On 19 Jul 2009, at 23:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Peter Miller wrote:
>> We really need some better tools for reverting this sort of
>> nonsense and a way of patrolling the edits of new contributors .
>> This isn't a discussion for talk-gb really, but possibly it is a
>> good place
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
> We really need some better tools for reverting this sort of nonsense
> and a way of patrolling the edits of new contributors . This isn't a
> discussion for talk-gb really, but possibly it is a good place to start.
See also the recent discussion on talk that started
Liam123 is back and still being disruptive. I was doing adding some
attributes to railways yesterday and came across more damage by him.
There are currently 164 ways around London/Kent/Essex where he is the
last editor. Here are details of his recent edits :
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user
Hi,
it is great to see this work on coverage. Thanks for putting this
together! It is always nice to see how much has already been achieved
and how much still needs to be done.
There was a similar mail on talk-de today by Florian Lohoff
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2009-Ju
http://mapzone.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/mapzone/didyouknow/howmany/q_14_64.html
Q. How many kilometres or miles of road are there in Great Britain?
A. In January 2001 Ordnance Survey calculated that the following
kilometres (miles) of road existed in Great Britain: motorways - 4 353
km (2 705.41 miles
> Oh just a thought, does the calculations include toll roads? Do the
> DfT monitor these in their figures? (M6 toll, Severn Bridge etc.)
>
Yes they do. It's in the notes on the DfT website that private toll roads
which form part of major routes are included, but private minor roads are
not.
Inc
Chris,
Chris Hill wrote:
BTW Frederik, does the (very useful) Geofabrik download for East Yorks
use the coastline as its edge?
No, just as I explained in my other post, it goes out to the sea for
efficiency. See attached image, if it makes it onto the list.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm
Do you expect the DfT to even have an idea of how many road they have
to look after. It would not surprise me if their own list is no where
complete.
I think we will always have larger figures because we can measure ever
meter of road and likley the DfT is just measuring the lengths
according to w
2009/7/19 Frederik Ramm :
> Hi,
>
> Peter Miller wrote:
>> There is a relation for 'London Boroughs'. I wondered if we should produced
>> one for 'Regions of England', and 'ceremonial counties of England' and
>> add the appropriate relations to them.
>
> Generally, relations that just serve the pur
> The way I have handled dual carriageways (and motorways) is to assume that
> both carriageways are plotted separately on OSM. So the figure that
> results
> should be twice the length estimated by DfT. However, for primary roads,
> DfT
> themselves show the total length of primary road, and the
FWIW I've now updated http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/LGboundaries.csv
to include a list of local authorities in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Interestingly I joined this list a while ago because I had got my
> hands on some admin boundary data for England and wanted to know if it
> was any good (the answer was no). I then forgot to unsubscribe. I'm
> still planning to extend the Geofabrik excerpts to cover all
On the problems with Hampshire - my only related experience is that I had
problems with POSTGIS unable to process a number of admin boundaries,
because they are plotted with loops in the boundary. I.e. the boundary
crosses over itself.
This mostly happened where the coast had been added to the re
Thanks for the interest and comments on my post about estimating coverage.
In answer to some of the questions:
The way I have handled dual carriageways (and motorways) is to assume that
both carriageways are plotted separately on OSM. So the figure that results
should be twice the length estimated
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
> Ok, thanks for that Frederik. You never know who will be on a list!
Interestingly I joined this list a while ago because I had got my hands
on some admin boundary data for England and wanted to know if it was any
good (the answer was no). I then forgot to unsubscribe.
On 19 Jul 2009, at 12:44, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Peter Miller wrote:
>> There is a relation for 'London Boroughs'. I wondered if we should
>> produced one for 'Regions of England', and 'ceremonial counties of
>> England' and add the appropriate relations to them.
>
> Generally, relati
Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
> There is a relation for 'London Boroughs'. I wondered if we should produced
> one for 'Regions of England', and 'ceremonial counties of England' and
> add the appropriate relations to them.
Generally, relations that just serve the purpose of collecting things
are frow
On 19 Jul 2009, at 11:54, Chris Hill wrote:
Peter Reed wrote:
Of the authorities I have managed to measure, the following all
show more road mapped than the DfT believes exists:
Having mapped every road in Hull (Kingston-upon-Hull since today is
a Sunday), some are fairly new and may no
Peter Reed wrote:
Of the authorities I have managed to measure,
the following
all show more road mapped than the DfT believes exists:
Having mapped every road in Hull (Kingston-upon-Hull since today is a
Sunday), some are fairly new and may not appear on the DfT figures.
> Of the authorities I have managed to measure, the following all show more
> road mapped than the DfT believes exists:
>
There could be a number of reasons for this;
1.Our boundaries are plotted from old parish boundaries on NPE
typically. I had to move the Trafford/Manchester boundary in a
as roads that don't join, bad tags
>> etc. I can never remember how to turn this on. Would it be possible for
>> Potlatch to have an on/off button for this feature? I think this could
>> hugely improve mapping integrity for the project. This would also have the
>> long-ter
Mario,
Thanks for that. I've used the keepright site. I was just wondering
whether the functionality could be piped into Potlatch, as the KR site
already has the opposite option (to edit in Potlatch). Just seemed
like a really obvious overlay to have available.
Thanks,
Chris.
2009/7/19 Wesse
overlay on OSM of mapping errors, such as roads that don't join, bad tags
> etc. I can never remember how to turn this on. Would it be possible for
> Potlatch to have an on/off button for this feature? I think this could
> hugely improve mapping integrity for the project. This would also h
There have been a number of attempts to estimate the level of UK coverage,
of varying levels of sophistication, but I've not seen any that compare the
length of roads mapped against actual road lengths.
The Department for Transport publishes statistics on actual road lengths by
local authority
Chris Andrew wrote:
>
> Hi, all.
>
> Some time ago, I realised from this list that it is possible to get an
> overlay on OSM of mapping errors, such as roads that don't join, bad
> tags etc. I can never remember how to turn this on. Would it be
> possible for Potlatch to have an on/off button fo
25 matches
Mail list logo
