Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

Hi, Post towns may be somewhat arbitrary, but they are at least a verifiable national scheme which we can use for addressing every location in the country. That has to have some benefits compared to each individual mapper deciding where they believe each address falls - easy for many places,

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

highway=steps ramp:bicycle=yes Kind regards, Adam On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 18:53 Chris Hodges, wrote: > NCR45 in Stroud goes down a rather steep flight of steps to cross > Dudbridge Road. I can confirm that is what the signs say, having been > there yesterday. Also the Sustrans/OS map shows it

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 13:18 Dave F via Talk-GB, wrote: FYI Wiltshire Council's Rights of Way Explorer is not the 'definitive map'. > It usually a misnomer. Paths are described with words in a definitive > statement. Their map is a representation of that data. Many authorities add > a caveat

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020, 15:39 Tony Shield, wrote: > 'yes' is probably wrong as there is no obvious permission and in England > and Wales Highways Act 1835 s72 'If any person shall wilfully ride upon any > footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use > or accommodation

Re: [Talk-GB] Holes in modern England?

On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, 18:53 Jez Nicholson, wrote: > How many holes in Blackburn, Lancashire? > There's Tockholes for one https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/29020280 > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

On the subject of overlapping relations. I've recently noticed that the NCN 62 relation has been named Transpennine trail which is true for much, but not all of the route. The TPT ends at Southport, yet NCN 62 continues further North. At the eastern end of the TPT goes far beyond the end of NCN 62

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

net> wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Adam Snape wrote: > > > I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does > > seem garbled at points > > Apologies; I think I was very tired when I wrote it. It was mainly > intended > as a starting

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

n the other > data may not have been there? > > Gareth > > On 14 Jul 2020, at 19:49, Adam Snape wrote: > >  > Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does > marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway... > > I have utmost respect for

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway... I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does seem garbled at points Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the

Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 11:04, Chris Fleming wrote: > The third issue is of copyright, which is the one Adam brought up. > Personally I don't really know about this one. On one hand the route is > made of of ways already existing on OpenStreetMap; does that move us a step > outside of copying

Re: [Talk-GB] Old copies of OS Open Map Local Raster?

There was definitely a 2017-04 release. For raster I'm afraid I only downloaded my local SD grid square. Kind regards, Adam On Sun, 12 Jul 2020, 17:50 Grant Slater, wrote: > Hi All, > > Does anyone have old copies of the OS Open Map Local raster? > The original filename is: omlras_gtfc_gb.zip

Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

As the route is tagged mtb I think that it may not meet the design > principles as shown on the referred Sustrans page. > > Tony - TonyS999 > On 12/07/2020 11:34, Adam Snape wrote: > > Hi, > > A mapper has recently added a long mountain bike route to OSM and there > has been

[Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

Hi, A mapper has recently added a long mountain bike route to OSM and there has been a difference of opinions in the changeset comments https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87757341 .So I thought I'd share here to try to achieve some community consensus. Personally I'm concerned that it

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

Hi, It's worth pointing out that if Wimbledon Common is (as I assume) registered as common land then there would normally be a legal right of access on foot under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, so foot=yes would be correct. Kind regards, Adam

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

Hi, I'm so glad the information is being used and progress is being made. However, I do have to agree with Rob about the Council's online map. Re:OS copyright they are really highly protective about what they perceive to be derived data. I think it would be difficult to add rights of way whilst

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by parish name, type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. Parish Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and will continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

Sorry, crossposted with Tony there On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:01, Adam Snape wrote: > Hi, > > I can confirm that the parish name data was in the council's original > disclosure and is contained in the ESRI shapefile I passed to rowmaps. It's > available under an open licence (

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

s likely to be understood by every user of OSM and I > have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it. > > Regards > > TonyS999 > > On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote: > > Hi, > > > > There was a discussion on this list about thi

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

Hi, There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references with

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

On Tue, 5 May 2020, 13:26 Martin Wynne, wrote: > Is a "public right of way" a highway? > > I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line. > > Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes > with a physical highway, sometimes not. > In English/Welsh

