes account of details such as flat numbers, 
which I routinely tag, but often seem to get overlooked.


Cheers,
Will Phillips (will_p)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bing imagery

[Will Phillips]

I'm still experiencing this. I've been looking at lots of different 
locations and can't access imagery above zoom 19 for anywhere I've 
checked. I've also been checking using different computers, but I'm 
basically seeing the same thing in all cases. The only change I've 
noticed is that I can now no longer see the zoom 20 tiles on the Bing 
website either. They have disappeared from there in the last five days.


The following page is useful for quickly checking which zoom levels are 
available: http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/bing/
It's best to zoom in until no more imagery is available, because for me 
the overlay tiles at the lower zoom levels are sometimes inaccurate, 
presumably because they have been cached.


Regards,
Will

On 08/03/2014 15:39, jonathan wrote:
Any updates on this, I'm still experiencing it all over Redditch and 
surrounds?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me
On 04/03/2014 22:26, Andy Robinson wrote:


I think we need to be careful when comparing what might be visible 
via the bing map website and what's available to our editing software 
platforms via the bing API. We are only meant to derive data from the 
latter as far as I recall. Clearly both platforms are not the same.


As for differences that individual mappers see when using the same 
software, that needs more investigation as it doesn't seem logical 
unless it's simply a difference in caching which will presumably 
resolve itself fairly quickly.


Cheers

Andy

*From:*SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk]
*Sent:* 04 March 2014 18:36
*To:* Eric Grosso
*Cc:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Bing imagery

(taking these in a slightly different order)

Eric Grosso wrote:


So from my point of view, the problem described initially by Will is 
still a current one.



Indeed - higher up this thread I mentioned a location in Mansfield 
which used to have  z18 imagery and now no longer does for me (in 
Potlatch 2).



In Wolverhampton, there are different problems which are combined, 
not only a problem with the imagery at a zoom level higher than 19.


To take an example, using the Bing maps website 
(http://www.bing.com/maps/) and searching for Birch street,



Is what I see in wolves_bing.com_aerial.png what you're referring 
to here?  I got that by going to Bing.com, searching for Birch 
Street, Wolverhampton, zooming in in the southern end of Molineux and 
switching to aerial.


Interestingly, I don't see this problem in Potlatch 2 - there I get 
wolves_p2_background.png (or JOSM FWIW).



. If you switch to the aerial imagery without showing the labels, 
you can access a reasonable good imagery which is the one which is 
used until the zoom level 19.



I'm not sure what you mean here - I don't use Bing's website so I'm 
not familiar with it and don't obviously see a show the labels 
option.  I'm running Chrome on Windows 7 without Silverlight, if 
that's relevant.  It's certainly interesting that I see different 
aerial (not Birds Eye) imagery via bing.com than via the OSM editors.


The point that I was actually trying to make (rather badly) was that 
west of there:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2#map=18/52.72277/-2.1 



imagery that was present in December but absent in January had 
reappeared as of this Monday, and therefore any missing imagery 
issues that there are currently may be temporary.


Cheers,

Andy


Attachments:

wolves_bing.com_aerial.png:
http://imgur.com/MOCd2xs


wolves_p2_background.png:
http://imgur.com/cdf4ej0



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4335 / Virus Database: 3705/7144 - Release Date: 03/03/14





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bing imagery

[Will Phillips]

What I don't understand is why some people are seeing this problem but 
other aren't. I've just got someone who edits in another part of the 
country, and so will not be seeing cached images, to have a look at a 
location in my local area in JOSM. They could definitely see three 
different lots of high-res imagery at different zoom levels. Others, 
including SK53 and Blackadder, have indicated seeing the same. On the 
other hand, Eric's message below describes exactly what I am seeing, as 
did Steve Brook's message yesterday.


Regards,
Will

On 03/03/2014 14:10, Eric Grosso wrote:

Hi all,

I encountered exactly the same problem at the end of last week (before 
the higher zoom level images of my editing zone were still in cache 
and hid the problem) -- location: Edinburgh, Scotland.


Apparently this problem appeared for some contributors at the 
beginning of last December:
- (5 December) 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2013-December/010190.html
- (7 December) 
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/28868/aerial-background-imagery-disappears-in-p2-if-i-zoom-in-to-a-high-level-it-did-not-in-the-past

- (18 December) http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=23592

Because the source of the problem is apparently due to some changes in 
the Bing maps API, the developers of the OSM editors, at least those 
of JOSM, did not much investigated this problem -- see comments 11 and 
16 here: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9408.


