Awesome, cheers Stuart
Andy
-Original Message-
From: stuart lester [mailto:stules...@gmail.com]
Sent: 09 October 2012 09:46
To: OSM Group WM
Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] SOTM 2013 bid
Hi all,
This is great. Would love to help out. Once I've finished organising a
stag do
On 08/10/12 19:29, Brian Prangle wrote:
Hi Andy
Are you intending that we bypass the existing wiki page and gaining
consensus from the UK community? Or do the two in parallel? I can see
that gaining consensus would be messy and time consuming unless we
force the pace but I think one country
Ed Loach spotted that a 1993 planning application [4] for 11 Rockingham
Gardens included the conversion of old outbuildings into a granny annex but
this appears only to apply to about half of the building (the north and
eastern portion at the back of number 11). The remaining part to the west
and
Hi Andy
Looks like you've got yourself a problem! I agree with Matt about the
canoes. Some views from bing suggest the garden path joins up with one at
25 or 27 Rockingham Gardens. As it unusually sits close to no 11/15's
boundary, perhaps its a granny flat for no 11/15? It seems to have taken
You can check house prices online, have any in that area changed hands
for a disproportionately high price? http://www.nethouseprices.com/
Is the railway line still open to passengers, I can see that the
stations have closed, but a ride in a train along there may be of
interest.
Phil
On Tue,
On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 23:36 +0100, Big Fat Frog wrote:
This is very puzzling.
On a separate but connected note, if the Google imagery had shown a
clear entrance/drive/path or whatever, I presume that would have to be
left out of the DB due to copyright? Also, does our allowed use of Bing
Just had a thought, looking at OS Streetview, is this part of the old
disused station? Seems a bit far away but OS seem adamant?
On 09/10/2012 16:52, Andy Robinson wrote:
A little mapping conundrum for you folks.
This building with the ? in the centre of the map [1] appears to be a
house,
Also looking at the historic maps there looks like there's been building
there for quite some time. Midland Road seems to have continued along by
the railway line and up to the end of this properties garden.
Rob
On , Big Fat Frog bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote:
Just had a thought, looking
Hi,
I can now confirm a venue and time for the footpaths mapping party in the
Cranleigh area this Saturday.
The meeting place will be Cromwell Coffee House, on the high street at 9.30 to
9.45 am. I don't know what this place is like but it had a couple of fairly
decent reviews on the
I just created a task for Saint Helens on the rebuild tasking manager:
http://rebuild.poole.ch/job/42
There's good imagery, should be a quick job to do the most important fixes
remotely.
On Oct 8, 2012, at 6:51 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 10/08/2012 12:41 PM,
As you may recall, DfT has made available a lot of cycle facility data.
This was processed and snapped to OSM geometry, and has been available for
some months for importing (subject to local review) using the Snapshot
tool. Further details here:
Hi everyone
At our previous pub meeting for mappa-mercia on October 4 we had a great
discussion about how we'd like SOTM2013 to come to Birmingham - so we got
a group of volunteers (well everyone at the meeting) and have come up with
an outline case for Birmingham Bid - see
On a related point.
I came across some OSM additions in my patch (Sutton Coldfield) which appear
to come from the dft data. Specifically the estimated width value which was
hopelessly wrong for every element I checked. It's easy to measure features
with the measurement tool in JOSM so I think
Richard,
It looks good and useful. On the OSM side of things it looks like you've
missed handling cycleway=opposite_lane, since a place where I had that in
the data wasn't being rendered. I have since changed this to be
cycleway:right=opposite_lane though to be more accurate.
Cheers,
Gregory,
I thought that cycleway=opposite_lane was the equivalent of cycleway:right=lane.
And if it was a lane only on the left then it would be cycleway:left=lane.
Shaun
On 9 Oct 2012, at 17:28, Gregory Williams greg...@gregorywilliams.me.uk
wrote:
Richard,
It looks good and useful. On
On 9 October 2012 17:34, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
Gregory,
I thought that cycleway=opposite_lane was the equivalent of
cycleway:right=lane.
no - opposite_lane is useful in a one-way road to indicate cyclists
can go both ways. There's nothing in cycleway:right=lane to
I've seen contraflow cycle lanes on the left and the right side of the road
in the UK, so thought I ought to just clarify the tagging - better to be
explicit rather than ambiguous.
From: Shaun McDonald [mailto:sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk]
Sent: 09 October 2012 17:35
To: Gregory Williams
Cc:
On 9 Oct 2012, at 17:47, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2012 17:34, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
Gregory,
I thought that cycleway=opposite_lane was the equivalent of
cycleway:right=lane.
no - opposite_lane is useful in a one-way road to indicate
On 09/10/2012 17:02, Andy Robinson wrote:
On a related point...
I came across some OSM additions in my patch (Sutton Coldfield) which
appear to come from the dft data. Specifically the estimated width
value which was hopelessly wrong for every element I checked. It's
easy to measure
I have recently found a fairly common problem with stiles and pedestrian
gates where footpaths join roads.
Often a stile, or gate tagged for access on foot only, is used at the
junction with a road. Routers then assume the road is for foot only and
route around.
I am not finding any users are
20 matches
Mail list logo
