Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of historic 'stink pipes'

[Gareth L]

There is also this map render 
http://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/l/en/index.html which could be of 
interest.

Gareth

On 18 Dec 2020, at 08:41, Edward Bainton  wrote:


Morning all

My local civic society is collecting the location of 'stink pipes', Victorian 
sewer ventilation shafts in cast iron. Pics here: 
https://twitter.com/TobyWoody/status/1339679166371926017/photo/1

I've suggested they use OpenStreetMap and suggested a node with tag 
historic=ventilation_shaft. Does that seem the right tag?

Also do people know a rendering that will highligh all the "historic" features?

Thanks,

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

[Talk-GB] Cycle Infrastructure Q3 2020 project outcomes

[Gareth L]

Hello,

The Q3 2020 project was a focus on cycle infrastructure, which is a large 
subset of data. It was announced on July 10th.
As a personal note, I can bemoan about the disjointed nature of cycle 
infrastructure, particularly in my local area, but what does exist is best 
mapped on OSM. Unlike roads or footpaths which are found in fairly consistent 
detail in OSM/OS/google/etc, cycleways really do appear to be a coverage gap.

Disclaimer: I am not a data scientist.

Here’s some numbers, though they’re for Great Britain as that’s what I had data 
extracts of.:
Note: lengths are approximate because projections are tricky.


Per quarter (91.25 days), in 2020 before the quarterly project was announced, 
contributors were adding approx. 94km of ways tagged highway=cycleway.

However! A global pandemic induced lockdown ‘might’ stifle the opportunity to 
survey and impact that number..



Per quarter, in 2019, the average was 129km of ways tagged highway=cycleway.



During the Q3 2020 project, the rate increased to 221km/quarter. Which is 235% 
of the value in q1/q2, and 171% of the value calculated through 2019.



Note: This is a very specific measurement, which does not include additions of 
cycleway:left|right|both:lane to other kinds of highway, or footways with 
bicycle=designated, bridleways, etc.





Through the entirety of 2019, 2603 additional nodes tagged 
amenity=bicycle_parking were added.

>From start of 2020 until start of July 2020, 1424 additional nodes tagged 
>amenity=bicycle_parking were added.

During the Q3 quarterly project, 1821 additional nodes tagged 
amenity=bicycle_parking were added.



Even with enhancing detail:



Number of amenity=bicycle_parking nodes with ‘covered’ tags, capacity tags:

January 2019: 22494 nodes, 11520 with ‘covered’ detail, 18065 with ‘capacity’ 
detail

January 2020: 25097 nodes, 13257 with ‘covered’ detail, 20308 with ‘capacity’ 
detail

July 2019:26521 nodes, 13972 with ‘covered’ detail, 21621 with 
‘capacity’ detail

January 2019: 28342 nodes, 14900 with ‘covered’ detail, 23307 with ‘capacity’ 
detail



Again, across all 12 months of 2019, 2243 additional capacity tags were added 
to bicycle parking. (approx. 531/quarter)

In the Q3 quarterly project period, 1686 additional capacity tags were added. 
(approx. 1554/quarter), nearly 300% of 2019’s rate.

The same comparison using the ‘covered’ tag detail shows a nearly 200% increase 
of activity of the 2019 rate.

Note: bicycle_parking can - and often is - mapped as an area, and is not 
included in the above figures.


TL;DR the Q3 Quarterly Project increased the rate that bicycle infrastructure 
data was being added, improved and refined in OSM.

Thank you for your efforts!

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

[Talk-GB] Q4 2020 Quarterly Project: Defibrillators

[Gareth L]

Hello,

The UK quarterly project for Q4 has been selected as Defibrillators. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q4_Project:_Defibrillators

A check on taginfo shows there are 4181 nodes and ways with 
emergency=defibrillator in Great Britain. Reading 
https://cesafety.co.uk/list-of-public-access-defibrillators-across-the-uk from 
August 2019 reports that there are 5304 defibrillators in London alone.

The Q3 project on cycle infrastructure has some very encouraging results, which 
I’ll post about separately.

Best regards,
Gareth

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

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

[Gareth L]

Depends if that condition is seasonal?
I’ve prioritised tagging width values on canal towpaths in some locations 
where, whilst legal, it’s precarious to try and cycle along as they’re 
practically less than a metre wide.
I’ve come across the following proposed feature 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle which didn’t 
seem to get traction - though could be useful.

I think I’ve just added a barrier node to cover off routing engines/some 
renders + as accurate a surface value as you can but they’ve always had a 
viable, not too out of the way, alternative route.

If there’s literally no trace of the path any more, I’d be more inclined to 
report it to the local council RoW officer before mapping something that 
doesn’t exist on the ground.

Gareth

From: Andy Townsend
Sent: 29 September 2020 13:51
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Blocked / overgrown / inaccessible footpaths and bridleways

Hello,

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

A taginfo search finds a few candidates:

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

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

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

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

Best Regards,

Andy




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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

[Gareth L]

Hi Nick,

Not in the example I cited.

Gareth

On 16 Sep 2020, at 10:03, Nick  wrote:



Just out of curiosity, were these all mapped with the new version of the RapiD 
OSM editor https://mapwith.ai/rapid-esri?

On 16/09/2020 08:18, Gareth L wrote:
Morning Mateusz,

You’re right, it’s not encountered in edit mode.

4:

  1.  “en-GB en”
  2.  “en-GB”
  3.  System Locale: en-us;English (United States)*

Input Locale:  en-gb;English (United Kingdom)

*damn, i’m normally better at keeping it en-gb!

Gareth

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Mateusz Konieczny<mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>
Sent: 16 September 2020 08:09
To: Gareth L<mailto:o...@live.co.uk>
Cc: Paul Berry<mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>; Talk 
GB<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

1) it is not a bug of default style at all - what is displayed in tiles is not 
related
(both are using OSM data and here similarities end)
2) it is not a Mapnik bug - it is a library used by OSM Carto (default map 
style)
3) it is not in edit mode, so it is likely not an iD bug (maybe it uses an iD
presets that have some bug)

Is it still visible in edit mode? The it may be an iD bug.

4) Which exactly language settings you have?

(a) In OSM settings
(b) In browser
(c) In OS

For me this is not present,
I see Polish description ("Budynek przemysłowy itp 
group<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/414437370>") as I selected
Polish as preferred language in OSM settings.

Sep 16, 2020, 08:57 by o...@live.co.uk<mailto:o...@live.co.uk>:
Hi Paul,

I’m not sure if the fault is with the ID viewer, mapnik, or overpass-api 
really. ID bugs can be reported/tracked through its GitHub repo 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD

For others curious, an example is go to 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.37824/-1.23676 and right click> query 
features on say, the ITP building or air ambulance. It will show “Индустриална 
сграда itp group” on the results where you choose which element you want more 
detail on.

I’m not that familiar with the codebase but it looks like there has been quite 
a lot of activity in the localisation section, so it is possibly a recently 
introduced bug.

Gareth

From: Paul Berry<mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>
Sent: 16 September 2020 00:21
To: Talk GB<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

Hi all,

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

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

Regards,
Paul






___
Talk-GB mailing 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] Overpass query strangeness within iD

[Gareth L]

Morning Mateusz,

You’re right, it’s not encountered in edit mode.

4:

  1.  “en-GB en”
  2.  “en-GB”
  3.  System Locale: en-us;English (United States)*

Input Locale:  en-gb;English (United Kingdom)

*damn, i’m normally better at keeping it en-gb!

Gareth

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Mateusz Konieczny<mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>
Sent: 16 September 2020 08:09
To: Gareth L<mailto:o...@live.co.uk>
Cc: Paul Berry<mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>; Talk 
GB<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

1) it is not a bug of default style at all - what is displayed in tiles is not 
related
(both are using OSM data and here similarities end)
2) it is not a Mapnik bug - it is a library used by OSM Carto (default map 
style)
3) it is not in edit mode, so it is likely not an iD bug (maybe it uses an iD
presets that have some bug)

Is it still visible in edit mode? The it may be an iD bug.

4) Which exactly language settings you have?

(a) In OSM settings
(b) In browser
(c) In OS

For me this is not present,
I see Polish description ("Budynek przemysłowy itp 
group<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/414437370>") as I selected
Polish as preferred language in OSM settings.

Sep 16, 2020, 08:57 by o...@live.co.uk:
Hi Paul,

I’m not sure if the fault is with the ID viewer, mapnik, or overpass-api 
really. ID bugs can be reported/tracked through its GitHub repo 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD

For others curious, an example is go to 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.37824/-1.23676 and right click> query 
features on say, the ITP building or air ambulance. It will show “Индустриална 
сграда itp group” on the results where you choose which element you want more 
detail on.

I’m not that familiar with the codebase but it looks like there has been quite 
a lot of activity in the localisation section, so it is possibly a recently 
introduced bug.

Gareth

From: Paul Berry<mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>
Sent: 16 September 2020 00:21
To: Talk GB<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

Hi all,

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

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

Regards,
Paul



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

[Gareth L]

Hi Paul,

I’m not sure if the fault is with the ID viewer, mapnik, or overpass-api 
really. ID bugs can be reported/tracked through its GitHub repo 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD

For others curious, an example is go to 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.37824/-1.23676 and right click> query 
features on say, the ITP building or air ambulance. It will show “Индустриална 
сграда itp group” on the results where you choose which element you want more 
detail on.