@ Filip: an employee of Microsoft gave partially an answer here: 
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/live/en-US/8e2af97a-f5e5-4ae0-acec-562db7e134d0/why-is-it-that-the-bing-map-control-has-a-much-lower-resolution-than-the-website?forum=bingmapswindows8


Some people think that there is a link with the launch of the new 3D 
Bing maps data: 
http://www.bing.com/blogs/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2013/12/05/maps3d.aspx


I also checked on the Bing maps website. It appears that we can only 
access the zoom level 19 when using the Bing Aerial imagery 
(http://www.bing.com/maps/) without showing labels. But if the labels 
are activated, it's possible to access all zoom levels even those 
higher than 19. So at the moment, because the Bing/OSM licence -- as 
far as I understand it -- doesn't allow the OSM contributors to use 
another Bing imagery than the Aerial one without the labels, the 
problem seems currently unsolvable.


Cheers,
Eric

On 3 March 2014 10:00, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk 
mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:


Andy Robinson wrote:

Zooming in on Nottingham I'm seeing three different imagery
versions at
different zoom levels. I don't anything missing.


Here's a specific example, to the north in Mansfield:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2#map=19/53.14850/-1.18456

(using P2 because it doesn't overzoom)

At z19 there's the current road layout.  At z20 (or 21?) the old
road layout used to be visible (the footpath that you can see used
to be a road).  I remember this one only because SK53 and I
specifically discussed the old road configuration, and I first
mapped it (well, tidied up the ex-NPE roads already there) when
the roads were being changed to the new configuration.

Cheers,

Andy



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




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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bing imagery

[Will Phillips]

Eric,

Try here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.92611mlon=-1.21314#map=18/52.92611/-1.21314

At this location, I can see the roof of a supermarket at zoom level 19. 
I get a 'No tiles at this zoom level' message if I zoom in further. 
Previously, I would see an area of waste ground before the supermarket 
was built at zoom 20. And an even older view of the site at zoom level 21.


Regards,
Will

On 03/03/2014 18:15, Eric Grosso wrote:

Will,

Could you please give an example of an area where the others, e.g. 
SK53, can see the high-resolution imagery in order to see if it works 
for us.


Thanks,
Eric


On 3 March 2014 16:35, Will Phillips wp4...@gmail.com 
mailto:wp4...@gmail.com wrote:


What I don't understand is why some people are seeing this problem
but other aren't. I've just got someone who edits in another part
of the country, and so will not be seeing cached images, to have a
look at a location in my local area in JOSM. They could definitely
see three different lots of high-res imagery at different zoom
levels. Others, including SK53 and Blackadder, have indicated
seeing the same. On the other hand, Eric's message below describes
exactly what I am seeing, as did Steve Brook's message yesterday.

Regards,
Will


On 03/03/2014 14:10, Eric Grosso wrote:

Hi all,

I encountered exactly the same problem at the end of last week
(before the higher zoom level images of my editing zone were
still in cache and hid the problem) -- location: Edinburgh, Scotland.

Apparently this problem appeared for some contributors at the
beginning of last December:
- (5 December)
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2013-December/010190.html
- (7 December)

https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/28868/aerial-background-imagery-disappears-in-p2-if-i-zoom-in-to-a-high-level-it-did-not-in-the-past
- (18 December) http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=23592

Because the source of the problem is apparently due to some
changes in the Bing maps API, the developers of the OSM editors,
at least those of JOSM, did not much investigated this problem --
see comments 11 and 16 here:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9408.

@ Filip: an employee of Microsoft gave partially an answer here:

http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/live/en-US/8e2af97a-f5e5-4ae0-acec-562db7e134d0/why-is-it-that-the-bing-map-control-has-a-much-lower-resolution-than-the-website?forum=bingmapswindows8

Some people think that there is a link with the launch of the new
3D Bing maps data:
http://www.bing.com/blogs/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2013/12/05/maps3d.aspx

I also checked on the Bing maps website. It appears that we can
only access the zoom level 19 when using the Bing Aerial imagery
(http://www.bing.com/maps/) without showing labels. But if the
labels are activated, it's possible to access all zoom levels
even those higher than 19. So at the moment, because the Bing/OSM
licence -- as far as I understand it -- doesn't allow the OSM
contributors to use another Bing imagery than the Aerial one
without the labels, the problem seems currently unsolvable.

Cheers,
Eric

On 3 March 2014 10:00, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk
mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:

Andy Robinson wrote:

Zooming in on Nottingham I'm seeing three different
imagery versions at
different zoom levels. I don't anything missing.


Here's a specific example, to the north in Mansfield:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2#map=19/53.14850/-1.18456

(using P2 because it doesn't overzoom)

At z19 there's the current road layout.  At z20 (or 21?) the
old road layout used to be visible (the footpath that you can
see used to be a road).  I remember this one only because
SK53 and I specifically discussed the old road configuration,
and I first mapped it (well, tidied up the ex-NPE roads
already there) when the roads were being changed to the new
configuration.