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

a mapper mapped on the ground. Eg. I don't think a highway=no tag should be added to a cross field definitive footpath just because a path round the field has been mapped. Kind regards, Adam On Tue, 5 May 2020, 12:35 Andy Townsend, wrote: > On 05/05/2020 11:53, Adam Snape wrote: > &g

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

Tom Hukins, wrote: > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:08:16PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote: > > Most data consumers won't be expecting this highly country-specific > > tagging of highway=no > > Why do you consider "highway=no" country-specific? Taginfo suggests > it's u

[Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

Hi, I'm a bit cautious about using highway=no for rights of way. I understand it where a definitive route is utterly impassible on the ground (eg. goes through a building) but elsewhere it seems to be suggested as a bit of a fudge to avoid having one right of way represented by two highways in

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

s part of my original question. I shall send to > Rob the data I extracted from the data supplied. > > Regards > Tony > > On 26/11/2019 21:12, Adam Snape wrote: > > Hi, > > > Firstly, Tony, I think 9-4 is Anderton and 9-1 is Adlington. > > As part of the original F

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

Hi, Firstly, Tony, I think 9-4 is Anderton and 9-1 is Adlington. As part of the original FOI/EIR/Re-use request for the GIS dataset, I also requested (and was supplied) the council's scanned copies of the Definitive Statements along with permission to use them under the OGL. They appear to be

Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire

Hi, I'm in agreement with Rob re:licensing. The good news is that lhe OS is now fine with the OSM-compliant Open Government Licence (version 3), so if you ask the council for an updated dataset they will be able to release the data under the appropriate licence. [I was actually in the process of

Re: [Talk-GB] Road/Rail Bridge near Preston Park

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, 18:15 Jez Nicholson, wrote: > Known locally as "Pigeon Shit Bridge". > So who's going to add the loc_name tag ;) > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Broken Style Sheet Issues?

You do see this kind of thing periodically. It usually is caused by an editor breaking the coastline and it's usually fixed pretty quickly but tiles take a while to update. It's now only showing on the one layer so will probably disappear completely when those tiles are re-rendered. Kind regards

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, 12:54 Devonshire, wrote: > I have personally deprecated highway=bridleway|byway etc. as the > combination of highway=footway|track|service and > designation=public_footpath etc. contains more useful information both for > map rendering and for active map users. Whether you

Re: [Talk-GB] DoBIH Update - Permission Received

Hi, Quite! You'll notice the Geograph link to the OS API explicitly states that the OS claims both copyright and database rights. There also seems to be some confusion about OS licensing. Being included in the OS OpenSpace API (a free - as in beer - mapping API) does not mean that a map is open

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging one way at certain times of day

Hi, I think you're right in your reading of those tags - they don;t indicate what you'd like. Assuming the restrictions aply to all traffic (other than psv) then a general oneway:conditional=yes @ (09:00-18:00) would seem the most simple. Your oneway:psv=no overides that restriction. Personally

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

e a reasonable proportion of the total. If you > aren't aware Will Phillips OSM-Nottingham site does allow searching of > various open data sets across the UK (I would recommend searching only in > the viewport, so you need to zoom out and in to the target area). The > quickest way to e

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

Hi, I'm not on about extrapolating postcodes for other buildings on a street, but we should be able to map the postcode of building on which the centroid is placed, shouldn't we? Zooming in should allow us to see which building a centroid is on. Kind regards, Adam On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 13:44,

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

ining postcode. I imagine you would get this if > there was a cul-de-sac projecting into a crescent that was small enough > to have one post code. > > On 09/11/18 13:12, Adam Snape wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I agree with not mapping the centroids but... > > > >

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

Hi, I agree with not mapping the centroids but... Is it the case that the centroids are always placed on a building which falls under that postcode? If so, wouldn't it be okay to tag the building with the appropriate postcode? Another idea: Given that postcodes (with few exceptrions) apply to

