Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

On 19/03/19 11:22, Andy Townsend wrote: On 18/03/2019 23:41, Warin wrote: For a chimney that is surrounded by a building  I used the shadow of the chimney vs the shadow of the building. That may be more feasible more of the time where you live than where I do! Point. :) Some satellite

Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

On 18/03/2019 23:41, Warin wrote: For a chimney that is surrounded by a building  I used the shadow of the chimney vs the shadow of the building. That may be more feasible more of the time where you live than where I do! Best Regards, Andy ___

[Talk-GB] Measuring building height

For building heights why not try using a laser measure? Those with a Pythagoras Measurement mode should automate the calculations for you. Price has fallen a lot over the years. Seems like even a basic £30 device is sufficient. Best regards, Rob ___

Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

On 19/03/19 10:13, Andy Townsend wrote: On 18/03/2019 21:05, Neil Matthews wrote: P.S. Any suggestions  on how I can measure buildings "on-foot" greatly apreciated... If you can't get hold of one of these*: https://www.aols.org/archives/historical-artifacts?page=13 , and if you're after

Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

On 18/03/2019 21:05, Neil Matthews wrote: P.S. Any suggestions  on how I can measure buildings "on-foot" greatly apreciated... If you can't get hold of one of these*: https://www.aols.org/archives/historical-artifacts?page=13 , and if you're after the heights of large buildings in a city

Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

Thanks for the DEFRA link - has some potential :-) The first issue I was raising was that for convenience some (commercial) OSM mappers were using a value like 0.75 per building level (or something similar) so that their rendering software could deal directly with OSM data without post-processing

Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

How very useful; had completely forgotten about this! However, I don't think that is Neil's issue, which is that building:levels should have integer values (or just possibly steps of a half). Some 3D renders make assumptions about what a default height for a single storey (level) will be. A good

Re: [Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

Try this site : origin of building height data is Environment Agency LIDAR data under OGL Regards Brian On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 19:20, Neil Matthews wrote: > Anyone mapping in Manchester

Re: [Talk-GB] London venues

I certainly like the idea of a London meeting, it is relatively easy to get to from most places and looking at rail prices my concern about 8th was probably unfounded. Phil (trigpoint) On Monday, 18 March 2019, Gregory Marler wrote: > I (somewhat in the capacity as an OSM UK director) have

Re: [Talk-GB] London venues

I (somewhat in the capacity as an OSM UK director) have been invited to visit Geovation, and I don't think there is much of a hatchet left to bury. I could ask our contacts if an event at Geovation would be suitable and possible. For the Queen's birthday I don't think there would be a lot of

[Talk-GB] "UK-centric" OSM-based maps (was: Common Land has stopped rendering)

On 18/03/2019 13:06, John Aldridge wrote: There should, IMO, be a general purpose UK styled rendering on the front page of https://osmuk.org/ There is/was a discussion about a "UK-centric" map for OSM UK, some of which was below

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

p.s. just noticed there is indeed a tiny Donation link on the bottom right corner. Perhaps it needs to be bigger? Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

How do you propose funding such a service? Hi David, When I first found OSM the standard map was up and running, so I assumed that matter had been resolved. It is still currently up and running and displayed on the front page, so I assume it is still resolved? If not, perhaps a Donation

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

On 18/03/2019 14:03, Martin Wynne wrote: If you suggest to someone that they try OSM instead of Google maps, the standard Carto map is what they arrive at from search engines: How do you propose funding such a service? ___ Talk-GB mailing list

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

For many people, the *point* of OSM is that it's a better version of Google maps. That's certainly my reason for adding stuff to OSM. If it doesn't appear on the "standard map" I'm not much inclined to spend hours recording it and mapping it. If there is a way I can legitimately change the

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

On 18/03/2019 13:06, John Aldridge wrote: For many people, the *point* of OSM is that it's a better version of Google maps. If data is not visible on the 'front page' rendering, it might as well not be there. OSM doesn't have a business model that supports that usage. It is not something

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

On 16-Mar-19 13:23, SK53 wrote: No, Carto is just one way of viewing OSM data. It has a small number of maintainers and although highly visible does not represent any 'official' view. Yes and no. For many people, the *point* of OSM is that it's a better version of Google maps. If data is