Cheers,

Andy



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




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



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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bing imagery

[Will Phillips]

My impression is that the imagery at zoom level 20 has gone for most, if 
not all, the country. This might not be noticeable everywhere: many 
areas will have only ever had images up to level 19. Also, some of the 
level 19 imagery is well lit, sharp and not particularly different from 
what Nottingham previously had at zoom level 20.


A couple of specific areas:
Chester - I've just had a look here. I believe it is zoom level 19, but 
it's well lit, sharp, and generally good for tracing.


Nottingham - The imagery for most of Nottingham is now a bit blurry and 
badly lit. It's borderline whether it's usable for tracing buildings 
(some areas are better lit than others). An exception is the very north 
part of the city, which has imagery from a different source. This is 
much better quality (but still only zoom level 19).


Regards,
Will


On 02/03/2014 11:35, tony wroblewski wrote:
I noticed this also in a few areas, it seems the high resolution has 
been removed. It's still present around Chester though, so it isn't 
everywhere


Regards

Tony




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

[Talk-GB] Bing imagery

[Will Phillips]

Since about last Tuesday, the highest resolution Bing aerial imagery is 
no longer available in the Nottingham and Derby area. Previously the 
imagery went up to zoom level 22, but this has now been reduced to level 
19. I was wondering whether this is also the case in other parts of the 
country?


I was hoping it was only a temporary problem, but I now guess it's 
probably not. If it has gone for good, I will certainly miss it for 
tracing buildings.


For what it's worth, I notice that the zoom level 20 imagery is still 
displayed when viewing it on the Bing website, but I appreciate we 
aren't allowed to use it directly from there.


Regards,
Will


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tidying up some shop tags

[Will Phillips]

These generally seem fine to me. The only one I think is questionable is 
shop=locksmith from shop=keycutting. There is a risk of losing some 
meaning here: some shops tagged shop=keycutting might offer only 
keycutting, while shop=locksmith implies a broader range of services. 
Perhaps shop=locksmith locksmith=keycutting could be considered.


Consolidating categories like furnishings and sports shops does seem 
sensible, but it is important care is taken to ensure subtle meanings in 
the tagging are not lost.


Wilkinsons is difficult to tag. It sells quite a broad range of items 
including toiletries, stationery, cleaning/DIY/gardening supplies, 
kitchenware and confectionery. I use shop=hardware, but recognise it 
doesn't fit entirely. shop=supermarket seems wrong because it implies a 
full range of food is sold, while Wilkinsons only sells crisps/chocolate 
bars/sweets. shop=department_store also isn't quite right: to me it 
implies more expensive items are also sold (electrical goods, interior 
furnishings etc.)



On 05/05/2013 14:25, sk53.osm wrote:
I propose to tidy up some shop=* tag values. I am not certain of the 
full scope, but here are ones I do know about:


  * to shop=bookmaker from bookmakers, bookies, Bookmaker, Bookmakers,
bookmarkers,turf_accountant [shop=betting has nearly as many uses
as shop=bookmaker, and shop=gambling also exists]
  * to shop=clothes from clothing [shop=fashion also exists]
  * to shop=books from bookstore
  * to shop=comics from comic, comicbook
  * to shop=alcohol from off_licence, offlicense, offlicence, off_license
  * to shop=vacant from shop=empty  shop=closed,
shop=currently_unlet, shop=former_florist, shop=Vacant (but not
shop=disused)
  * to shop=pet from shop=pets, pet_shop
  * to shop=carpet from shop=carpets (and various combos of CarpetRIght)
  * to shop=beauty from shop=beauty_salon
  * to shop=locksmith from shop=keycutting
  * to amenity=fast_food, cuisine=fish_and_chips from shop=fish_and_chips
  * to amenity=fast_food, cuisine=sandwich  from shop=sandwich shop

I think these all reflect reallocation to more widely used tags.

There are plenty of values of shop which would benefit from some 
consolidation, such as the many different varieties of shops selling 
furnishings (blinds, curtains, ) and sporting goods (golf,ski_hire 
...) which could do with a single overall value and adjectival tagging 
for the detail.


I must say the combos shop=fish, shop=fishmonger and shop=fishing are 
likely to lead to confusion. In particular is shop=fish a fishmonger, 
a pet shop or an angling shop?


I am not sure if some people tag shop=laundry for dry cleaners or of 
they are always separate Personally it makes sense to combine cleaning 
services (ironing, repair, dry cleaning, steam laundry etc) of this 
type under a single tag.


Some retailers seem to cause particular problems in choosing an 
appropriate tag. Wilkinsons are variously tagged as supermarkets, 
hardware, variety and department_store. In addition the name is often 
entered without the 's'.