I’m not that familiar with the codebase but it looks like there has been quite 
a lot of activity in the localisation section, so it is possibly a recently 
introduced bug.

Gareth

From: Paul Berry
Sent: 16 September 2020 00:21
To: Talk GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

Hi all,

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

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

Regards,
Paul

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

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

[Gareth L]

I think the permissive tag is due to it being yet another perceived public 
space which is actually private, so there’s no public right of way.

Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that 
also mangling tagging conventions. I genuinely don’t know!

Gareth

> On 3 Sep 2020, at 10:42, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> On 03.09.20 11:29, Robert Skedgell wrote:
>> I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging
>> principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be:
>> highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive
> 
> I think that highway=cycleway implies bicycle=yes so adding a
> bicycle=permissive would be confusing?
> 
> In my mental picture the combination highway=cycleway+foot=permissive
> means: "This is a way made and intended for bicycles. But pedestrians
> are also tolerated." - which might well be correct given that there
> seems to be a lot of cycle-related infrastructure around.
> 
> To be honest, given the rules you cite, I would be tempted to use
> highway=footway+bicycle=yes OR the dreaded
> highway=path+bicycle=yes+foot=yes - but I haven't seen how it looks on
> the ground.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Gareth L]

I do have to say that surface info is very useful. A lot of cycleways have 
gravel sections and that can be no fun on, say, a Brompton bike with 16” wheels.

Much like pavements, I’d start my focus on the details which are not what you 
might expect, like where a road doesn’t have a pedestrian walkway at all, or 
only on one side. Ultimately, it’s all useful data.

The embankment example makes some sense to me, although that level of Cycle 
infrastructure (cycle superhighways) is seldom seen outside of the capital. 
Segregated and sidewalk tag seems redundant as the footpath is mapped as a 
separate way, but they were added at version 1 when the other data may not have 
been there?

Gareth

On 14 Jul 2020, at 19:49, Adam Snape  wrote:


Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does marking the 
surface on every single asphalt cycleway...

I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does seem 
garbled at points

Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the physical 
separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather than the separation 
of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway?

The given 'high quality' example of the Embankment cycleway (mapped as a 
separate way, not part of the road) looks a bit odd with foot=no, 
segregated=yes, sidewalk=right.

Kind regards,,

Adam







On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 13:05 Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB, 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
"Is it one-way? oneway=yes / oneway=no"
is it really a good idea to always include oneway=no?
I would consider it as kind of pointless to require
oneway tag to be always present

I added some advertisement for StreetComplete
(I implemented for example bicycle_parking quests
as part of my plan for collecting bicycle-related data).
Feel free to reduce/move/remove them.


Jul 13, 2020, 20:25 by o...@live.co.uk:

Hello,



The UK quarterly project for Q3 2020 has been selected as Cycle infrastructure. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure



Another topical one with cycling having increased take up as people have 
avoided public transport or took advantage of the (for a while) quieter roads.



Best regards

Gareth

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

[Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Gareth L]

Hello,

The UK quarterly project for Q3 2020 has been selected as Cycle infrastructure. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure

Another topical one with cycling having increased take up as people have 
avoided public transport or took advantage of the (for a while) quieter roads.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] New Bing Imagery

[Gareth L]

I’ve noticed patches of vastly improved bing imagery since December, but it is 
really patchy.
Gareth

> On 6 Jul 2020, at 23:21, Cj Malone  
> wrote:
> 
> I was splitting houses in Portsmouth/Southsea this morning. The imagery
> is great, I don't know if it was part of this update, or if it's been
> like this for a while.
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Bus Routes on OSM

[Gareth L]

Hi Matthew,

Bus routes are mapped using relations to associate the stretches of roads that 
they run along. As others have said, how up to date they are depends on how 
enthusiastic the (usually) local contributors are on maintaining this kind of 
data. It’s not automatic.

Gareth

> On 6 Jul 2020, at 14:21, Matthew Scanlon  wrote:
> 
> Matthew
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Rockall

[Gareth L]

Probably? I am not familiar with the disputed territories process for Osm.

It’s a weird one as only the U.K. has claimed sovereignty. Others don’t accept 
the claim, but also haven’t made a sovereignty claim themselves. So at the 
moment, the U.K. is the administrator - and there is an absence of any others.

I’d say it should remain mapped as U.K. administrative boundary but also 
flagged as disputed.. if that can be done?

Gareth

On 15 Jun 2020, at 10:24, Colin Smale  wrote:



A new mapper has changed the status of Rockall, removing it from the UK admin 
boundaries. As I understand it Rockall is accepted as UK territory although it 
can't be used as a baseline to extend the EEZ. I contacted the mapper with a 
changeset comment and their motivation is based on "fixing the EEZ".

Wikipedia suggests that Rockall is considered (administratively speaking) part 
of the isle of Harris, in the Western Isles.

As Rockall has from time to time been the subject of a territorial dispute with 
Ireland, should we use the "disputed territories" process for Rockall?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86624359


___
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] OSMUK calls for directors

[Gareth L]

Hello!
Apologies to those on the osm-uk mailing list who may be seeing this for a 
second time.

The OSM UK (https://osmuk.org/) articles of association stipulate that 2 
directors step down each year, and as we need a minimum of 5 directors to 
operate, we appoint at least 2 directors.

Are you interested?


I’m Gareth, and became a director at the OSM UK 2019 AGM, so here’s my 
information to prospective candidates.

You don’t need to have detailed knowledge of the history or workings of OSM, 
nor be a coding wizard or have previous director experience, and having any of 
these would not count against you.
You don’t even need to be a super high prolific contributor to OSM.

What you do need:
Legally able to hold a directorship in the UK.
Be (or become) an OSM UK member.
Commit to attending a monthly call with the other directors.
Be willing to take on some of the day to day running of the CIC. Actual 
activity is not daily, and is a few hours a month to as much as you fancy.

Why?
Hopefully you see value in there being a company being able to front for OSM in 
the UK and would like to support that. Newcomers, particularly companies, like 
to have a point of contact before approaching a group of volunteers.
You want to learn about the OSM ecosystem, from contributor groups to potential 
data consumers through to OSMF.
You’d like to help drive greater use, participation and engagement with OSM 
data.


If you’re considering it, or are unsure and would like to discuss what it may 
entail in more detail, please contact us at 
bo...@osmuk.org by June 15th.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way mapping - making it easy for newcomers to OSM (perhaps!)

[Gareth L]

I wonder if it would be possible to use the GPS trace feature on OSM for this? 
Maybe format the name in a way to make it easier to retrieve?

Takes care of the storage of the traces.


On 14 May 2020, at 09:22, Tony OSM  wrote:



Hi Nick

I like the two stage approach - surveying then mapping. It would work well - 
some of my friends like walking but can't map to save their life, whereas I 
can't walk far but love mapping - Win Win for us all.


May I suggest that a layer be created for JOSM with all the paths and their 
details as provided for MapThePaths. Personally I find it easier to work with 
JOSM and I have learnt to create a style to highlight PROW's, but I don't know 
how to create a JOSM layer.

Separate layers would allow us to manually transfer from PROW layer to MAP 
layer thus avoiding the mechanical import rules, and would allow us to manually 
conflate where a path is already mapped but PROW data is absent.

A layer containing the surveyed GPS data so that all the sources we need are 
available would be awesome.


I may be asking for a workflow that is close to existing, if that is the case I 
am able to test and document the workflow for the UK wiki if that would be 
helpful.


Tony Shield

TonyS999


On 13/05/2020 18:11, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

Oops... sorry one or two editing errors in the last paragraph.

I meant to say:

"They [the non-expert user] select ROW type and path surface via a nice 
interface, and then a tagged GPX trace is generated, *with trksegs tagged with 
ROW designation and surface* (which was done by the first version of the app 
anyway). This is then uploaded to the MapThePaths server, and volunteer expert 
users *are alerted*. Said expert user then downloads the GPX trace and, *using 
the tags in the trksegs of the GPX* then edits in JOSM, perhaps via a JOSM 
plugin - or even directly in the MapThePaths web app. (I am possibly thinking 
of adding way creation into the MapThePaths web app anyway, time depending)."

Nick


From: Nick Whitelegg
Sent: 13 May 2020 18:08
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 

Subject: Rights of way mapping - making it easy for newcomers to OSM (perhaps!)

Hi,

Just to continue with the theme of rights of way mapping, I've been noticing 
that there are still large tracts of England and Wales away from the 'honeypot' 
areas with little or now ROW mapping at all meaning there's still quite a big 
job to be done.

As you may remember I have been developing a companion app to MapThePaths. In 
the first version of this (around two years ago) I experimented with 
auto-converting GPX traces to OSM ways. However I was dissatisfied with the 
results, the ways generated were really rather nasty and I ended up having to 
prettify them significantly in JOSM afterwards, rendering the auto-creation 
facility a little pointless. Consequently later versions of the app have 
focused on merely presenting the council and OSM data overlaid (like the 
website),  with only limited editing facilities, to change the designation of a 
path.

However (and I may have mentioned this before, it's been a while) I am 
wondering about a 'two-user' approach in which a new user merely does the GPX 
survey, using an easy to use UI (a refined version of the MapThePaths app with 
the UI re-designed by someone more versed in UX than myself).

