Re: [Talk-GB] Geovation - Location information innovation grants - now open for applications

2016-02-15 Thread SK53
I hadn't even thought of the travel side tbh! Faily glaring when its pointed out! This type of competition for a grant or similar has become increasingly common. I think Nottingham spent £500,000 to try & win a slot as a venue for England's wonderfully successful World Cup bid, and the local

Re: [Talk-GB] Geovation - Location information innovation grants - now open for applications

2016-02-15 Thread Killyfole and District Development Association
I think you are quite right Jerry, looks like participants are expected to travel to London?!? Thats one way to keep the numbers down and limit it to the South East England area! On Monday 15 February 2016 17:23:37 SK53 wrote: > I think most folk on this list are fairly familiar with these:

Re: [Talk-GB] Other Routes With Public Access

2016-02-15 Thread Dudley Ibbett
Hi Many thanks for this. I take your point about the use of an OS specific term. It would be good to have a consensus on a suitable designation tag and an addition to the wiki on UK rights of way to cover its use. As suggested, I will try and contact the highways department to see if they

Re: [Talk-GB] Geovation - Location information innovation grants - now open for applications

2016-02-15 Thread SK53
I think most folk on this list are fairly familiar with these: they've been running for quite a few years. I think CycleStreets participated in one of them a while back. My general impression is that the cost of participating is often non-trivial in comparison with the potential reward. Jerry On

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread Lester Caine
>> Bath has not lost it's city status, unlike Rochester, so the designation >> is correct. > Absolutely, I was questioning the "arbitrary population limit", not the > city status. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was just indicating that while the population is less than 100k, it's status as a city is

[Talk-GB] Geovation - Location information innovation grants - now open for applications

2016-02-15 Thread Blake Girardot
Just in case anyone is interested and had not heard of it yet: 10-20k GBP grants for location based products/services. "Think of the Programme as an ideas incubator. Whether you’re a developer, innovator or entrepreneur it’s the perfect funded start-up accelerator if you want to create a

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread Colin Smale
On 2016-02-15 16:46, Lester Caine wrote: > On 15/02/16 14:15, Colin Smale wrote: On 2016-02-15 13:42, Lester Caine wrote: > > So Bath is also a > city despite being below some arbitrary population limit. Bath has around > 100k inhabitants, not exactly a hamlet... But it doesn't > have a city

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread Lester Caine
On 15/02/16 14:15, Colin Smale wrote: > On 2016-02-15 13:42, Lester Caine wrote: > >> So Bath is also a >> city despite being below some arbitrary population limit. >> > Bath has around 100k inhabitants, not exactly a hamlet... But it doesn't > have a city council, only Charter Trustees. Bath

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread Colin Smale
How is that similar circumstances? The current council (Medway Council) hasn't tried to get Rochester's city status back. --colin On 2016-02-15 16:32, paul.bivand wrote: > Bath is still a city with Charter Trustees. > > In similar circumstances Rochester lost its city status on local

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread paul.bivand
Bath is still a city with Charter Trustees. In similar circumstances Rochester lost its city status on local authority merger because they didn't appoint charter trustees.  The city status would have applied to the former boundary. The successor council has failed repeatedly at getting city

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread John Aldridge
On 15-Feb-16 13:48, Colin Smale wrote: And would this mean that St Davids is place=town, place:designation=city or the other way round? I have no axe to grind here (the city I live near has a population >100,000 anyway), but if the former, I suspect the residents of St David's would not be

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread Colin Smale
On 2016-02-15 13:42, Lester Caine wrote: > So Bath is also a > city despite being below some arbitrary population limit. Bath has around 100k inhabitants, not exactly a hamlet... But it doesn't have a city council, only Charter Trustees. > If we know the > population then it should be

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread Gregory
It might not have gone actually, my e-mailing doesn't always do the right thing for the lists. I quoted it in my last e-mail though. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2016-February/018474.html On 15 February 2016 at 13:48, Colin Smale wrote: > I can't

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread Colin Smale
I can't find Gregory's suggestion in my mailbox... did it go to the list? Is the suggestion to put place:designation=city on the place node? Or on an admin boundary, or on a landuse=residential or what? Why is place:designation needed, and not simply designation? And would this mean that St

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread Mark Goodge
On 15/02/2016 12:35, Gregory wrote: What did people think of my place:designation=* suggestion? That would make sense, yes. Mark -- http://www.markgoodge.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread Andy Townsend
On 15/02/2016 12:35, Gregory wrote: What did people think of my place:designation=* suggestion? Sounds good to me. No uses yet (obviously), but would allow a more sane "place" tagging for e.g. St David's, which isn't a really city in any normal sense. Cheers, Andy

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread Andy Townsend
On 12/02/2016 17:10, Philip Barnes wrote: The original node, http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3216768/history http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=3216768 Thanks. So mostly city, but it did spend a couple of years as a town and a couple of shorter periods as village. Cheers, Andy

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread Lester Caine
On 15/02/16 11:08, Mark Goodge wrote: > The only way to reconcile this, in the long run, is to have two separate > tags for populated places, one describing the size according to global > OSM guidelines, and one describing the legal status according to local law. Since there is a 'Should

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread Gregory
What did people think of my place:designation=* suggestion? >From the "historic cathedral city of Durham", Gregory. >Should place:designation=* be a thing, so that we can save the legal definition somewhere. > >You could then say we are tagging place=* for the renderer. But population is not

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread Colin Smale
Agreed... FWIW I have been using council_style=city or council_style=town on admin boundary relations (mostly civil parishes) to indicate non-default situations. This works where the status is held by a local authority, but where Charter Trustees are involved I don't have a solution in mind

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

2016-02-15 Thread Mark Goodge
On 12/02/2016 17:18, Colin Smale wrote: Several attempts have been made to "correct" the tagging from city to village/town... each time it was changed back to city... This, I think, illustrates why we really could do with a "legal_status" tag or similar for populated places. People,