I'm sure others have noticed other things or have particular nit 
picking about shop=* values.


Regards,


Jerry







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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] A newbie question - 'What are you doing ?'

[Russ Phillips]

On 16 July 2010 20:47, Ciarán Mooney general.moo...@googlemail.com wrote:
 It has, the wiki has a flyer that can be  printed and folded into a
 nice, here you go size.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Flyer

I'm pretty sure I have some printed out leaflets. Remind me before the
next LUG meeting  I'll bring them along.

Also, I made an OSM business card. There are .odt and .pdf downloads here:
http://www.mappage.org/

Russ

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

[Talk-GB] Can I post about an iPhone OSM app

[Russ Phillips]

On 30 June 2010 20:38, Chris S lostst...@gmail.com wrote:
 Greetings,

 I am working on an offline OSM browser for the iPhone/iPad.  Do people
 think it would it be acceptable to post details to this list if/when
 it is on the App Store?  I thought I should ask before posting...

I don't have any great objection, but I'd have thought the Announce
list would be better suited:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/announce

Russ

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

[Talk-GB] Fwd: UK Mapping Priorities

[Russ Phillips]

On 24 June 2010 12:41, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
 I just had a look at the UK Mapping Priorities page

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Mapping_Priorities

 and I noticed that Darlington has gone from unmapped to awesome over
 the last few months. Who wants to step up and take credit for such
 immense progress on what was the UK's highest mapping priority?

 In addition, I've recalculated some more and now we have no area with
 a score of more than 100, which is good news. Anyone fancy updating
 some more of the figures so we can see if anywhere else can be
 graduated off of the list?

I've updated the following:

Burnley/Nelson  87.2 - 52.9
Carlisle                34.2 - 34.2
Doncaster               31.2 - 28.4
Dudley          75 - 72.2
Poole           90.5 - 90.5
Rotherham       34.5 - 33.5
Stafford                35.4 - 35.4
Stoke-on-Trent  31.6 - 29.8
Tameside                89.3 - 79.4
Telford         86.4 - 23.8

Burnley/Nelson and Telford (the two really dramatic improvements) were
both last updated in February, whereas some of the others were updated
in May or earlier this month.

Russ

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

Re: [Talk-GB] skobbler OSM bug backchannel

[Russ Phillips]

On 14 May 2010 13:53, Marcus Thielking marcus.thielk...@skobbler.com wrote:

 It would be much appreciated if some of you could have a look at 
 www.skobbler.co.uk/osmbugs and
 tell us what should be changed in order to make it more accessible for you.

I'd like to be able to subscribe to an area and get an e-mail whenever
a bug is reported in that area, or have an RSS feed that can be
limited to a particular area. Either would work for me.

Russ

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView

[Russ Phillips]

Damn. Intended to send this to the list earlier.

On 5 May 2010 12:29, Russ Phillips r...@phillipsuk.org wrote:
 On 5 May 2010 12:06, Tim Francois sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
 Oh, really? I've just changed a few from Saint to St. based on road
 signs. Personally, I'm not bothered either way (though it does mean that my
 neat OS Locator comparison table will never reduce to zero!!) as most people
 know the difference, but is there a general consensus on this?

 I always use the full word, so I'd enter St as Saint. I think I saw
 something once on the wiki or a mailing list suggesting that this was
 best practice. Probably this:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Street_Names

 Russ


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Matching OS Locator with OSM data

[Russ Phillips]

On 27 April 2010 22:21, Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:


  Anyway, let me know if you find this useful, or if someone has a more
 advanced script and I'm just wasting time here!


I haven't had a chance to really investigate these scripts yet, but they're
on my to-do list. I suspect they'll be very useful for me in Stoke-on-Trent.
I'd also be interested in a script that highlighted roads whose position in
OSM was a long way off their position in OS, but I don't know how easy or
difficult that would be.

Have you thought about adding your scripts to the OS OpenData wiki
pagehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata,
to make it easier for people to find them?

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

[Talk-GB] Workington Bridges

[Russ Phillips]

After the November floods, the map of Workington [1] in Cumbria was
updated very quickly to show the state of the bridges, and the
location of the temporary road bridge that was to be built. I've just
read on the BBC news site [2] that the temporary bridge is to open
today, at 10:30. Can a local please update the map? I'm wary of
changing it remotely.

I'm giving a presentation/demonstration on OSM to my local LUG soon,
and I'd really like to use this as an example of how OSM can be better
than commercial maps, especially since TomTom's VP of ecommerce told
PC Pro There are services like OpenStreetMap, and it's good, but
sometimes there's not a bridge when it told you there would be. [3],
and their map of Workington still routes people over the damaged
bridges :)

Russ


[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.64893lon=-3.54955zoom=16
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8627276.stm
[3] 
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/356008/tomtom-shrugs-off-free-apps-threat-with-new-iphone-app

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Error now detects source=OS_OpenData

[Russ Phillips]

On 8 April 2010 09:01, Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

 Great site!