They select ROW type and path surface via a nice interface, and then a tagged 
GPX trace is generated (which was done by the first version of the app anyway). 
This is then uploaded to the MapThePaths server, and volunteer expert users. 
Said expert user then downloads the GPX trace and then edits in JOSM, perhaps 
via a JOSM plugin - or even directly in the MapThePaths web app. (I am possibly 
thinking of adding way creation into the MapThePaths web app anyway, time 
depending).

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Nick




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


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

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

[Gareth L]

Can’t the key location be inferred by the fact it is within a country bounds 
rather than redundantly added?

Gareth

> On 9 Apr 2020, at 14:46, Tony OSM  wrote:
> 
> That makes perfect sense to me.
> 
> Any other views?
> 
> Tony
> 
>> On 09/04/2020 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 14:26, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
>>>  wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 09:21, Tony OSM  wrote:
 If the data is to be in the public domain the next step has to be tagging.
 Do we need country specific tags for these two pieces of data?
 What should they be?
>> [snip]
>>> So I'd propose that we use either ref:uprn and ref:usrn, or
>>> ref:UK:uprn and ref:UK:usrn. What does everyone else think?
>> Oops. If we were to use the ISO Alpha-2 country codes, it should of
>> course be GB rather then UK. So that would make the keys ref:GB:uprn
>> and ref:GB:usrn .
>> 
>> Robert.
>> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Gareth L]

Hello,

The UK quarterly project for Q2 2020 has been selected as GP Surgeries and 
health sites. The wiki page is 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q2_Project:_GP_Surgeries_and_Healthsites

A couple interesting sources of data, the Care Quality Commission appears to 
provide a data set similar to the food hygiene rating system so should be good 
for addresses, but they only cover England. Does anyone know of 
Wales/Scotland/N. Ireland equivalents?
https://healthsites.io is a global project which has a lot of overlap.

It would be good to have a source for pharmacies. A potential source is 
https://inspections.pharmacyregulation.org/ however it is not immediately clear 
if they share their data, let alone under what license. Has this been pursued 
before?

Warm regards
Gareth



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Suggestion - drink_water:refill

[Gareth L]


Hi Jake,

Thanks for posting about this. I’m due to post on the Osm-uk loomio asking for 
suggestions on what the Q2 project should be. Are you aware of any other viable 
sources of data beyond an in person survey?
I wonder why refill wouldn’t want to license their data.

Gareth

On 12 Mar 2020, at 11:27, Jake Edmonds via Talk-GB  
wrote:

 I understand there is an existing suggestion on the UK Quarterly Project talk 
page about drinking water but I wanted to add my support now that the 
drinking_water:refill proposal was approved. The tag is used to indicate if the 
establishment participates in a water refill network. I understand 
Refill.org.uk are unwilling to license their data.

The drinking_water:refill tag is currently in use by the European Water 
Project's website and priceless.zottelig.ch. In 
addition OsmAnd have just added support according to their GitHub, I hope they 
will push an update to their apps soon.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adrinking_water%3Arefill

https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd-resources/commit/15f5c919d3ac25cc048c4f3e0a569f7981999f65

Many thanks
Jake

___
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] railway=halt

[Gareth L]

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

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

Gareth


On 1 Feb 2020, at 09:26, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> In GB halt has been used to indicate request stops. 
> 
> That is the how they are described by train staff, as opposed to Principal 
> Stations where the train always stops.
> 
> You will find lots of halts on the Cambrian, Heart of Wales and three on the 
> Shrewsbury Crew Railway.
> 
> Typical announcement which is ingrained on my memory is 'This train is for 
> Crewe, we will be calling at the following principal stations, Wem, 
> Whitchurch, Nantwich and Crewe. Yorton, Prees and Wrenbury are request stops 
> and you must notify the conductor if you wish to alight.
> 
> The on train displays only list the principal stations.
> 
> Certainly request_stop is clearer.
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> 
>>> On Saturday, 1 February 2020, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
>> Hi
>> Over the past few months I've been sorting & adding detail to the UK's
>> National Rail railway stations so that OSM has the correct amount.
>> I'm unsure of the benefits of tagging some of them as 'halts'. I'm
>> proposing they should all be 'station'.
>> All 2567 NR Stations with 96 halts in blue: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qik
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dhalt
>> Determining based on size, as the wiki suggests, is too subjective IMO.  
>> How is 'size' determined? The number of platforms? Tracks? Passenger
>> usage (which fluctuates)? Note, OSM doesn't have an equivalent tag to
>> distinguish really big stations..
>> Another factor is if they're request stops. This is a much more
>> appropriate criteria. I've now added them with the more explicit tag
>> 'request_stop=yes'.
>> All 137 Request Stops in blue: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qil
>> 65 of these are already tagged a stations.
>> British Rail remove all references to halts (1974?)
>> There are only two which have since been renamed to include halt. It
>> appears to be for purely cosmetic reasons. (The locals probably think
>> it'll increase property values).
>> I've contacted Thunderforest and OpenRailMap. Neither make a distinction
>> between halts & stations in their renders.
>> Carto label them the same but display halts at a higher zoom level,
>> which personally, I find irritating.
>> Opinions/Suggestions?
>> Cheers
>> DaveF
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> ___
> 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] Firmware update for older Garmin etrex devices

[Gareth L]

A victim of the gps week roll over in April last year maybe? If so, you should 
be good until November 2038 (although there’s plenty of other epochs that will 
break stuff before then I reckon)
Gareth

On 3 Jan 2020, at 13:38, SK53  wrote:


I was using an older Garmin etrex Legend HC as a backup track recorder over the 
New Year, and failed to find my tracks. It turns out that the date is incorrect 
and instead of 1st Jan 2020 the device was registering 17 May 2000.

Anyone who still uses these may be interested that a firmware patch is 
available: (https://support.garmin.com/en-GB/?faq=qpVUfZBKI28PqnPd6HuXa6.

I've run this from Windows 10 successfully for my GPS.

Happy New Year,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

[Gareth L]

Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion. There does appear to 
still be a bit of a trick here as the disused tag for areas/buildings is still 
expected to be used with regards to an amenity tag, and building=apartments is 
a description of the construction/building but also indicates its use.

The towers in question are due to be demolished in 2020. I’ve made them 
building=yes and kept the building level tags, and name, as they’re still 
visible. The landuse has been changed from residential to brownfield.
Additionally, i’ve added a note and a source indicating their expected 
demolishion date.

Fwiw, building=disused with disused=apartment *does* render differently (dashed 
lines, like construction) in the ID editor at least... but that’s just one 
render, so i’ve held back.

Gareth


From: Warin
Sent: 18 December 2019 23:47
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

On 19/12/19 00:41, Mike Baggaley wrote:
> Perhaps setting both building=yes and disused: building=apartments
> would fulfill all the needs.

Err no. Having both tags on the one object is contradictory.

How is it determined which tag to render?


A building=* is rendered one way.
A disused:building=* is rendered another.

So .. is it a "building" or a "disused building"???



___
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] Laura Ashley - looking for tagging consensus

[Gareth L]

My local branch is a Laura Ashley Home and branded as such.
 http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/u08Hvnyzpex1Z6OmilaKjw/photo
(On the left)

Gareth

On 20 Dec 2019, at 09:47, Tom Hughes  wrote:

I see there's at least one near me that has been named in
exactly that way as "Laura Ashley Home":

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5024407483

No idea if that actually reflects how the shop is branded
though.

Tom

On 20/12/2019 09:08, Jez Nicholson wrote:
You could generalise if the majority of stores fit the standard category, as 
individual shops can still be 'interior_decoration' if that is all that they 
do. A difficulty could be that editing apps suggest that it is 'incorrect' and 
needs updating. Some chains make it easier by having a sub-brand like "Laura 
Ashley Home", but clearly some do not.
I curse the real world for refusing to fit itself into our categorisation 
scheme! :D
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 8:53 AM Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
   Hi,
   I may be wrong, but I believe that there were some home (furniture)
   shops that didn’t sell clothing, and some years ago my family would
   reliably buy wallpaper from Laura Ashley which had the traditional
   Laura Ashley design on it. So that would seem to back up the
   “interior_decoration” tag. So I don’t know that you can necessarily
   generalise without a survey of each store - although I agree that
   clothing is probably the most likely for most cases these days. Not
   that I’ve been in one for quite some time!
   Regards,
   Stuart
   On 20 Dec 2019, at 07:25, Jez Nicholson mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

   Thanks for consulting. Even if you don't get a huge response (like
   with The Range) it is good to get wider opinion. With The Range I
   simply didn't know so had no response.

   A short poll in my household (myself + my wife) concluded: "Laura
   Ashley is a clothing store that happens to also sell furniture"

   On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, 00:52 Silent Spike, mailto:silentspike...@gmail.com>> wrote:

   I'm a UK based maintainer of the name suggestion index
   
   and would like to get this brand added. Unfortunately it's not
   so obvious how it should be tagged and I'm not comfortable
   making a tagging judgement call alone without consulting the
   UK community.

   My last thread of this nature for The Range didn't attract
   many responses, but some input is always better than none and
   it allowed me to get that brand into the index knowing that if
   consensus changes then the tagging can easily be updated in OSM.

