Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-10 Thread Robert Norris
> I cant follow the logic of "Visibly signed things go into 'ref'", since >that would seem to mean we don't need lcn_ref tags as these are visible >signed. IMHO The ref key is for the primary key (so in these cases against the highway). It keeps it simple for mappers and is verifiably the ground

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

2017-01-10 Thread Robert Skedgell
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 21:46:53 GMT Steve Doerr wrote: > On 10/01/2017 07:54, Robert Skedgell wrote: > > ref=legible_london > > I don't understand the rationale for this as a 'ref'. Refs are normally > unique identifiers for a particular object (unique within a particular > domain, that

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

2017-01-10 Thread Steve Doerr
On 10/01/2017 07:54, Robert Skedgell wrote: ref=legible_london I don't understand the rationale for this as a 'ref'. Refs are normally unique identifiers for a particular object (unique within a particular domain, that is). Thus each sign would have a different ref, if there were

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-10 Thread Dave F
With 31 993 occurrences prow_ref appears to be the agreed way to go. To check is FootpathX an official authority reference format? DaveF On 10/01/2017 16:02, Paul Berry wrote: So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change *ref* to *prow_ref* on this and other footpaths I've

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

2017-01-10 Thread Andy Allan
On 10 January 2017 at 15:55, SK53 wrote: > I was going to say that usually we have the atco code in ref for bus stops > with the more visible stop C in local ref, and thus bus stops aren't the > perfect example. I certainly wouldn't tell someone to wait at bus stop > 3390V1

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

2017-01-10 Thread Dan S
2017-01-10 16:37 GMT+00:00 Andy Mabbett : > On 10 January 2017 at 07:54, Robert Skedgell wrote: > >> ref=legible_london Yeah, I agree this isn't the way "ref=" is normally used > I'd expect to see something like: > >

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

2017-01-10 Thread Andy Mabbett
On 10 January 2017 at 07:54, Robert Skedgell wrote: > ref=legible_london I'd expect to see something like: operator=legible_london or, say: operator=GLA scheme=legible_london -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

2017-01-10 Thread Robert Skedgell
Andy That's a very good point. I suspect that I mis-remembered the use of crossing_ref=* (used with highway=crossing + crossing=*) as just "ref". brand=legible_london seems a much better fit, particularly as it makes it seem less of an assertion about the actual legibility of the map (as

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-10 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
On 10 January 2017 at 16:02, Paul Berry wrote: > So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change ref to prow_ref on > this and other footpaths I've tracked recently? > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464500797 I'd definitely recommend using prow_ref=* to

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-10 Thread Paul Berry
So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change *ref* to *prow_ref* on this and other footpaths I've tracked recently? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464500797 Regards, *Paul* On 10 January 2017 at 11:05, Dave F wrote: > This thread: >

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

2017-01-10 Thread SK53
On 10 January 2017 at 15:10, Andy Allan wrote: > > Think of it like bus stops (ref=C) or road numbers (ref=A204). Would > it make sense if I was to render a map with an icon for the > information point, with the reference shown underneath? > > Thanks, > Andy > > I was

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

2017-01-10 Thread Andy Allan
On 10 January 2017 at 07:54, Robert Skedgell wrote: > ref=legible_london I would only use the ref= tag if there is a reference code for each installation, e.g. if the totem has a displayed reference like "A01" designed for users to see. From the pictures I don't

Re: [Talk-GB] Monitoring OSM changes (was Re: natural=heath)

2017-01-10 Thread Derick Rethans
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 09/01/2017 14:38, Adrian McEwen wrote: > > On 09/01/17 12:50, Andy Townsend wrote: > > > More seriously, edits are public, and feeds such as Pascal Neis's, > > > Whodidit and OsmCha allow monitoring of changes in an area, so if you see > > >

Re: [Talk-GB] Monitoring OSM changes (was Re: natural=heath)

2017-01-10 Thread Andy Townsend
On 09/01/2017 14:38, Adrian McEwen wrote: On 09/01/17 12:50, Andy Townsend wrote: More seriously, edits are public, and feeds such as Pascal Neis's, Whodidit and OsmCha allow monitoring of changes in an area, so if you see something that "looks wrong" please do investigate and contact the

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

2017-01-10 Thread Robert Skedgell
The wiki lists map_type and map_size as "useful combinations" for the tag combination tourism=information + information=map ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dmap ). Using map_type=street probably makes sense as it is already in use and seems a reasonable match for the

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Wolverhampton Railway Station

2017-01-10 Thread Andy Mabbett
On 9 January 2017 at 22:21, Wolves on Wheels Cycle Campaign wrote: > Just to introduce myself, I'm Steve Young from Wolverhampton ( First > message, very very recently joined this mailing list ) Welcome! > I've not made an edit yet, though hoping to make the

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-10 Thread Dave F
This thread: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html Specifically this point by Andy R.: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017423.html As pointed out official_ref=* is a little to vague. It's always good to be specific as possible.

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

2017-01-10 Thread David Groom
Not quite sure what you had in mind by the tags map_type and map_size, but maybe need a tag something along the likes of "sign_type" withn values of "bollard | monolith | finger_post | totem" ( see http://content.tfl.gov.uk/legible-london-product-range.pdf) David -- Original Message

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-10 Thread Colin Smale
On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote: > FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was felt > there could be other official or authority tags. It's always good to be > specific. Where was that discussed/agreed? The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref. //colin

Re: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet

2017-01-10 Thread Dave F
I'm surprised contributors are spending their time with the ephemeral 'crop' tag in the UK. As pointed out by Andy we have crop rotation systems. Previously to ensure the land wasn't stripped of nutrients, but now primarily based on what is the highest EU CAP subsidy. DaveF On 10/01/2017

Re: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet

2017-01-10 Thread Andy Robinson
I can see a whole new wiki excursion into the underground world of root crops ;-) Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Craig Wallace [mailto:craig...@fastmail.fm] Sent: 10 January 2017 01:52 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet On 2017-01-10 01:20,

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-10 Thread Dave F
On 10/01/2017 00:36, Robert Norris wrote: If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the reference is taken from the Council ROW information documents that are compatible with OSM. 'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground. Thus for the