 I have bug report though. I've done a bit of tracing from the OS SteetView in 
 conjunction with some GPX traces I have. Using the site, I download a GPX 
 file of the area but a load of the waypoint tags have empty lat/lon 
 attributes.
 i.e. wpt lat='' lon=''. Download link:
 http://www.mappage.org/error/error.php?lon_upper_left=-1.1029lat_bottom_right=52.2599lon_bottom_right=-0.9364lat_upper_left=52.3998ref=0road=0name=0hours=0source=1fixme=0naptan=0pbref=0;


Thanks. It's not had a massive amount of testing. I'll look into that
when I get time, and e-mail you privately when it's fixed (don't want
to spam the list)

Russ

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Error now detects source=OS_OpenData

[Russ Phillips]

On 8 April 2010 09:30, Dan Karran d...@karran.net wrote:
 Hi Russ,

 Nice idea for the site. Just wondering, do you also check for
 description tags that have fixme in them? I often add that in when I'm
 mapping with the Mapzen POI editor as it doesn't allow custom tag keys
 like fixme to be used.

I don't at the moment, but I'll add that when I get time. I don't use
Mapzen, and hadn't realised that.

Russ

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

[Talk-GB] OSM Error now detects source=OS_OpenData

[Russ Phillips]

During all the discussion about OS OpenData, it was suggested that
anything derived from OS data should be surveyed on the ground at a
later date, since on-the-ground surveying is the preferred method of
gathering data.

With that in mind, I've added OS OpenData source tags to OSM Error
[1]. For those who don't know about it, OSM Error is a simple web app
that creates a .gpx waypoint file that you can install onto your GPS,
so that when you are out mapping, your GPS can direct you to those
locations that need additional data. I originally wrote it to make it
easier for me to find bus stops that had been imported from NAPTAN but
hadn't been verified, then expanded it to look for various other
issues.

Russ

[1] http://www.mappage.org/error/

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

Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View

[Russ Phillips]

On 6 April 2010 12:46, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:

 Hi again,

 Thanks for the feedback on building traces. The consensus seems to be
 for a JOSM plugin while others saying all surveying should be done on
 the ground.

Personally, I'd be happy to see a JOSM plugin similar to the Lakewalker plugin:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lakewalker

For those not familiar with it, you activate it, then click on a lake
or similar. The plugin creates a way around the lake, which can then
be manually checked/corrected before the edits are uploaded to OSM.

Russ

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey

[Russ Phillips]

On 1 April 2010 09:39, Richard Bullock rb...@cantab.net wrote:
As Andy says, I say we start with getting boundary data fixed up from
Boundary Line and then look at Vector Map District in a month's time and
decide what the next step is

 I agree with this; especially as boundary data is hard to come by any other
 way

I also agree with using OS's boundary data to fix up our boundary data.

In the meantime, however, I think the Street View rasters have some
use, if only for adding street names for roads that don't already have
them.

Russ

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey

[Russ Phillips]

And again, I sent this to Richard instead of Talk-GB

On 1 April 2010 09:44, Russ Phillips r...@phillipsuk.org wrote:
 On 1 April 2010 09:25, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 Gregory wrote:
 Without restrictions? Does that mean no attribution, it sounds like PD.
 Or does it mean they haven't told us the exact license yet but it will
 be nice?

 The latter, I think. http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendata/ is either
 still password-protected or Slashdotted as I write (well, more likely
 Guardian-ed)... a prize to the first person who can get through and find
 out. ;)

 My reading of it is that it's roughly equivalent to CC-BY. There's a
 paragraph at the end that says:
 These terms have been aligned to be interoperable with any Creative
 Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence. This means that you may mix the
 information with Creative Commons licensed content to create a
 derivative work that can be distributed under any Creative Commons
 Attribution 3.0 Licence.

 A more sensible approach:

 Let's use OS data as one of the many sources that helps us map. Quite
 often I'll add something to the map based on a combination of survey,
 previous experience, out-of-copyright sources (e.g. NPE), maybe an
 openly licensed photo (e.g. Geograph), other map information (e.g.
 street names on NAPTaN nodes), and so on; I'm sure most OSMers are
 similarly catholic.

 OS data is one more source. I'd be happy using OS data to help complete
 Banbury and Worcester, for example, because these are places I know
 well; I can bring something extra to the map. But I don't think it would
 do OSM, or any users, any favours if I were to import OS data for
 Bradford, where I've never been. If you want the raw OS map of Bradford,
 you might as well use the OS map. The guy who knows Bradford should be
 the one to add those streets into OSM.