   Here's the Laura Ashley website and Wikipedia page for those
   unaware of this chain:
   https://www.lauraashley.com/en-gb
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ashley_plc

   It looks like currently there are:

 * 44 shop=clothes
 * 20 shop=furniture
 * 15 shop=interior_decoration
 * 4 shop=houseware
 * 1 shop=home_furnishing
 * 1 shop=fabric
 * 1 shop=fashion

   This makes sense as it seems that furniture and clothing are
   the main items sold. The tagging alone seems to suggest
   `shop=clothing` is favoured more - does this seem reasonable
   or do you think another tagging is more suitable?
   ___
   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


--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

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

[Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition

[Gareth L]

There are some tower blocks near me which have been emptied of residents ahead 
of eventual demolition of the buildings. They’re not coming back into use due 
to issues with their construction.
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/lzDlWfY8iYo2cUVmO1FNmQ/photo They’re boarded up 
to secure them in the interim.

All the guidance I can find on the abandoned or disused tags are to leave the 
building as defined but to use abandoned/disused prefix on the amenity.

These didn’t have an amenity though. They do still exist on the ground, but no 
longer function as apartments.

I’d like to use construction style tagging, but it doesn’t feel quite right 
looking at all examples I’ve found. e.g.
Building=disused
Disused=apartments

What have you used for buildings which are awaiting demolition, or are 
undergoing a protracted demolition process but are not amenities?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Gareth L]

I’m all for using a polygon per field, but am unsure what to do at the 
boundaries. Do I make 2 field polygons meet? Or leave a gap as there’s a 
track/hedge/fence/small coppice/ ditch/drain ? I’m probably not going to be 
able to map the boundary particularly accurately in a first pass, so would 
rather omit than put in inaccurate barriers 

Any suggestions?

Gareth 

> On 16 Dec 2019, at 11:38, Tony OSM  wrote:
> 
> Mapping Fields - preferred method I think is individual fields, or at least 
> polygons which are based on road or natural boundaries. Mea Culpa - I have 
> also mapped farmland as larger polygons.
> 
> Large polygons make life difficult when a field changes use - near where I 
> live it becomes scrub for several years before being developed for 
> housing/industrial/retail.
> 
>> On 16/12/2019 10:21, Philip Barnes wrote:
>>> On Monday, 16 December 2019, David Groom wrote:
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Dave F via Talk-GB" 
>>> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>>> Sent: 14/12/2019 15:54:13
>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?
>>> 
 On 14/12/2019 15:19, Martin Wynne wrote:
> Is this "farmland"?
> 
>  http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg
 I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.
 
 I concur with your frustration about 'huge multi polygons', especially 
 when joined to other features such as roads & rivers. I believe a few 
 mappers were keen to fill in the gaps rather than map accurately. 
 Personally I think there should be one polygon per field, but I admit that 
 makes for a lot more work.
 
>>> I see no benefit to mapping individual fields as separate polygons
>>> tagged as farmland if adjacent fields are also farmland. Could you
>>> explain why you think this is best?
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>> Large polygons make future editing very difficult.
>> 
>> It is very beneficial to differentiate between arable, pasture and hopefully 
>> we can get real meadow back from the misuse it has received.
>> 
>> Farming use changes, mapping individual fields allows farmland types or 
>> other changes to be maintained far easier than if it is part of a huge 
>> polygon.
>> 
>> All in all it goes to make for a better more usable map.
>> 
>> Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Elections Online website - candidate for OSM?

[Gareth L]

Potentially use https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-put-OpenStreetMap-on-my-website

Gareth

On 3 Dec 2019, at 09:47, Edward Bainton  wrote:


Hi all

General Elections 
Online
 (hosted at parliament.uk) have got a failed page where 
the Google map is overlaid with "Development purposes only".

I was planning to suggest they use OSM instead.

Can anyone point me to the precise technical detail their webmaster will need? 
Is it the wiki page, Deploying your own Slippy 
Map?

Thanks,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Name Suggestion Index

[Gareth L]

Curious as to what is selected for branches of The Range. That was recently 
highlighted as being tricky to categorise.

Gareth

> On 6 Nov 2019, at 07:51, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 08:24, Jez Nicholson  wrote:
>> I was wondering how iD (and Vespucci) decides what to offer as brands when I 
>> create a new feature, or when it suggests something like "Ibis looks like a 
>> brand with incomplete tags". The answer is the 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Name_Suggestion_Index (NSI) ...now 
>> detailed on a wiki page that I created.
>> 
>> The NSI is a github repository, so updates and editions can be suggested. 
>> This can be done via your own fork or on the OSMUK fork. I'm not sure what 
>> will work best for us yet.
> 
> I stumbled across the NSI myself a couple of months ago, while looking
> to add brand tags to shops in my local area though iD. I've been
> collecting a list of missing UK brands (or at least ones that iD
> didn't suggest) and also some potential errors (e.g. where it's
> assumed all shops of a certain brand have a specific shop tag, when in
> reality there can be some variation in the types of outlets). What I
> haven't looked into yet is the mechanics of how to suggest
> adding/correcting entries and what other info is needed for each one.
> (Submitting github issues and pull requests for each individual brand
> seems like a lot of effort on the face of it -- but maybe that's what
> you need to do.)
> 
> In case anyone is interested in adding these, or providing details of
> how to do it, here's the list of missing brands that I've collected so
> far (some may have been added since I started collecting):
> 
>  Animal (Clothes)
>  Barnado's (charity)
>  Bill's (retaurant)
>  Bon Marché (clothes)
>  Byron (restaurant/burgers)
>  Café Rouge (restaurant)
>  Card Factory (cards)
>  Fred Olsen Travel (travel_agent)
>  Hughes (electrical goods)
>  Johnsons (dry_cleaning)
>  Jones the Bootmaker (shoes)
>  Mr. Shoes (shoes)
>  Muffin Break (Cafe)
>  Scrivens (optician)
>  Timpson (key-cutting / shoe_repair)
>  The Perfume Shop (perfumery)
>  Topman / Topshop (clothes)
>  TUI (travel_agency)
>  William H Brown (estate_agent)
>  YMCA (charity shop)
>  Yours (clothes)
> 
> And here are the one I think there are problems with:
> 
>  Greggs (allow amenity=cafe or shop=bakery or both)
>  Clintons (should recognise shop=cards as well as shop=gift when
> suggesting 'upgrades' in iD)
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Robert.
> 
> -- 
> Robert Whittaker
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Today's meetup

[Gareth L]

I’ll still be there doing a foot survey and will do a mapillary survey tomorrow 
(better weather) if I can note enough progress in construction
Gareth

> On 26 Oct 2019, at 08:43, Brian Prangle  wrote:
> 
> 
> Dreadful weather: cancelled
> ___
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Mappa Mercia October mapping

[Gareth L]

Yeah, this works for me too. See you then.

On 12 Oct 2019, at 13:59, Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

26th is good for me. Does it work for you Gareth?

Rob

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 15:38 Brian Prangle, 
mailto:br...@mappa-mercia.org>> wrote:
Hi Gareth

My only two free dates are 19 and 26 October. Of the two I'd prefer 26 October. 
So I propose 26 October unless it's inconvenient for anyone else

Regards

Brian

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:51 AM Gareth L 
mailto:o...@live.co.uk>> wrote:
Hello,
Has a Saturday to visit Houlton, this October, been decided upon?
The link road (from Clifton-upon-dunsmore/butlers leap) wass due to be opened 
imminently, although it was scheduled “late september/early october” and now it 
sounds like December.

A lot more construction work is underway, to the west of the visitors centre - 
closer to hillmorton - although my brief passing through the other night made 
it look mostly like groundwork and foundations, with a portion of the crick 
road having a lane closure and a trench dug along it.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS

[Gareth L]

Are you including the continental drift? That will make etrs89 gps coords be 
about 60-70cm off by now


On 9 Oct 2019, at 11:06, Simon Ritchie 
mailto:simonritchie...@gmail.com>> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 OS Map Ref 
 Cartesian

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

distance

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Mappa Mercia October mapping

[Gareth L]

Hello,
Has a Saturday to visit Houlton, this October, been decided upon?
The link road (from Clifton-upon-dunsmore/butlers leap) wass due to be opened 
imminently, although it was scheduled “late september/early october” and now it 
sounds like December.

A lot more construction work is underway, to the west of the visitors centre - 
closer to hillmorton - although my brief passing through the other night made 
it look mostly like groundwork and foundations, with a portion of the crick 
road having a lane closure and a trench dug along it.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] non-squared buildings

[Gareth L]

Most buildings have square edges*. I know, i know! Some dont, but most do. In 
many areas, the buildings were built to the same size and shape, so if they’re 
squared, they’re easily replicated, especially looking how dense new housing 
estates are. Detached house but so close together you cannot pull your wheelie 
bin through the gap between the back garden and driveway.



It’s also pleasing to the eye. It’s not so much accuracy as tidiness. Look at 
grids networks the world over.



* older buildings or repurposed buildings are often not so square, but people 
sure do like it as a shape over a triangular floorprint, no?



Gareth




From: Philip Barnes 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 11:26:15 AM
To: jez.nichol...@gmail.com 
Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] non-squared buildings

On Monday, 30 September 2019, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Some people seem quite animated about non-squared buildings in OSMcan
> anyone tell me why it matters so much? because 'accuracy'?

Was thinking about squared buildings whilst in my local high street a while 
back.