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Hi, If these boundaries were purely of historical interest I doubt that you'd find many experienced contributors arguing for their inclusion in OSM. The argument is that these areas retain a continued cultural geographic relevance. People with no particularinterest in history can and do still

Re: [Talk-GB] 1947 Boundaries

the 'boundary maps' tab on http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/ (licence is cc-by-sa 4.0). Adam On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 23:51 Adam Snape, wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Contemporary OS maps showed the borough and district boundaries. The 1" > New Popular Series dates from around that ti

Re: [Talk-GB] 1947 Boundaries

Hi Rob, Contemporary OS maps showed the borough and district boundaries. The 1" New Popular Series dates from around that time. The 6" and 25" maps are more detailed but many didn't receive a post-war revision until the 50s. A good selection of OS maps is on the National Library of Scotland

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Hi, I think this needs discussing on its own merits, because the argument being made here is different to the usual argument for adding historical features. The OP and others have made clear that the motivation lies not in recording now-disappeared historical features, but in mapping traditional

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

His, I think I said earlier in the thread but I've never viewed OSM as a strict majority rule, more a do-ocracy or rule by consensus. Certainly, I think anybody proposing the deletion of others' mapping ought to be sure of clear community consensus, not just a mere majority opinion. Future

Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, 22:26 Martin Wynne, wrote: > > > Even in these days of Brexit, I don't think there's any movement for > > Northern Ireland to leave GB. You've been misinformed! > > Hi Toby, > > Northern Ireland is part of the UK but it's not part of GB. > > GB is England, Scotland and

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

Hi Tony, Please do read the conversation, but I think it's important to stress that no one is changing the standard tagging here. It has never been standard to map unsigned references for tertiary/unclassified roads under the ref tag; indeed there has long been a consensus against doing so. The

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Hi, Both Colin and Dave have repeated the implication that the traditional counties don't exist. It's very much arguable I guess, certainly successive governments have made clear that they recognised the continued existence of the traditional counties, and that administrative changes neither

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 21:20 Mark Goodge, wrote: > > I think it's slightly unfortunate that OSM uses the tag 'historic' for > something that's different to what we are discussing here. As well as > being potentially ambiguous, it may also encourage people to add > boundaries that are "historic" in

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Hi, I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear consensus in favour of deletion. Kind regards, Adam On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 16:38

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

I think there's certainly an argument for including the traditional boundaries. There's certainly enough people arguing the pros for us to say that there's no clear consensus against it. As you say, there is a certain culture of tolerance within OSM that would be at odds with removal. I do,

Re: [Talk-GB] Closed Footpaths

Yep, I should have said add access=no and remove any conflicting access tags. The foot=designated access tag could be added back in once pedestrian access was once again allowed. Kind regards, Adam On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, 16:58 Adam Snape, wrote: > My personal convention for temporary closu

Re: [Talk-GB] Closed Footpaths

My personal convention for temporary closures is to add access=no. Using access tags for these temporary orders is consistent with how we map permanent tros. If the line is altered upon reopening or the path is formally extinguished then the appropriate changes can be made as and when they occur

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

Sorry, I mean to say we need a way to tag this 'name format' (official_name perhaps? Or prow_name...) Kind regards, Adam On 3 July 2018 at 09:09, Adam Snape wrote: > Hi, > > Very. very few Defiunitive statements include arcane numeric references > like that. They almost always us

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

Hi, Very. very few Defiunitive statements include arcane numeric references like that. They almost always use the parish name and path number eg. Newton Footpath 1. I think we really this 'name' format as it is something we could consistently do nationally. Kind regards, Adam On 2 July 2018 at

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2018: Paths and rights of way

Hi, Whilst I'd be honoured to be responsible for a resource as good as MapThePaths, it is Nick Whitelegg's work. I've changed the Wiki accordingly. Kind regards, Adam On 28 June 2018 at 23:01, Martyn Evans wrote: > Great project, especially now we have the excellent MapThePaths tool. One >

Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

in the coming months. Finally, In the coming days I'll update Rob Whittaker with my progress so that his PRoW OpenData table ( http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/open-data/ ) so that it can be updated. Kind regards, Adam Snape On 1 June 2018 at 09:10, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > > Hell

Re: [Talk-GB] Local names of bits of trunk roads

And, to actually deal with your question, I'd do a ground survey to see where the name changes. Failing that, the OS Open Map Local roads vector layer will show where the OS thinks the road name changes. Kind regards, Adam On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, 17:01 Adam Snape, wrote: > Hi Stuart, > &

Re: [Talk-GB] Local names of bits of trunk roads

--- > Stuart Reynolds > for traveline south east & anglia > > > > > On 25 Jun 2018, at 16:38, Adam Snape wrote: > > Hi, > > If this is to be mapped shouldn't it be as a historic feature rather than > a (current) road route? > > By the way I tend to use

Re: [Talk-GB] Local names of bits of trunk roads

Hi, If this is to be mapped shouldn't it be as a historic feature rather than a (current) road route? By the way I tend to use loc_name for a colloquial name regardless of whether it is just used by local people. Kind regards, Adam On 25 June 2018 at 15:59, Paul Berry wrote: > Someone's

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - new site focusing on OSM UK footpath mapping

HI Nick, Great job. It will be a really useful tool :) I echo Rob's request for a higher level of zoom if that is at all possible. I'd also suggest looking at some of the excluded 'urban' areas. Some of the unitary authorities and Metropolitan Boroughs (particularly in Pennine England) are more

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

A very interesting dataset, Just a belated comment regarding the footpaths on the c.1900 maps. We do need to be careful not to infer too much about public rights. It is only modern (1960s onwards) OS maps which have shown definitive rights of way (in OSM terms designation=public_footpath). Older

Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

Hi, Just a word of warning to double check the licensing terms before use. Many councils' licensing is ambiguous in that they'll refer to the OGL then state or link to the incompatible OS Open Data attribution terms. Whilst it's a wonderful resource and I think Barry has done a great job, the

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

As long as we're dealing with advisory signs erected by an official body rather than a vigilante neighborhood busybody, I think the maxspeed:advisory= tag would be appropriate. Regards Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

Restricted Road is the correct formal term for roads where the default 30mph limit applies. That said, it is not a term that most people will recognise (unlike single/dual carriageway). Adam On Wed, 2 May 2018, 12:36 Tobias Zwick, wrote: > Also, > > 6. Did you come up with

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

hat speed because traffic calming makes it hard not > to. > > On Wed, 2 May 2018 at 11:36 Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The school lights I'm aware of which refer to a maximum speed are >> advisory rather than mandatory. The actual legal speed limit remai

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

On Wed, 2 May 2018, 11:47 John Aldridge, wrote: > I believe it's DoT policy not to allow 30mph repeaters (at least, > someone told me that > This is correct on street lit where the 30mph limit would apply by default. 30mph repeaters can (and should) be used if a 30mph limit

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

The school lights I'm aware of which refer to a maximum speed are advisory rather than mandatory. The actual legal speed limit remains the same. Adam On Wed, 2 May 2018, 11:17 Brian Prangle, wrote: > Just to further complicate matters there can also be conditional 20 mph >

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

April 2018 at 20:31, Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure I'd call any of the national speed limits implicit. All are > explicit in that they are (or should be) physically signed at least where > the limit changes, so they are verifiable rather than merely impl

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

I'm not sure I'd call any of the national speed limits implicit. All are explicit in that they are (or should be) physically signed at least where the limit changes, so they are verifiable rather than merely implied. The only practical difference is whether small repeater signs are required to

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM AGM and notification

the good work! Kind regards, Adam Snape (ACS1986) On 14 April 2018 at 13:51, Tony Shield <tony.shield...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All > > Starting to get into OSM mapping and things OSM - so I've found this > talk-gb mail system, I've just found the website OSM UK and seen t

Re: [Talk-GB] Post offices that have closed

Hi, One of my local ones is currently closed with an uncertain future ("temporarily closed" according to the POL data). I've changed it to disused:amenity=post_office and opening_hours=closed with a note. Ideally the tools ought to be able to understand the disused: lifecycle prefix on post