 I'm inclined to agree. I'm originally from Maltby, a mining village
 near Rotherham in South Yorkshire. I've been slowly mapping it with my
 GPS when I've gone to visit people, and I've added some roads from
 NPE. I know it well enough to be sure that the roads I add from NPE
 are still there. In the same way, I could use OS data to add roads,
 then use on-the-ground surveying to add more detail as  when I get
 the chance.

 Russ


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

[Talk-GB] Garmin maps no larger than 24MB

[Russ Phillips]

My father-in-law has a Garmin eTrex Legend C, and we'd like to put some
OSM maps on it for use when walking up hills in Scotland and the Lake
District. As he's a hillwalker, contours are important, but it only has
24MB of storage.

All the UK maps with contours are far too big to fit. Does anyone know
of anywhere that I can get maps of regions, that would be small enough
to fit?

Russ



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Garmin maps no larger than 24MB

[Russ Phillips]

On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 14:44 +, Glenn Proctor wrote:
 On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Brad Rogers b...@fineby.me.uk wrote:

  All the UK maps with contours are far too big to fit. Does anyone know
  of anywhere that I can get maps of regions, that would be small enough
  to fit?
 
  What's the problem with using a memory card?  Something suitable can be
  bought for less than a fiver, these days.
 
 I don't think the Etrex Legend C has a memory card slot.

It doesn't, which is exactly the problem with using a memory card, and
why I'm looking for files that are small enough to fit in internal
memory.

Russ



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Garmin maps no larger than 24MB

[Russ Phillips]

On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 14:42 +, Glenn Proctor wrote:
 Hi Russ
 
 I have a little Perl script that will create GPSMAPSUPP.IMG files
 (suitable for a Garmin GPS) from arbitrary combinations of OSM tiles
 and contours.

Hi Glenn,

That sounds perfect. I'll talk to my father-in-law about exactly which
areas he needs, and then I'll e-mail you off-list.

Many thanks for your help.

Russ



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

Re: [Talk-GB] latest garmin cyclemap img

[Russ Phillips]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:36 AM, andrew n...@sylva.icuklive.co.uk wrote:
 The site where I downloaded my last one is not available. Where is the most
 up to date source of the garmin gmapsupp.img with contours available?

I don't know if they're the most up to date or not, but are the maps
here any use?
http://openmtbmap.org/

Russ

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

[Talk-GB] OSM Error (was Re: NaPTAN import status - update and question)

[Russ Phillips]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:

 Thinking about it, one could get OSM to produce a list of things to check
 for any particular trip - First one would produce a GPX for the trip and
 then a 'job-creator' would identify streets without names, villages without
 letter boxes, ways with 'FIXME' tags and also of course unchecked bus stops
 and produce an itinerary and map to things to do on the way.

I've done something similar to this:
http://www.mappage.org/error/

Enter a set of co-ordinates and it will produce a GPX file containing
waypoints of all the issues it finds.

At the time of writing, it flags up:
Motorways, trunk, primary and secondary roads without a ref tag
Various things without names
Shops etc without opening hours
Anything with source set to extrapolation, NPE or historical
Anything with a FIXME tag
Any node with naptan:verified=no
Any way with highway=road

Russ

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Locating Postboxes article Guardian

[Russ Phillips]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:49 PM, John Robert Peterson jrp@gmail.com wrote:
 I'm pretty sure I heard from somewhere that the post code associated with
 the post box is actually a post code assosiated with the collection office,
 and that a house next to it can have a totally different post code.

That seems highly unlikely. In the early 1990's, I was a postie, and
the sorting office that I was based in delivered mail to the S66 7xx 
S66 8xx postcode areas. This page:
http://www.dracos.co.uk/play/locating-postboxes/nearest/?s=S66+8

Shows many postboxes that have been located in the area, all with a
different postcode. But all those postboxes listed with a postcode
starting S66 7 or S66 8 are collected from a single sorting
office. Or at least, they were in 1994, and the sorting office that I
worked at is still in operation.

Russ

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

[Talk-GB] Healthware OSM-Atlas

[Russ Phillips]

Hi,

I've been working on a couple of OSM-Related things, on-and-off, for a
while, and I'm happy to announce that I've just released version 1.0
of both.

Healthware [1] is a web site that uses the API  XAPI to find
pharmacies (and, later, will also find hospitals). It's designed to
run on any size screen, from the tiny little screen of my phone, to a
full-sized monitor. Where the opening_hours tag [2] has been added, it
can work out whether a pharmacy is currently open or not. Source code
is released under an MIT licence [3].