There wasn't one in sight.

Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
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] Mapillary users

[Gareth L]

Hello,

Over on the mapillary forum there is a request for user stories from OSM 
contributors that use mapillary. It’s here 
https://forum.mapillary.com/t/osmers-how-do-you-use-the-mapillary-web-app/3253

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

Re: [Talk-GB] postcode mapping (was Re: Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only))

[Gareth L]

I’ve certainly seen full addresses + postcode on the outside of some 
businesses. Never on a house though.

Leeds and London and a few other towns have partial postcodes on street signs.

That wiki page could do with an update and  links to current acceptable 
sources. (As it is flagged as out of date)


On 30 Jul 2019, at 14:20, Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:




30 Jul 2019, 11:56 by nd...@redhazel.co.uk:
10M addresses that have yet to be surveyed.
Is it typical for post codes to be posted like housenumbers? Either on 
buildings or postboxes?

Https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_postcodes
 is not clear,
http://www.livingwithdragons.com/2009/06/my-postbox-obsession suggest that it 
may be true.

I am asking as it may be a suitable quest for StreetComplete.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits

[Gareth L]

Hello,

Amazon are indeed adding service roads at quite a pace, although with gps from 
their drivers and aerial imagery to support.
As noted here 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-July/023252.html they 
are responding and soliciting to community feedback on their tagging, which I 
consider quite responsible.

Driveways are a refinement of highway=service, so tagging it as highway service 
strikes me as a decent start to incrementing the detail of the map. So far I’ve 
only seen them add missing ways rather than alter existing ones, or revert some 
tagging they did on the ways they created following community feedback.

I agree with you, Andy, that their user profile boilerplate messages could be 
more helpful. An email address isn’t the most transparent way of seeing what 
concerns are being raised.

Gareth

On 29 Jul 2019, at 09:43, Dan S 
mailto:danstowell+...@gmail.com>> wrote:

"stinks of armchair mapping" - that sounds rather derogatory. My
understanding is that these are organised edits informed in
significant part by Amazon's own GPS logs from their delivery staff.
(Am I misunderstanding?) If so, referring to it as "armchair" is
irrelevant; either way, referring to it as "stinks" is just not very
nice. If they should be adding driveway tags then how about emailing
their nominated contact address and teaching them the good ways?

Best
Dan

Op ma 29 jul. 2019 om 09:37 schreef Andy Robinson 
mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com>>:

I've just looked at a number of Amazon Logistics in my local area. A lot of
service roads are getting added which on face value look perhaps to be
driveways but that tag hasn't been added. Just stinks of armchair mapping.
The users (three I spotted off the bat) all have the following   "I work for
Amazon Logistics. At Amazon Logistics, we've been utilizing OSM in some
cases related to our delivery programs. In connection with those delivery
programs, we have collected information that we think is valuable to the OSM
community such as names and info about new roads that are not currently in
the map today, new data on turn restrictions, and road connectivity, to name
a few. When we hear feedback, we've been editing to provide that information
for the benefit of the entire OSM user community. If you have more
questions, please contact 
osm-edit-escalati...@amazon.com" in 
their username
profiles but there is no link to what's really going on and what the basis
of the edits are.

Anyone else have concerns over benefits?

Cheers
Andy


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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Gareth L]

This was discussed on the wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate with the suggestion 
of using a status tag. And was also discussed (9 years ago?!) 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/thread.html



Tagging things as access=private does impact routing a lot, so I’d evaluate 
that use carefully.



Gareth




From: Andy Robinson 
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 10:55:37 AM
To: 'Stephen Colebourne' ; 'talk-gb OSM List' 

Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

If a gate opens automatically I would say it's an access=yes regardless of how 
the way is tagged.

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebou...@joda.org]
Sent: 26 July 2019 10:47
To: talk-gb OSM List
Subject: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

I'd like to distinguish between two kinds of gate on private roads:

- those where the gate is closed by default (eg automatic closing)
- those where the gate is open by default (the gate exists, but is
rarely if ever closed)

Currently I'm marking both as barrier=gate & access=private, but I
can't see an obvoius way to mark the open/closed by default aspect.
One thought was to use access=permissive on those that are open (with
the highway still access=private).

Any suggestions?

Stephen
PS, I do want to mark the gate on the map even if it is always open

___
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] Trig Point references

[Gareth L]

Adjacent to this query, there’s a Facebook group where people post photos of 
postboxes https://m.facebook.com/postboxcollection/
It would be very useful to be able to fill in the blanks, like royal_cypher and 
potentially collection times. Many postboxes have just the reference number on 
Osm. Who owns the data here? Each submitter, the group admin, Facebook?

Apologies for derail, but there is quite a parallel.

Gareth

On 12 Jul 2019, at 21:59, Simon Ritchie 
mailto:simonritchie...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> I've noticed that some trigpoints are tagged with  a reference prefixed TPUK. 
> This is a reference to the numbers assigned by the website 
> http://trigpointing.uk/ which has the following text as a footer: "The 
> TrigpointingUK database is owned and maintained by Ian Harris (Teasel)"
That doesn't sound very open to me - does anyone know what permission we have 
to use this data?

Hmm.  Good point.  Most of the data in Ian's database is contributed by the 
trigpointers - reports of visits to the trigs.  Most of the data about the 
actual trigs on the site (position etc) comes from the OS.  See this page 
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/gps/legacy-control-information/triangulation-stations,
 which says "This data, which is no longer maintained, is available for use 
under Open Government Licence Terms."

That page provides a downloadable CSV  giving the names used by the OS. 
position, type, status etc.  However, the names starting TP seem to be created 
by Ian, so I think he owns them, just as Royal Mail owns the postcode data.

One solution would be to quote the OS names instead.  Another would be to use 
the contact page on Ian's site and ask him for permission to use his names.  
I'm guessing that he would be happy.

Regards

Simon


___
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] Importing NaPTAN Data [Thread 2]

[Gareth L]

Forgive me if this is silly question/statement, but the adj/alt names etc are 
in the naptan dataset. Wouldn’t it be better to have the link made between the 
stop in OSM and the record in naptan (using the codes prior mentioned).
My thinking is data consumers could link and retrieve values using that. 
Merging the extra data values again might potentially develop discrepancies 
over time.

I’d think the atco code is unique and (hopefully) not reused, but the alt names 
etc could be modified over time.


Gareth

On 5 Jul 2019, at 12:34, Silent Spike 
mailto:silentspike...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:35 AM Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
-snip-

Hope that helps.

Pretty much the perfect response, thank you!

Good point about alternate names, will add support for those to my script now 
(maybe unnecessary for my area, but I'd like to share it in future). I see that 
many of the English alternate names are nearby landmarks or features (e.g. "The 
Crossroads"). Should I include these too as `loc_name` or similar (open 
question to all)?
___
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] Importing NaPTAN Data [Thread 2]

[Gareth L]

I’m certain I’ve seen “text this bus stop code to see next departures” use the 
naptan code. Whether or not that service is still live, I dunno.

On 5 Jul 2019, at 10:17, Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:


5 Jul 2019, 09:04 by silentspike...@gmail.com:

 *   `naptan:AtcoCode=*` [Imported]
 *   `naptan:NaptanCode=*` [Imported]

I reformatted
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:naptan:AtcoCode
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:naptan:NaptanCode
(added templates making them machine readable, descriptions will appear
for example at Taginfo)

Is it useful to use both? What is the difference between them?
Is NaptanCode actually used as planned ("referring to the stop in public facing 
systems")?

Alternatively, if you support the proposal then it's also useful to know 

It may help to include example (of full) .osm data file to make easy for mappers
to judge data quality in their area.
___
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] Mapillary geoJSON data

[Gareth L]

Mapillary imagery is readily available in the iD editor and also the traffic 
sign detections data that they derive from it. Their computer vision efforts 
also detect a plethora of other items, to varying levels of accuracy on 
detection and triangulation.
They recently wrote a blog post about how they allow access to the data sets 
derived from the imagery, which is free for non-commercial direct to OSM use, 
although they charge it out to other companies.

The blog post is 
https://blog.mapillary.com/update/2019/05/23/map-features-in-openstreetmap.html 
which also explains how to access it in GeoJSON form or using pic4review.
And the item detections that they support are listed here: 
https://www.mapillary.com/developer/api-documentation/#points

As mapillary’s content gets older, i believe it’s possible to request the 
results from only imagery in a specified time period, hopefully eliminating 
stale results.

The blog post does say that they’re trialling parts of the data with certain 
osm communities before making it more widely available for OSM contributors. At 
the moment, specific geoJSON data needs to be requested through an organization 
account.

I personally found the pic4review task which helped refine tags for benches 
having a backrest very satisfying.

What specific use cases can you think of for this?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves

[Gareth L]

The bounds of an area don’t mean there’s a barrier there. But a nature reserve 
does render on that map in a similar way to a tree line or hedgerow would be 
rendered.

I’d leave it as it is. The problem is appears to how it renders, rather than 
how it is mapped. It could be totally fine with a different tile set. It’d be 
better to try and get the standard Osm map rendering scheme tweaked. They do it 
fairly frequently.