Re: [Talk-GB] Bottle Kilns

Hi, How about disused as a lifecycle prefix rather than a simple tag eg. disused:man_made=kiln tourism=museum Alternatively, how about using the historic tag to differentiate old kilns from modern ones eg. historic=kiln tourism=museum Kind regards, Adam On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 16:00 Paul Berry,

Re: [Talk-GB] YHA (England & Wales), Youth Hostel

. Regards, Adam On 4 April 2018 at 13:26, Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > Permission to add something to a map is certainly not the same as > permission to release information under the ODBL, we need that explicitly > stated. > > Also, how are you

Re: [Talk-GB] YHA (England & Wales), Youth Hostel

is the relevant YHA one? Any information derived from the Google maps on the YHA site is strictly unuseable, even with YHA's permission. Kind regards, Adam Snape On 4 April 2018 at 13:08, Dan S <danstowell+...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > "YHA (England & Wales)" wou

Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales

I'm not sure about other countries, but one thing I did notice when living in Wales is that there did seem in many (most) cases to be a consistently preferred name. For this reason there is a problem automatically adding name:en for an English variant of a name where most English speakers would

Re: [Talk-GB] BT phoneboxes

On 4 January 2018 at 17:26, Andrew Black wrote: > Do we know what a proportion are going to be left. Is it going to be > close to none. > About half: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40934210 ___ Talk-GB mailing list

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

Hi, I don't think we would delete a postcode found in other Open Data just on the basis of it not being in Codepoint Open; the error could lie in Codepoint Open itself. I suggest that a FIXME would be appropriate where two sources appear to contradict each other. Of course in this case we know

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

Hi, Most of that 'strawman' suggestion seems sensible and entirely the right kind of way for the community to help companies add useful data to the map. I do however, disagree with the penultimate point. I do not belive that we should be automatically importing this kind of data. An omission is

Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

Interesting, but if your interpretation of the law regarding red/green distinctions is correct, why do the majority of road road atlases on sale and most maps (both open and proprietary) supplied by Ordnance Survey maintain the red/green colouring? Incidentally, my father is red/green colour

Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

Most map users don't understand the distinction between primary (green) and non-primary (red) A-roads so I understand why not all maps use it. Since OSM makes this distinction anyway it makes sense to use the standard uk green/red colour scheme in the UK map. Adam On 15 Nov 2017 1:54 a.m.,

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

Hi, I agree with what Robert has said and think he has clarified many points admirably. I think we need to be clear that in many cases what we will be recording under prow_ref is a working reference used in the council's GIS system, not part of the definitive official record of rights of way.

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

Hi, I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely to result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally happy with using the LA's version. Some thoughts: 1. We definitely shouldn't attempt to amend the definitive map 'parish' to correspond to modern civil

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

"Are you saying that anything with a postcode beginning with SW should be tagged addr:city=London and anything beginning with TW9 or TW10 should be tagged addr:city=Richmond?" I'm not saying others *should*, I am just saying how I *do *map. If others want to document how they map I'm happy to how

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

<les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote: > On 19/10/17 13:15, Adam Snape wrote: > > But Ebbsfleet is not a Post Town. The address will include Swanscombe. I > > should have said before that my experience (as an eBay seller) is lots > > of people are unaware of their correct po

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

Haha, fair enough, it must depend where you live and the purposes for needing an address. I apologise for the digression. On 19 October 2017 at 14:02, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19/10/2017 13:15, Adam Snape wrote: > >> To my mind Nominatim should use post

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

But Ebbsfleet is not a Post Town. The address will include Swanscombe. I should have said before that my experience (as an eBay seller) is lots of people are unaware of their correct postal address. Each postcode section eg. DA1, DA2, DA3... will have a particular post town, so I correct this

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

object. Using associated street relations http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet might be an option but seems a bit overly complicated. On 19 October 2017 at 11:04, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote: > On 19/10/17 09:35, Adam Snape wrote: > > So I'd tag

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

I'm convinced that many such addresses are unnecessarily long (are there really multiple Weldons in the Swanscome postal area?). Nevertheless we should have a way of mapping them if they are the official address. I agree that more general guidance would aid consistency. My address mapping practice

[Talk-GB] National Cycle Network Route 55

Hi all, I noticed when plotting a route on cycle.travel that the relation for NCN 55 http://osm.org/relation/37734 was deleted, presumably by mistake, in this changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52118445. Is there a way to reinstate it without manually re-adding all the contituent

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

Okay, To summarise the discussion so far. Most respondents thought that highway=living_street was not the correct tag for shared use. Nobody explicitly supported this usage. Most seemed to think that there should be a specific tag for shared use to be used in addition to established tags such as

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

as a shared space, although there are some > differences in the priorities that are implied. > > So I'd be OK with any of highway=* plus access tags; shared_space=yes; > traffic_calming=shared_space; or maybe even go for duck tagging them as > highway=shared_space? > > Regards, > Matt

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

The photo of Exhibition Rd on Wikipedia makes it look deserted. I guess it is sensible to photograph a new road layout at a quiet time. I actually walked along it not so long ago when visiting a museum and it certainly seemed to still be used by quite a lot of motor traffic. Not that I think

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

; pedestrians to cross almost anyway. However I think it's marked wrongly as > a living_street in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19753268/history > - funnily enough also by Pete Owens... > > > On 01/10/2017 14:12, Adam Snape wrote: > > Hi, > > Over the past coup

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

ments more than housing estates. > > So please DO NOT consider expanding living_street to include these shared > spaces. > > //colin > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_zone > > [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shared-space > > > On 2017-10-01

[Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

Hi, Over the past couple of years Fishergate, the high street in Preston, and some surrounding streets have been redeveloped and these highways are now designated as 'shared space' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space Following redeveleopment these were mapped as "highway=living_street".

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Ordnance Survey 1st series 1:10, 560 - a complete mid 19th century map of Britain

Of interest, but - for osm purposes - don't we already have permission to use all of the National Library of Scotland's Ordnance Survey scans (which I think already include all editions of the 6-inch County Series)? Adam On 13 Sep 2017 7:33 p.m., "Andy Mabbett" wrote:

Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales

The 'best mapping method' is somewhat subjective. If it were the sole criteria, then we would instantly create documentation to replace lots of the less than ideal tags which have developed and explicitly depreciate either the classic (highway=footway/bridleway/cycleway) or 'alternative' (highway=

Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales

I'm not sure of Wiki-editing etiquette but I support the views expressed by Richard. The name tag should contain the primary name of an object, not multiple names. Swansea-Abertawe is no more the name of a place than Duddon Valley - Dunnerdale is. In the absence of knowledge of local usage, using

Re: [Talk-GB] An old chestnut - looking for clarity for road names beginning "St ..."

Ideally nominatim etc. would recognise that St Mary's Road = St. Mary's Road = Saint Mary's Road but I do tag both if there is a difference in road signs. Church names are more problematic because they and their dedications are signed very inconsistently. I tend to use the form St Somebody's

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

PS. Adding the parish boundary (if it hasn't been mapped already) and a map note would help somebody understand that the two values prow_ref values were not an error On 4 July 2017 at 12:27, Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highwa

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form part of the parish boundary, with half falling in one parish and half in another. As long as we map highways as lines rather than areas, adding two values to the prow_ref tag as suggested seems the best solution where both halves are given

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

Hi, Yes, it's what I did regarding the original topic of this conversation. That's all sorted now. I think Warin refers to Matt Ellery's additional query from yesterday regarding a different mapper who has been adding descriptions/details in brackets as part of the name tag. Adam On 5 June 2017

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

There probably are some uncooperative mappers out there who perceive any comment as criticism and insist upon doing things their own way in defiance of convention. But, surely the starting assumption should be that people are cooperative and just unaware of the conventions? I did contact the

  1   2   >