Secondly, OSM-Atlas [4] is a PHP command-line script that uses a .osm
file to create an atlas. It creates a PDF file, with front  back
covers, overview map, detailed map pages, and index pages. This is
also released under an MIT Licence [5].

Russ

[1] http://www.mappage.org/hw/
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours
[3] http://www.mappage.org/hw/healthware.tar.gz
[4] http://www.mappage.org/atlas/
[5] http://www.mappage.org/atlas/osm-atlas.tar.gz

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Old data in XAPI

[Russ Phillips]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:36 PM, 80n80n...@gmail.com wrote:
 Try [amenity=pharmacy] instead of [*=pharmacy]

 The index for the second form is no longer being maintained.  There were
 relatively few queries of this form and the overhead was substantial.

Ah, that worked. Excellent, thanks :-)

 The software shouldn't give you a seemingly ok response, that needs fixing.
 And I should document this as well.

If I get time, I'll update the wiki page.

Russ

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Postal Area/District maps

[Russ Phillips]

2009/7/3 Mike osm-talk...@norgie.net:
 Folks,

 Does anyone know of any maps marking UK postal areas/districts?  I seem
 to recall picutre of the day on OSM having a map of postal areas but I
 can't seem to find it.

 Any ideas where I can see the postal boundies?

You're probably thinking of:
http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/postcodes/

Russ

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello All

[Russ Phillips]

2009/6/24 Jack Stringer jack.ix...@googlemail.com:

 I would also like to get involved in adding address data for already
 added amenities to in turn improve the postcode database.

If you're interested in improving free postcode information, then
these two web sites will probably also be of interest to you:

http://www.dracos.co.uk/play/locating-postboxes/

http://www.npemap.org.uk/

Russ

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

[Talk-GB] Sat Navs to stop working?

[Russ Phillips]

Yesterday, on Radio 2's drive time show, someone mentioned that sat
navs would stop working next year. My wife heard it as she was driving
home, but there were no details.

We can't work out what they were talking about. The Listen Again page is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kg9fr

I can't listen to it because I'm at work, but I can't find any mention
of it on the BBC news pages. Does anyone know what they were talking
about?

Russ

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

Re: [Talk-GB] MK mapping party

[Russ Phillips]

2009/5/18 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrli...@googlemail.com:

 Stoke needs work but a party will probably happen there in July, watch the
 wiki for that.

I live in Stoke-on-Trent, but don't have a great deal of time to spend
mapping, so I'd love to see a mapping party there. I don't know
whether or not I'll be able to make it to a party, but even if I can't
get to it, it'd be good to get some more data.

Russ

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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to add roundabouts?

[Russ Phillips]

 2009/1/28 Chris Andrew cjhand...@gmail.com:
 Hi, all.

 New to the list.  Just wondering, some roads near me have big
 roundabouts that aren't mapped, they are just seen as converging
 roads.  I see that a tag exists to mark roundabouts (OSM Wiki), but I
 can't see how to apply it using the standard editing tool.

This wiki page should help:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout

It's not too long, and should tell you everything you need to know.
Ask here if it's still not clear.

Russ

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Yet another rail network map

[Russ Phillips]

2008/12/18 Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) ajrli...@googlemail.com:

 But where a footpath or other
 feature makes use of the original feature then I would definitely add a tag
 that explains the features former use, that's useful data.

I hadn't thought of it before, but that sounds like a good idea. There
are a lot of cycleways near me that used to be railways. Currently
they're just tagged with highway=cycleway, what would you suggest I
add? I note that Map Features says that railway=abandoned (which would
have been my first choice) is not to be used if the feature has been
turned into another use, eg cycleway.

Russ

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Automatically make street atlas?

[Russ Phillips]

Quoting David Groom [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 As a starting point you might look at

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/PDF_atlas

Thanks, I'll take a proper look later. I'm not sure if it'll do quite  
what I want. If I knew Perl I might be able to adapt it, but I've  
never managed to get my head around Perl.

Russ



This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


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

[Talk-GB] Automatically make street atlas?

[Russ Phillips]

Hi people,

I'd like to make some street atlases using OSM data. Has anyone  
created a script/program to do this automatically? If not, I might  
have a go at writing something myself, but I thought I'd see if anyone  
else has done it first.

Basically, I'd like to feed it a .osm file, and have it spit out a  
load of printable files (don't really care what format).

Russ



This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Nottingham progress?

[Russ Phillips]

Quoting Andy Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Russ Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Could anyone here give me an idea of progress in Nottingham? I had a
 quick look recently and it appeared that all the roads are in place,
 but some (many?) don't have names.

 Hi Russ,

 I don't know Nottingham myself, but you can see which roads are in the
 db and need naming using the red highlighting at

 http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/no-names/?zoom=13lat=6973936.32734lon=-131415.14164layers=0B000

Thanks for that - that's really quite nifty.