Gareth

> On 5 Jun 2019, at 18:56, Martin Wynne  wrote:
> 
> At this location there is a large area of open sandy heath, forming a nature 
> reserve:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.3716/-2.2816
> 
> In fact it is two nature reserves side by side with different names and 
> ownership. One is charity-owned and managed by the county Wildlife Trust, the 
> other is owned and managed by the local District Council.
> 
> On the ground the boundary between them is barely visible, just odd bits of 
> old fencing in places, and footpaths criss-cross between them. The visitor 
> material tends to combine them as a single nature reserve, and that is how 
> most folks think of them:
> 
> http://www.worcswildlifetrust.co.uk/reserves/the-devils-spittleful-rifle-range-and-blackstone-farm-fields
> 
> The council's web site refers to them linking "seamlessly":
> 
> https://www.wyreforestdc.gov.uk/things-to-see-do-and-visit/countryside-and-nature/nature-reserves/rifle-range-sssi.aspx
> 
> But on the OSM standard map, the common boundary is shown as a bold green 
> line, which bears no relation to anything on the ground and could be 
> misleading for visitors.
> 
> Here's a picture of the boundary, running approx from 8 o'clock to 2 o'clock:
> 
> http://85a.uk/rifle_range_boundary_960x448.jpg
> 
> Is there a better way to map this? If I combine them as a single nature 
> reserve, is there a way to name the two parts of it separately? Is there a 
> way to show the common boundary less prominently?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Martin.
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Preston Park, Brighton

[Gareth L]

Especially as they currently draw the route on google maps! 
https://www.parkrun.org.uk/prestonpark/course/




From: Gareth L 
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 2:04:35 PM
To: Jez Nicholson; Philip Barnes
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Preston Park, Brighton

I agree with Phil. Would love to find parkrun render all their running routes. 
They already show locations on an OSM sourced map.
But as they choose the route, and they’re transient affairs with no indication 
outside of the event, I’d keep it in their own database. (much like buses)

Gareth

From: Jez Nicholson<mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>
Sent: 04 June 2019 13:41
To: Philip Barnes<mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk>
Cc: Talk-GB<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Preston Park, Brighton

Yeah, the Parkrun idea was spur-of-the-moment. I could argue that I can verify 
it on the ground any Saturday morning as it'll be covered in runners. I don't 
really want to proliferate Relations, but could be convinced if we got Parkrun 
itself to hook up with us to provide route maps. Not even sure it works anyway 
as the route involves 2 laps with slight differences. Anyway, i digress. Not 
going to do it now.

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 13:27 Philip Barnes, 
mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk>> wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 June 2019, Tony Shield wrote:
>
> Parkrun as a relation - why not, its similar to a country walk and we
> notate those. Would want to add parkrun description to UK wiki as to the
> meanings in the relationship.
>
We only map walking, or cycling, routes which are verifiable on the ground.

These should only be mapped if there are permanent markers.

I am always  on the lookout for waymarks and I certainly haven't spotted any 
around The Quarry in Shrewsbury, where apparently one happens every Saturday.

Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
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] Preston Park, Brighton

[Gareth L]

I agree with Phil. Would love to find parkrun render all their running routes. 
They already show locations on an OSM sourced map.
But as they choose the route, and they’re transient affairs with no indication 
outside of the event, I’d keep it in their own database. (much like buses)

Gareth

From: Jez Nicholson
Sent: 04 June 2019 13:41
To: Philip Barnes
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Preston Park, Brighton

Yeah, the Parkrun idea was spur-of-the-moment. I could argue that I can verify 
it on the ground any Saturday morning as it'll be covered in runners. I don't 
really want to proliferate Relations, but could be convinced if we got Parkrun 
itself to hook up with us to provide route maps. Not even sure it works anyway 
as the route involves 2 laps with slight differences. Anyway, i digress. Not 
going to do it now.

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 13:27 Philip Barnes, 
mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk>> wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 June 2019, Tony Shield wrote:
>
> Parkrun as a relation - why not, its similar to a country walk and we
> notate those. Would want to add parkrun description to UK wiki as to the
> meanings in the relationship.
>
We only map walking, or cycling, routes which are verifiable on the ground.

These should only be mapped if there are permanent markers.

I am always  on the lookout for waymarks and I certainly haven't spotted any 
around The Quarry in Shrewsbury, where apparently one happens every Saturday.

Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
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] sidewalks

[Gareth L]

A surprising number of the new build housing estates around me have few 
pavements and are not very contiguous. There’s often even a space where they 
could lay the asphalt, but then it’s left as grass – before then getting 
sequestered as cars park over it.
I’d like to see more affirmative mapping of sidewalks. Starting with it being a 
suggested tag in the iD editor, and other editors.
Similar to how you can just toggle an option to add the lit, tunnel, bridge, 
etc. parameters for roads. Manually adding sidewalk:both/left/right=yes/no is 
overlooked.
Maps are so car centric, and walking directions are stuck with disclaimers 
along the lines of  ‘we don’t know how suitable this route is to walk, good 
luck!’.
I hope we can improve upon that.

Gareth

From: Jez Nicholson
Sent: 01 June 2019 11:39
To: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

Agree with both Gareth and Dan. It's all part of the discussion on how detailed 
the map goes, and possibly more relevant in countries with wider roads and 
obviously separate sidewalks. In the UK we always assume that a road has a 
pavement unless stated otherwise. I came slightly unstuck myself when walking 
from a guesthouse to an office in Exeter and having to drag a wheelie case 
along a grass verge :)

Happy for them to be added in special cases like raised pavements, but when 
they are exactly next to the road it doesn't really add much.

Like with the relation I was also whining about, i'm not going to go removing 
anything, but I did comment on the sidewalk changeset to take care.

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Dan S 
mailto:danstowell%2b...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I noticed a "sidewalk" here too in Brighton:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684610225

I'm ambivalent. Both of these examples are pavements that are fully
adjacent (continguous) to their roads, and by default I'd prefer not
to map them separately. I guess the long one that you refer to does
sometimes rise above the road, and even has steps down at at least one
point, so perhaps worth being a separate feature?

Dan

Op za 1 jun. 2019 om 11:12 schreef Jez Nicholson 
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>>:
>
> Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn 
> which i'm not overly impressed withor am I being a Luddite?
>
> Regards,
>   Jez
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

[Gareth L]

I was about to say, relations of this manner seem duplicitous of simply having 
an address.

Street objects.. like bins and benches might make a bit of sense. I don’t think 
I’ve ever seen a street address on a bench node. But I’m fairly sure a query 
could be crafted to detect the nearest way to get that information, should it 
be required.

Gareth


From: Dave F via Talk-GB 
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 11:29:33 AM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

Hi

I've yet to hear a valid reasoning for this relation type. It's much more 
beneficial to add addresses instead.

There appears an increasing tendency to collect almost anything together into a 
relation. See public-transport's 'stop_area' as another example This is not why 
relations were conceived. It just adds duplication, confusion & errors.

Personally I would delete associatedStreet.

DaveF

On 01/06/2019 11:10, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Has anyone else come across relations grouping road assets? i.e. the road
itself plus shops, buildings, street objects? e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1866997 Has this format become
accepted elsewhere in the world or is it experimental?

Regards,
  Jez





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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Gareth L]

Sidewalks (pavements) are difficult in the compressed and crowded layouts of 
our towns and cities. I would love them to be more uniformly mapped though. As 
they rarely are mapped, where they are, they stand out and look a bit out of 
place.

What do you think it lacks? Would it be improved with the pavements on the 
intersecting streets shown also?

Gareth


From: Jez Nicholson 
Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2019 11:11:28 AM
To: Talk-GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which 
i'm not overly impressed withor am I being a Luddite?

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Road junctions

[Gareth L]

Thank you all for your feedback on this. I’ll have a look at the options and 
hopefully get to tidy it up early next week.




From: Brian Prangle 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 1:35:29 PM
To: Rob Nickerson; OSM Group WM
Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Road junctions

Hi Rob

Replied in a similar vein to Gareth with a  reworked JOSM file for him to study 
and/or upload

Regards

Brian

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 1:29 PM Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I would put a lot less feeder roads in. How does it look if you only split the 
road when there is a physical object it needs to go around? For example don't 
split the left/right turn lanes when driving frm Technology Drive to Mill Road 
as there is no physical barrier between these lanes.

If you'd like, I can have a go at mapping it how I would do it so that you can 
compare...let me know?

Rob


On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 23:53, Gareth L 
mailto:o...@live.co.uk>> wrote:
Hello all,

Is there a nice example of mapping road junctions? Particularly ones that are 
spread out?
Basically, I’ve had a punt at mapping the junction between technology drive and 
mill road in Rugby. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.38125/-1.24981 It 
has all the turn restrictions correct, and I’d expect it to route beautifully, 
but... avoiding the mapping for the renderer pitfalls, it looks rather rough.
My objective here was actually to allow myself to map the pedestrian/cycle ways 
more clearly - especially the crossing islands - as the crossing doesn’t clear 
right across the junction, just across the lane. The issue is this large T 
junction is spread over a very large area of asphalt with filter lanes etc.

I guess my gripe is having a bunch of ways representing what is really a field 
of asphalt. I’d welcome some advice on this, even if it’s “oh gads, revert that 
to a simple T junction immediately”, although in that case I’d really like to 
know the right way to do it, if such a thing exists.

There’s substantial mapillary and google streetview imagery available of this 
location if you want some context.

Kind regards
Gareth

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

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

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Road junctions

[Gareth L]

Hello all,

Is there a nice example of mapping road junctions? Particularly ones that are 
spread out?
Basically, I’ve had a punt at mapping the junction between technology drive and 
mill road in Rugby. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.38125/-1.24981 It 
has all the turn restrictions correct, and I’d expect it to route beautifully, 
but... avoiding the mapping for the renderer pitfalls, it looks rather rough.
My objective here was actually to allow myself to map the pedestrian/cycle ways 
more clearly - especially the crossing islands - as the crossing doesn’t clear 
right across the junction, just across the lane. The issue is this large T 
junction is spread over a very large area of asphalt with filter lanes etc.

I guess my gripe is having a bunch of ways representing what is really a field 
of asphalt. I’d welcome some advice on this, even if it’s “oh gads, revert that 
to a simple T junction immediately”, although in that case I’d really like to 
know the right way to do it, if such a thing exists.

There’s substantial mapillary and google streetview imagery available of this 
location if you want some context.

Kind regards
Gareth

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Déjà vu

[Gareth L]

Ive used http://overpass-api.de/achavi/ for this, if there is no trace of the 
element. Not so good on mobile.

On 23 May 2019, at 12:12, Jez Nicholson 
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

When tracking down some FHRS sites I have distinct feelings of déjà vuI'm 
sure that I've seen a shop/cafe in the map ages ago but now cannot see it. I 
have to admit to being a dummy on some OSM features. Is there a simple way to 
zoom in on a place and either see it how it was in the past, or get the history?

For example, i could swear that there were shops next to the Royal Pav Tav on 
Castle Square in Brighton 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.82127/-0.13829

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

Re: [Talk-GB] multiple GB lists

[Gareth L]

I’m for culling redundant lists, but I’d expect there may be people who are 
keen to receive the emails as they come in on say, the west-mids group but 
would only tolerate a weekly digest email on the main talk-gb list (or haven’t 
subbed for that very reason).

So, yeah. Probably worth posting on those specific lists about any suggestion 
to merge into talk-gb.

Gareth

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

Re: [Talk-GB] GPS longboat positioning

[Gareth L]

I’d not discount AIS. It’s deemed mostly for shipping because it’s mandatory if 
a vessel is over 300 gross tonnage, but it can be applied to canal boats, and 
even buildings!. An ais transponder is not the cheapest, typically £250-500, 
and may not compare well with a vessel of that size.
People with a land based AIS receiver can usually share their feed on the 
internet and get free access to a global api, otherwise you need to pay to 
access the feed (similar to how you see in marinetraffic.com or 
vesseltracker.com). A map can be embedded and filtered on the vessel(s) wanted, 
if desired.

For your immediate needs, https://locatoweb.com/en/features appears to do 
what’s wanted. An embeddable real time gps trace map for your website is 
available.

This is not something I’ve ever had to use.. so I dunno if there are hidden 
fees beyond signup. It just states:
Limitations
This service is expensive to maintain and we reserve the rights to block 
excessive usage and abuse if necessary.
LocaToWeb can be used for business purposes, but then a Business Account is 
required!

But whether that applies to you? I’m unsure.

Gareth


From: BD 
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 7:43:56 PM
To: talk gb
Subject: [Talk-GB] GPS longboat positioning

Hi all,

please see below an email send to Anglia Linux User list. As this is more 
relevant to OSM forum I decided to paste it here.

Phil Thane p...@pthane.co.uk 
przez earth.li

[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]


Hello all,

As the N Wales and Wrexham recipients of this will know, I'm not a developer, 
the Anglian recipients probably don't know me at all but I moved here a couple 
of years ago. Over the last 15 years I've written a lot about Linux and FOSS 
for various magazines and websites, but I'm no expert, so bear with me.

Now I'm mostly retired I have a river/canal cruiser. Last year I did a 
single-handed trip of about 10 days in each direction to a boat show. So that 
my family could keep track I enabled 'find my phone' on my mobile and gave them 
the login details. OK as far as it goes but not ideal obvs. I also 
blogged each day and then wrote it all up for a 
boat magazine. This year I plan a longer trip - to the Llangollen International 
Eisteddfod - about 3 weeks each way. I've sorted out WIFi and a laptop charger 
on the boat so I can blog better, now I'd like to improve the mapping. The 
ideal would be a map I can embed in a WP page on my website, that updates every 
few minutes as I travel. GPS from either my phone, or if really necessary a 
dedicated GPS device.

Does anyone know if such is already possible using OSM + plugins etc? I've had 
a quick look online but most advice refers to Google maps. Most of the rest 
gets very technical very quickly. Goes over my head.

Plan B, is there a dev out there looking for a project? Unpaid and 'free' 
naturally! Would it feasible to create something like FlightRadar' that 
displayed boat positions on inland waterways? There is already 
marinetraffic.com for shipping, but that's way too 
big. I'm thinking of something boat owners could subscribe to that was 
available online and capable of being embedded in a webpage.

--
Phil

Hopefully someone might have ideas, I'm interested myself as fair few other 
uses come to my mind.

Cheers,
Bart

___
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

[Gareth L]

I’d hope these would inherit from whatever the address is enclosed in.

On 27 Jan 2019, at 21:22, Colin Smale 
mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:


Assuming the post code is seen in OSM as a way of addressing post (as opposed 
to a geographic subdivision or an indication of location) then I suggest 
following Royal Mail's address structure, which can be seen in the description 
of the Postcode Address File on Wikipedia [1]. If we cannot map a full-format 
address onto OSM tags, we need a description of how to deal with this (i.e. 
which bits to leave out or combine).

I have taken the table from wikipedia and added a column for the OSM tags where 
known. Most of these fields are actually optional, or not always present, 
depending on the exact address in question.

How do we fill in the blanks?


Element Field name  Description Max length  OSM
OrganisationOrganisation Name   60  n/a
Department Name 60  n/a
PremisesSub Building Name   30
Building Name   50  addr:housename
Building Number 4   addr:housenumber
ThoroughfareDependent Thoroughfare Name 60
Dependent Thoroughfare Descriptor   20
Thoroughfare Name   Street  60  addr:street
Thoroughfare Descriptor 20
LocalityDouble Dependent Locality   Small villages  35
Dependent Locality  35
Post town   30  addr:city
PostcodePostcode7   addr:postcode
PO Box  PO Box  6



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcode_Address_File




On 2019-01-27 21:40, 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
___
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] I have a philosophical question...

[Gareth L]

It’s easy to forget that OSM is a geographically referenced database of 
objects. That just happens to be rendered as a map. If you want to know how 
many post boxes have the George the 5th cypher, you can query the database to 
find out. If you want to limit that by geographic bounds (say, a city’s limits) 
then great, you can do that.

Google maps things to keep people in their ecosystem and find more out about 
where people want to go. They care most about points of interest so they can 
advertise accordingly, or suggest to those points of interest/businesses that 
they may want to pay google money so they get seen better than they would do 
normally. It’s why cities have streetview data barely a year old, but country 
roads are 7 years out of date. There’s little money in covering it.

Roads/lane markings are getting a lot of attention because of assistive driving 
system development causing a shedload of money being pumped into that area of 
interest.

I like adding to OSM as a pedestrian. It’s annoying to walk a circuitous route 
to a shop only to find there’s an alleyway that will take you there in 10% of 
the time.

The freely available database allows interesting data to be presented with low 
barrier to entry. As academia finds, it’s annoying to have to pay to view a 
journal behind a paywall, when you dunno if it even has the info you want.

A couple weaknesses for the main OSM ‘map’ I’ve found:
Transport routes (particularly buses) change too frequently and would be better 
as a separate service that is overlaid onto an OSM derived map.

All the different features that people have as priorities to add are valid, but 
it’s sometimes tricky to figure out the best order to add them in. Why add all 
the stiles and gates to a field before you have the footpaths added? Or adding 
bins and benches by roads before defining what kind of pavement/sidewalk it 
has.*

A couple Strengths of OSM:

Updates are fast. Google/bing are less fast at updating areas, and especially 
so if in a quiet region. OS only publish a new paper map when the old one has 
gone out of print, meaning the Leicestershire map is more out of date than the 
more popular peak district ones.

If you want more info available on xyz feature.. you can add it, and encourage 
others to do so also.


So, back to the philosophical question: I’d say it’s all important. However, 
the order that things are best added to the map could be helpful to know. Not 
in a tollgate “don’t add z until qrstuvwxy has been added first” way, but 
knowing what additional information is enabled to be added as a result of you 
adding a certain feature.

*sidewalks are such a nightmare in general in osm with no easy approach on how 
to best add them, it seems.

Not an easy question!
Gareth

From: BD
Sent: 13 January 2019 23:10
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] I have a philosophical question...

Hi All,

I do make my little contribution to the effort of OSM. Recently I added some 
data to Mapillary and consider adding more (for the use of other mappers).

After reading someone's OSM profile I started to think and now have some 
doubts... We (mappers) are concentrating on various areas of the map. Some are 
dedicated to buildings, some to geographical features others add businesses 
etc. Can someone explain what is the aim of OSM, are we trying to build a map 
better than Bing and Google (in towns and cities) or are we planning to create 
a useful tool for tourists (with paths, places of interests)?

What is the aim of OSM, what should we concentrate on?
Should we map roads for sat-nav or buildings for urban area accuracy? Paths and 
tourists attractions or schools and electric cars charging points?

many thanks,
dzidek23

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Property extents

[Gareth L]

I’d maybe see the benefit for this data in more accurate/consistent 
landuse=residential areas? The whole “do you include the road, or create the 
area up to the road” decision.
Gareth


On 10 Jan 2019, at 00:19, Warin 
<61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


Even if it were open .. does OSM want it?

I don't see any specific tags for it?

And you do want to have them accurate and up to date.

---

Example of inaccurate property extent problems .. from Australia - 
https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/coroner-hits-out-at-police-use-of-google-maps-printouts-in-search-for-missing-man/news-story/0d005d8018e694433313ab2b941c7df4

A recent coroner hit out at the decision to rely on Google Maps printouts in 
the manhunt — noting that Queensland Police Service (QPS) had better tools 
available to them to search the area.

In fact, the inquest detailed how officers on the case were later given a much 
more informative aerial map of the area from the local council, at no cost to 
police whatsoever.

“It is quite apparent the quality of the images of the property on this map is 
far superior to the Google map images used in the search of the property and 
one wonders if the same mistake in conducting a search of only half the 
property would have been made if this map had been obtained,” Deputy State 
Coroner John Lock said in his report.

---

There are lots of potential problems from mapping private property extents. 
Don't think I would want to go there.

On 09/01/19 23:40, Andy Robinson wrote:
Tom, Jerry, Chris thanks for the very helpful prompts.

Cheers
Andy

From: Chris Hill [mailto:o...@raggedred.net]
Sent: 09 January 2019 12:37
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Property extents


Here's one of Jerry's blog posts about the not-so-open Land Registry data:

https://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2013/10/not-very-inspired-land-registry-open.html

and my post about testing using them:

https://chris-osm.blogspot.com/2013/10/land-registry-inspire-polygons.html

As Tom says, these datasets are not Open Data and we cannot use them as a data 
source in OSM. I feel that the Open Government Licence should not be used in 
this case as it isn't  Open.


On 09/01/2019 11:47, SK53 wrote:
Hi Andy,

Both Chris Hill & I blogged about them at the time, but they NEVER had any 
semblance of being open data.

The same proved to be true of the Land Registry Prices Paid which now can only 
be used if you are an estate agent.

Owen has covered both on his Map Gubbins blog.

Have to dash, so no time to find the links.

Jerry

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 11:07, Andy Robinson 
mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com>> wrote:
As a follow-up, has anyone looked at the OGL licenced INSPIRE Land Registry 
index polygons?
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/download-inspire-index-polygons

Data is in GML format.

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com]
Sent: 09 January 2019 10:56
To: 'David Woolley'; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Property extents

On Wed 09/01/2019 10:35 David Woolley wrote:
>Actually, that seems more valuable to OSM than the building
>outlines as it is much more difficult to accurately recover from
>aerial imagery and ground surveys can normally only see front yards.

Agreed, though I wonder whether this will have any correlation with Land 
Registry. I'm guessing .gov isn’t that joined up.

Cheers
Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Boundary-Line - Manchester political wards and related boundaries, dealing with inconsistent data

[Gareth L]

If only it could “snap” to points, but not join, where the way is an 
administrative boundary.

> On 13 Dec 2018, at 11:39, Andy G Wood  wrote:
> 
>> On Thursday, 13 December 2018 11:22:58 GMT Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2018 23:11, ael wrote:
>>> This is perhaps slightly off topic, but this habit of some of sharing
>>> nodes causes me many problems. When I am updating roads and other
>>> features from fairly accurate gps surveys, I often find the I have all
>>> these tangled boundaries about which I know little. It is a huge pain
>>> to duplicate nodes to separate ways before I can adjust just the feature
>>> that I have surveyed. I confess that my patience often runs out, and I
>>> just drag the other stuff along with my updates, thinking that the
>>> mappers who shared the nodes in the first place get what they deserve
>>> 
>>> :-).
>> 
>> I agree. [...]
> 
> I also wholeheartedly agree.
> However I think this problem is not helped by the fact that the iD editor, by 
> default, will snap to nearest points.  You may be able to change this (?), 
> but 
> I have kept with the defaults, so this will be a "feature" that many mappers 
> just go with as the accepted norm.
> 
> Andy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Saturday Mapping

[Gareth L]

I see the updates from your Saturday survey on the map. Great work everyone who 
could attend. A huge improvement.
https://tyrasd.github.io/latest-changes/#12/52.3673/-1.1906


On 28 Nov 2018, at 16:14, Brian Prangle 
mailto:br...@mappa-mercia.org>> wrote:

H Gareth

Shame about that. I'm now not able to do the 8th Dec so I'll turn out this Sat. 
There's a new pub there called the Tuning Fork. Anybody else up for this?

Regards

Brian

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:53 PM Gareth L 
mailto:o...@live.co.uk>> wrote:
I’m rather local to this, but sadly I am away both weekends!
It’s worthwhile doing. Google maps and Apple maps are lagging quite far behind 
on Rugby’s redevelopments/developments. Surprisingly, an entire retail park is 
missing from both.


Gareth


Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>


From: Brian Prangle mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>>
To: talk-gb-westmidlands 
mailto:Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Saturday Mapping
Message-ID:
mailto:caectzzacrw4rx_whxc7upnwy2mnvtqsci_cmr5um6s3rplj...@mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi everyone

It's a been a while since we met in November and I agrred to to get some
dates for a mapping dayin Warwicks(with a pub lunch). I propose either
Saturday 1 Dec or 8 Dec and I propose we go to the new village being built
on the old Rugby Radio Station site which is called Houlton
<http://houltonrugby.co.uk/>

It's a massive development( over 6,000 homes - partially complete) with the
first residents moving in a year ago and also a new primary school
operational. Currently it's shown as a construction site with a few service
roads. If folk can get to me reasonably quickly I'll see if I can drum up
some local interest

Regards

Brian
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-westmidlands/attachments/20181122/841874d1/attachment-0001.html>

--

Subject: Digest Footer

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


--

End of Talk-gb-westmidlands Digest, Vol 121, Issue 1

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Saturday Mapping

[Gareth L]

I’m rather local to this, but sadly I am away both weekends!
It’s worthwhile doing. Google maps and Apple maps are lagging quite far behind 
on Rugby’s redevelopments/developments. Surprisingly, an entire retail park is 
missing from both.


Gareth


Get Outlook for iOS


From: Brian Prangle 
To: talk-gb-westmidlands 
Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Saturday Mapping
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi everyone

It's a been a while since we met in November and I agrred to to get some
dates for a mapping dayin Warwicks(with a pub lunch). I propose either
Saturday 1 Dec or 8 Dec and I propose we go to the new village being built
on the old Rugby Radio Station site which is called Houlton


It's a massive development( over 6,000 homes - partially complete) with the
first residents moving in a year ago and also a new primary school
operational. Currently it's shown as a construction site with a few service
roads. If folk can get to me reasonably quickly I'll see if I can drum up
some local interest

Regards

Brian
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 


--

Subject: Digest Footer

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


--

End of Talk-gb-westmidlands Digest, Vol 121, Issue 1

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

[Talk-GB] Network tag on railway stations

[Gareth L]

When you’re on the tube and it’s stopping at a mainline station, it tends to 
say “change here for National rail services”. Elsewhere I often hear it 
referred to as the national rail network and conversely London Underground 
network for tube lines. Though the overground might complicates things.
I think it’s “National rail” as a descriptive term rather than a brand/company 
term.

Network rail is just the company/government backed company/government entity 
(delete as appropriate) that maintains the tracks. Feels weird to call it the 
network rail network when it’d not be called the railtrack network 20 years 
ago. 

Also you have engineer line references (ELRs) for the track at least.. I’ve 
never heard them used for the actual station building/platforms. 


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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Bus routes in Rugby

[Gareth L]

Rugby local services are operated by Stagecoach Rugby depot, although I do not 
know if the new D1/D2/D3 services are operated out of Northampton or Daventry 
instead.
I’ve noticed there are some arriva/centrebus and de courcey services too for 
further afield routes.

Gareth

On 19 Jul 2018, at 23:38, Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Which bus company serves Rugby?

We could ask our contacts in Warwickshire CC, or the designer of this map on 
their website:

https://apps.warwickshire.gov.uk/api/documents/WCCC-906-239

Rob


On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 at 22:18, Gareth L 
mailto:o...@live.co.uk>> wrote:
Hiya,

I see there are some bus routes mapped as relations in Rugby. They appear to 
have been done about 10 years ago and certain services now do not exist, new 
ones have been introduced and others diverted.

What are your suggested options of maintaining and managing this data?
I’m hesitant to delete stuff, especially as I wont necessarily be able to 
replace it with the correct data!
Are the route plans available in a OSM friendly licensed way? Or is it a case 
of spending a day on t’buses recording the routes?

Cheers,
Gareth

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

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Bus routes in Rugby

[Gareth L]

Hiya,

I see there are some bus routes mapped as relations in Rugby. They appear to 
have been done about 10 years ago and certain services now do not exist, new 
ones have been introduced and others diverted.

What are your suggested options of maintaining and managing this data?
I’m hesitant to delete stuff, especially as I wont necessarily be able to 
replace it with the correct data!
Are the route plans available in a OSM friendly licensed way? Or is it a case 
of spending a day on t’buses recording the routes?

Cheers,
Gareth

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