Russ



This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


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

[Talk-GB] Nottingham progress?

[Russ Phillips]

Could anyone here give me an idea of progress in Nottingham? I had a  
quick look recently and it appeared that all the roads are in place,  
but some (many?) don't have names.

I have some friends in Nottingham, so it'd be good to be able to tell  
them that OSM has mapped their home town. I might be able to persuade  
some of them to help out with adding street names if that is still to  
be done.

Russ



This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Sustrans

[Russ Phillips]

Quoting Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 So, my belief is that in realty recruiting sustrans people to our cause is
 unlikely to be very fruitful. Look instead for people with time on their
 hands, those still in education, bored professionals like me ;-) and the
 retired.

Ah well, fair enough. They seemed to be ideal candidates for mapping  
parties if nothing else, but I'll bow to your superior knowledge ;-)

At least I know now that we haven't been ignoring a large potential  
source of recruitment.

Russ



This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Sustrans

[Russ Phillips]

Quoting Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 A simple card with the web address and the OSM logo would be perfect, I'm
 always needing the same but haven't got around to doing any. I'd add my name
 and an email address too so that the person can make contact again.

 Has anyone posted any similar proofs to the wiki/svn? if not would be good
 if someone can do one.

I knocked something up this afternoon. It's not great, but I haven't  
found anything else, and hopefully it's better than nothing:

http://www.phillipsuk.org/tmp/OSM-business-cards.pdf
http://www.phillipsuk.org/tmp/OSM-business-cards.odt

There are two pages, with slightly different wording, because I  
couldn't decide which one I preferred ;-)

Russ



This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


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

[Talk-GB] Sustrans

[Russ Phillips]

Hi list,

On Saturday, the wife  I went to have a look at a local (Stoke on  
Trent) fun day, and got talking to the guy at the Sustrans stand,  
largely because I started looking at his maps. I'm not a cyclist, so I  
don't know a great deal about Sustrans, but I get the impression that  
there are quite a few cyclists in OSM's ranks.

It seems to me that Sustrans could benefit greatly from OSM (I know  
someone has already produced a cycle map), but the man we spoke to had  
never heard of OSM, and I got the distinct impression that he thought  
we were a bit mad! He did understand the value of mapping data, as  
opposed to maps, but he seemed to be pinning all his hopes on  
persuading the OS to make their data available (so much so that I  
started to wonder if that's something Sustrans is actively working on).

So, I just thought I'd ask - do we have any contacts at Sustrans? If  
not, would it be worth trying to get some? The person we spoke to  
doesn't have a GPS, but the Foundation has some for loan. I know they  
were bought with the intention of loaning them at mapping parties, but  
would it be worth also loaning them to Sustrans people? Could we use  
Sustrans to advertise mapping parties, and get more people that way?

Any thoughts?

Russ



This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Sustrans

[Russ Phillips]

 From: Andy Robinson \(blackadder-lists\) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Sustrans

 A quiet revolution, with OSM showing how we might be better than what they
 have now seems to be the best approach and Andy's version of our data is one
 of the ways to prove that. And as Andy says, those of us who are Rangers
 also have a say from the grass roots end of Sustrans and by showing the
 local sustrans officers how our data can be used we may be able to spread
 the word within.

Well, at least now I know that people within OSM are *trying* to  
convince Sustrans. Is there any potential mileage in getting Sustrans  
people to mapping parties?

Russ



This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Oxford hi-res on Yahoo

[Russ Phillips]

On Thu, January 10, 2008 2:19 pm, Gregory Williams wrote:
 http://maps.yahoo.com/broadband/#mvt=slat=52.949414lon=-1.178971mag=4

 PS, I also discovered several other new areas of coverage last night.
 See:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Yahoo%21_Aerial_Imagery/Coverage

Excellent, thank you. I'd forgotten about that wiki page :-/

Russ



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

[OSM-talk] Osmarender CC notice

[Russ Phillips]

When I first started using Osmarender, it always automagically added a CC
licence notice, and (I think) a scale bar. However, the latest version
doesn't appear to do this.

Can anyone tell me how to get Osmarender to add a CC licence notice and
(ideally) a scale bar?

Russ



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Osmarender CC notice

[Russ Phillips]

On Thu, January 3, 2008 10:37 am, Jochen Topf wrote:

 Can anyone tell me how to get Osmarender to add a CC licence notice and
 (ideally) a scale bar?

 Look at the beginning of the rules file, for instance
 osm-map-features-z17.xml

 showScale=no
 showGrid=no
 showBorder=no
 showLicense=no

 Set the ones you need to yes.

Thanks, I just found the details at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Osmarender/Options

I guess I should have RTFM'd :-/

Russ



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk