Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Change reversal

On 09/02/2022 12:28, Andy Townsend wrote: The revert was clean, but can you check that it looks OK?  JOSM's validator reckons that https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9217096278/history is a duplicate node, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12175058/history is no longer a valid

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Change reversal

On 09/02/2022 12:04, Ryan Underwood wrote: Just noticed somebody changed my newer edits to the A34 Perry Barr junction, essentially reverting it to the way it was before the roadworks even started!!  The editor has removed the right turn lane into the One Stop from the Walsall Road, has made

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of historic 'stink pipes'

On 18/12/2020 08:39, Edward Bainton wrote: Morning all My local civic society is collecting the location of 'stink pipes', Victorian sewer ventilation shafts in cast iron. Pics here: https://twitter.com/TobyWoody/status/1339679166371926017/photo/1

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

On 14/12/2020 20:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote: A barrier=stile on a long-established UK bridleway is 99.9% a mapping error. Bridleways are open to horses and bikes, and so stiles are forbidden - PRoW officers are pretty hot on this. That may be the case in the comfy Cotswolds but I'm not sure

Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary

On 14/12/2020 19:21, Edward Bainton wrote: Glad I'm not going mad. Does it say anything useful or interesting that the "GPS trace" is a few metres away from the boundary as marked on the map? (Sorry if this has been answered recently: there was extensive discussion on alignment not long ago,

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On 13/12/2020 11:30, ael via Talk-GB wrote: On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 10:44:24AM +, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote: IMHO, if it leads on to another road, track, etc. it is not a "driveway", but could be a track, a bridleway, a service road, or something else. FWIIW, I would very definitely

[Talk-GB] map styles on osm.org; other sites (was: Re: driveway-becomes-track)

On 13/12/2020 11:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: Note that someone who wants to show their map style at OSM website can be included, though they must sponsor hosting See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tile_layers/Guidelines_for_new_tile_layers As far as I know, the

[Talk-GB] Map styles and rendering various things (was: Re: driveway-becomes-track)

On 12/12/2020 21:11, Martin Wynne wrote: On 12/12/2020 17:37, Andy Townsend wrote: That allows maps such as https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16=52.28208=-2.42987 to display it as a public bridleway (in blue) Hi Andy, That's a great map! It seems you have already done

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On 12/12/2020 19:47, Nick wrote: Hi Andy Yes I understand the tag that has been used (i.e. designation) although I was suggesting the tag "Bridleway", the question that Martin posed was that "at zoom level 15, driveways are not shown", so the work around in this case might be to make a way

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On 12/12/2020 13:59, Nick wrote: I had to check the Council GIS - so the designation is Bridleway. Because of the complexity, if this was tagged something like 'Bridleway=Yes' and get that displayed on maps of footpaths, surely that would solve the problem? Hi Nick, Yes that is pretty

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On 12/12/2020 14:30, Martin Wynne wrote: On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote: Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it. Perhaps that someone is you? Hi Andy, Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus, Ohio)

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On 12/12/2020 12:34, Martin Wynne wrote: A common situation is that a service road/driveway continues as a track beyond the initial residential destination. This is common on farms. On the standard map at zoom level 15, driveways are not shown. But tracks and footpaths are. This seems

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

On 11/12/2020 09:59, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote: In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, like most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage would be light and limited to those in the OSM community. I use Hetzner for my hosting

Re: [Talk-GB] Is "GB revert request log" wiki page something that should be recommended?

On 11/12/2020 10:17, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: It is about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log that appears to be abandoned. I believe that that was set up to deal with a particular "overenthusiastic

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

On 10/12/2020 12:24, Thomas Jarvis wrote: (snipped) I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that I ask the community here to see what the consensus is. I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the sole reason being because it renders

Re: [Talk-GB] electric fences

To add a similar question about other common electric fence crossings - what do people normally do with "the bit of electric fence on a hook" (with an insulator that allows you to unhook it, let people through, and hook it up again) and "an electric fence with no crossing at all".

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

Following a lack of answers to questions at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=5229644 (in lots of cases they've responded, but have not actually answered the question) with a DWG hat on I've sent them a message that they have to read before continuing to map at

Re: [Talk-GB] FWD: Revert the "Felixstowe to Nuneaton" relation

On 21/11/2020 15:56, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7521925 That is the relation I am talking about. An edit made by user nplath seems to have made this relation into a clone of the "Ipswich To Cambridge-Ely" relation. You can tell

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

On 10/11/2020 10:55, Jon Pennycook wrote: Returning to this subject, but not necessarily at roundabouts - turn restrictions are still being added even where they don't exist (apparently) - e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93759133

Re: [Talk-GB] Multi-lingual tagging in Wales

On 31/10/2020 18:19, Jez Nicholson wrote: I like it. + "in the event of dispute... the default language is English."? .although I'm not sure how to define dispute'. On Sat, 31 Oct 2020, 11:07 Ben Proctor, > wrote: (snipped) "In the event of a dispute

Re: [Talk-GB] Multi-lingual tagging in Wales

Hi Gruff, hi Ben, On 16/10/2020 14:08, Gruff Owen wrote: The ability to include an :en or :cy tag name field is really helpful for this but it's unfortunate that ultimately we have to choose a single name tag for each place name - giving the impression that one language has precedence over

[Talk-GB] Blocked / overgrown / inaccessible footpaths and bridleways

Hello, How do people normally map things like "I know there is a public footpath that goes through here but it is currently inaccessible"? A taginfo search finds a few candidates: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=overgrown#values

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

On 27/09/2020 16:28, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote: I am importing a subset of nodes from UK (those tagged with amenity:pub) for a pet project. Firstly - welcome! When analysing the data I realised that some of these nodes contain a website: tag that does not contain an appropriate URL

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

On 28/09/2020 10:25, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: Anyone know if there's a way to at least use a UK based server or to conveniently ping multiple websites directly? In this case I don't see how that helps - it wouldn't detect domain parking pages, which is usually where a domain goes after

Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway

On 03/09/2020 10:58, Gareth L wrote: I think the permissive tag is due to it being yet another perceived public space which is actually private, so there’s no public right of way. Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that also mangling tagging conventions. I

Re: [Talk-GB] Eat out to help out data

On 20/08/2020 09:38, Ken Kilfedder wrote: What data are available in the EOHO set that we don't get from the FHRS? Perhaps "opening_hours:covid19=open"? Even that's a bit tricky - if an establishment is registered with the scheme I guess it doesn't guarantee that it is _currently_ open.

Re: [Talk-GB] New Bing Imagery

On 19/08/2020 10:11, Stephen Colebourne wrote: And now I can see Amazon mappers using an iD variant that doesn't have the offset and moving all the roads as a result: https://osmcha.org/changesets/89549551?aoi=758c7f2b-faca-44e5-acd2-0cb8c33034bd

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

On 14/08/2020 14:53, David Woolley wrote: On 14/08/2020 12:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: If signage on the ground is gone or never existed then route relation should not be mapped in OSM*. In the long term, this could make OSM useless for motor traffic as there is a general

Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings

On 24/07/2020 14:41, Mark Goodge wrote: On 24/07/2020 13:20, Martin Wynne wrote: Most of them go back to OS Explorer when they find UK public rights of way are not shown in different colours on the OSM standard map. This is one of the reasons why it would be nice to have a UK-specific

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

On 21/07/2020 12:03, o...@poppe.dev wrote: Hi Mark, there's a pretty detailled article in the wiki for e-charging and all the options that come with it: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station So yeah, I guess, mapping them is totally OK. Kai Mark Goodge hat am

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

On 18/07/2020 14:47, Richard Fairhurst wrote: As some of you may be aware, Sustrans has embarked on a project to review and improve the National Cycle Network. (also following on from Jon's message) some of the changes near me do seem a bit odd.

[Talk-GB] TPT / NCN62 (was: Re: National Cycle Network removal/reclassification)

On 18/07/2020 17:06, Adam Snape wrote: 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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Fingerposts

On 16/07/2020 17:20, Alan Mackie wrote: Maybe: tourism=information information=guidepost ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dguidepost I don't know a way of recording the directions they point save via destination_sign relations.

Re: [Talk-GB] POI files of Pub/Restaurant chain

On 16/07/2020 14:03, David Woolley wrote: On 15/07/2020 14:00, o...@poppe.dev wrote: As this data is pretty much openly accessible, I think there'd be no major issue with asking them if this data could be used to check all the places against OSM data and, if needed correct and/or create them,

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

On 12/07/2020 12:32, Adam Snape wrote: My main concern here is about whether we should be mapping unmarked routes at all and especially whether it is okay to import them without discussion or the explicit permission of the copyright holder. I'd agree with that.  Generally speaking, even

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

(apologies for the double reply) I just remembered I wrote a diary entry last year about this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/391053 . That has some useful links in such as a pointer to the start of "designation" tagging, in 2009:

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

On 10/07/2020 12:54, Andrew Hain wrote: I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset in Potlatch 1. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607 If Osmose is flagging "highway=footway;foot=yes"

Re: [Talk-GB] "secret" site

On 28/06/2020 00:47, David Woolley wrote: On the other hand, there used to be part of the North Yorkshire moors that had "undefined" written over it on OS maps.) Interestingly (assuming you're talking about the radar installation at RAF Fylingdales), at least as of my 2006 copy of OS's OL6

Re: [Talk-GB] Documenting tagging practice for place nodes in London

Just to pick up on one point: On 23/06/2020 22:30, Russ Garrett wrote: * The presence of a few archaic place names which were presumably derived from NPE or other historic maps but are generally out of use now. * A surprisingly large number of place names present in OS StreetView are unmapped

Re: [Talk-GB] Rockall

In situations like this I'd invite the new mapper to discuss things more widely (which Colin has already done on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86624359 ) and then revert the changes pending any discussion here. The new mapper is already aware of the changeset discussion (they've

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging showgrounds

On 13/05/2020 12:28, Paul Berry wrote: Not sure about the tagging/proposal politics but since there are a small number of showgrounds, is there anything to stop a UK-specific page being set up on the Wiki for visibility? As Jez has already said that sounds like an excellent idea. Then if

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

On 05/05/2020 11:53, Adam Snape wrote: Hi Tom, I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's certainly being suggested

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

On 04/05/2020 14:13, nathan case wrote: Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following the definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the fixme as Tony suggests. It depends on

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

In each case nothing will happen unless changesets with bad edits are commented on.  Given that the messages here last month didn't get a reply from Amazon I'm pretty sure that Amazon's mappers or their handlers don't read talk-gb.  Of course - this is a perfect opportunity for them to prove

Re: [Talk-GB] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?

On 27/04/2020 11:16, Peter Neale wrote: It seems that we have had 2 of us attempting the same change at the same time. Generally speaking, IRC's better for this sort of request as everyone sees what's happening in real time I hope that the database change  control can cope with this.

Re: [Talk-GB] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?

On 27/04/2020 11:09, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote: I THINK I have done it. It took a bit of fiddling to separate some shared points, but then I was able to cut the offending line and delete a section at a time (which fitted on the screen). That definitely sounds like "the hard way" :) It

Re: [Talk-GB] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?

On 27/04/2020 10:56, Jez Nicholson wrote: Note that the vast majority of the points in the Way were pre-existing. Any fix should leave them in place. On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:54 AM nathan case > wrote: I’m fairly sure Potlach (assuming you want to tackle

Re: [Talk-GB] CWGC: worldwide, war graves

That'd work when if I know the reference, but what if I've only seen the sign? On 26/04/2020 13:09, Colin Smale wrote: ref:cwgc=* would kill two birds with one stone, would it not? On 2020-04-26 13:44, Andy Townsend wrote: Hello, How is it suggested to tag "there are commonwealt

Re: [Talk-GB] CWGC: worldwide, war graves

Hello, How is it suggested to tag "there are commonwealth war graves here"? At least near me, there's usually a fairly large white on green sign near the entrance, so even if it's not something you'd explicitly go out to map, it's often something that you'd notice. Best Regards, Andy On

Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites

On 11/04/2020 18:38, Dave Love wrote: On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 12:08 +0100, SK53 wrote: Robert Whittaker has a Pharmacy QA

Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?

-to-live/current/verdo-kew-bridge Steve On 30/03/2020 18:58, Andy Townsend wrote: I've sent another "message to be read before continuing to edit" https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3592 . It'd be good if everyone could have a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changese

Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?

;Reverted edits as many of mine were falsely removed" On 2020-03-25 21:54, Andy Townsend wrote: On 25/03/2020 16:02, Jez Nicholson wrote: Heh, none of the references on the Wikipedia page link to anything mentioning that it exists. I call bullsh/t Indeed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

On 27/03/2020 15:30, Lester Caine wrote: I would also add that having been FIGHTING the Facebook Places naming process, For the avoidance of doubt, I don't believe that what Facebook (and Instagram, and WhatsApp, et al) "places" are directly related to OSM. At the DWG* we get a huge amount

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

On 27/03/2020 14:21, ael wrote: Even then working from imagery can be very problematic. One of the Amazon mappers added a variety of roads to a construction site which were actually muddy tracks being used for the construction itself. A minority were destined to become highways or paths.

Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?

On 25/03/2020 16:02, Jez Nicholson wrote: Heh, none of the references on the Wikipedia page link to anything mentioning that it exists. I call bullsh/t Indeed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tfondie does not look promising. On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 2:34 PM Andrew Hain

Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?

On 21/03/2020 11:18, Andrew Hain wrote: Further issues: Richmond rugby ground tagged addr:city=London Borough of Hounslow Middlesex changed to county Fulwell bus garage tagged name=Fulwell Bus Garage (Middlesex) There are some legitimate edits there such as shop=supermarket for Lidl Fulwell,

Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments?

On 16/03/2020 15:36, ael wrote: There has now been had one short reply essentially admitting tagging for the renderer. I haven't replied as yet, but Andy has. In this case it looks like the offending data's been removed, though the tiles haven't rerendered yet (due to the site being busy). 

[Talk-GB] Related map vandalism reverted (was: List moderator - volunteers needed)

As an aside, I've recently (with a DWG hat on) reverted some "schoolkid vandalism" by an account with a similar-sounding name in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82191956 , and asked the user to get in contact via https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3559 and an OSM PM with the

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

On 08/03/2020 19:57, Andrew Hain wrote: Is there a resource I can point anyone who puts C numbers in the ref tag of roads at? Possibly the best place is previous discussions on this list, or links from there? It's perhaps also worth mentioning that C roads in Scotland in OSM are still

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging showgrounds

Since I was going through these anyway to see what ought to be rendered at map.atownsend.org.uk, I thought I might as well list them here too.  These are things "tagged a bit like showgrounds, excluding bus stops and car parks", sorted by one of the main tags. I suspect that the ones tagged

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging showgrounds

On 24/02/2020 09:57, Mark Goodge wrote: Morning all, Someone has commented on a change I made to the Three Counties showground last year when I changed the tagging to landuse=grass rather than landuse=commercial. Their suggestion is that it really ought to be landuse=recreation_ground, with

Re: [Talk-GB] Features which move...apparently spurious edits: iD bug or "finger trouble"?

> Has anyone seen something similar?  Presumably this could happen to nodes generally, there is no reason to think amenity=post_box is a factor. Exactly that pattern no - but occasionally new users manage to drag nodes by accident. >  Is there any way to identify features which have moved by

Re: [Talk-GB] "British Islands" (was "OSMUK-in-a-box")

> I've been looking at IoM, Jersey, and Guernsey which AFAIK have no coverage in the Community Index. As you say, it uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2 country codes via the countryCoder so I'm expanding coverage to ["gb", "gg", "je", "im"]. I believe that there may be an issue

Re: [Talk-GB] "British Islands" (was "OSMUK-in-a-box")

On 07/02/2020 10:55, Jez Nicholson wrote: Personally, I interpret the coverage of Talk-GB and OSMUK to be the same, i.e. Northern Ireland is officially under OSMUK, but for practical reasons mappers may want to interact with OSMIEand the same for Talk-GB + Talk-IE. I think that part of

[Talk-GB] "British Islands" (was "OSMUK-in-a-box")

On 06/02/2020 18:35, Rob Nickerson wrote: >do we cover British Overseas Territories such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands? Not as OSM UK CIC. We ended up settling on the British Islands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands The data underneath https://openstreetmap.community/

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

On 04/02/2020 15:37, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote: >There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch IMHO, it would be a waste of time, if you tried to create a single area object (do I mean "closed way"?) to be the university.  That would just be most of the city centre. The University

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?

On 31/01/2020 11:41, Martin Wynne wrote: But the places I was asking about can't really be called laybys, or car parks. Somewhere that a car could be left for a few hours out of anyone's way on an otherwise long narrow lane:  https://goo.gl/maps/nSTAbnE4nYXTBAz59 That's a really good

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?

On 30/01/2020 18:58, ael wrote: On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 06:14:44PM +, Martin Wynne wrote: -- even if it is, highway=layby appears to be an abandoned proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lay-by That was a proposal for "highway=layby".  "layby" does get used as

Re: [Talk-GB] Presumed Vandalism

On 29/01/2020 20:32, Neil Matthews wrote: See edits by https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Jackgeo123 I've reverted the most obvious problem changesets in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80281065 .  I've left the earlier stuff - if any of that looks wrong add a comment to the

Re: [Talk-GB] Map with AI comes to the UK

On 05/01/2020 21:33, Philip Barnes wrote: I have just come across an armchair edit using Facebook AI data. They do seem to have failed to check that detections are accurate, or lack experience to identify common Midlands farmland features. They have mapped several hedges as tracks. The

Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon pickup lockers - how to represent (if at all)?

On 01/01/2020 12:49, Martin Wynne wrote: See also man_made=street_cabinet. The wiki page invites us to add additional usage tags: True, but it's not really a good idea to "expand" the meaning of a key that's already in use too far - it just makes it harder to identify the (in this case)

Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render

On 29/12/2019 16:43, Richard Fairhurst wrote: OS have digitised all paths in National Parks and appear to be gradually digitising others. But certainly they haven't done the full set of PROWs yet. Interestingly, just up the road from my previous example is

Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render

> I've a contributor who says it's evidence that some PROWS don't existany > more. They're still shown in Bing's OS Explorer map & in the localauthority's > digital database. ... and are still on the ground in at least some cases. As I read this I've just walked past here:

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

On 18/12/2019 23:47, Warin wrote: On 19/12/19 00:41, Mike Baggaley wrote: Perhaps setting both building=yes and disused: building=apartments would fulfill all the needs. Err no. Having both tags on the one object is contradictory. How is it determined which tag to render? Aside from this

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

On 16/12/2019 11:59, Gareth L wrote: I’m all for using a polygon per field, but am unsure what to do at the boundaries. Do I make 2 field polygons meet? Or leave a gap as there’s a track/hedge/fence/small coppice/ ditch/drain ? I’m probably not going to be able to map the boundary

Re: [Talk-GB] Elections Online website - candidate for OSM?

On 03/12/2019 09:47, Edward Bainton wrote: Hi all General Elections Online  (hosted at parliament.uk ) have got a failed page where the Google map is overlaid with "Development purposes

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMF board election

On 10/11/2019 10:26, Rob Nickerson wrote: Are there any questions that you want asking of the candidates for OSMF directorship? We have until 2019-11-13 00:01 UTC to submit these. (for completeness) List of candidates: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM19/Election_to_Board

Re: [Talk-GB] FIXME/fixme/OSm Notes Quarterly Project

On 05/11/2019 22:51, Edward Bainton wrote: What do I do about a fixme on a relation? A bus route near me says fixme=check relation plus members - appears broken https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2580522#map=14/52.5823/-0.2418=N Presumably 'broken' means the route has gaps in it? On a

Re: [Talk-GB] Sustrans & OSM

On 04/11/2019 18:19, Edward Bainton wrote: (much snippage) Sustrans appear to have moved the NCN routes off their own site altogether (perhaps not news to you), and link directly to osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn . The behaviour is pretty horrible -

Re: [Talk-GB] FIXME/fixme/OSm Notes Quarterly Project

On 22/10/2019 10:38, and...@black1.org.uk wrote: On 2019-10-21 11:26, Andy Townsend wrote: I don't have data for the whole UK, but do have numbers for "OSM notes" and "fixme tags" for a couple of areas going back at least a couple of years.  If people are interested I co

Re: [Talk-GB] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

On 25/10/2019 11:43, Jez Nicholson wrote: +1 for a bot edit Perhaps Maproulette would be a better option?  Zebra markings would often be visible on aerial imagery, and a comparison of newer vs older imagery might allow people to identify recent changes*. Best Regards, Andy * Somewhat

Re: [Talk-GB] FIXME/fixme/OSm Notes Quarterly Project

On 21/10/2019 10:53, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 21 Oct 2019, 11:46 by bpran...@gmail.com: Hi everyone So  far according tothe taginfo script we've managed to ADD 415 fixmes and remove 84 FIXMEs. I don't have data yet on OSM Notes. Don't know what's going on here with the

Re: [Talk-GB] non-squared buildings

On 30/09/2019 11:15, Jez Nicholson wrote: Some people seem quite animated about non-squared buildings in OSMcan anyone tell me why it matters so much? because 'accuracy'? A possible (slightly contentious) view might be that: * some people have been complaining about the quality of HOT

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way vs. tracks

On 29/09/2019 19:37, Edward Bainton wrote: Do I mark a track, with all it's passability tags, and then tag horses & foot=designated? That acknowledges the track, but disregards the documentation here

Re: [Talk-GB] Next quarters project will be fixmes and notes

On 24/09/2019 13:24, Michael Booth wrote: Fixmes can only be viewed in iD or with a QA tool, while notes can be viewed on osm.org and StreetComplete which is useful for actually going out and surveying them. If you're a Garmin user you can use https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/Notes01 from

Re: [Talk-GB] Canoeing infrastructure/river features

On 02/09/2019 17:50, Edward Bainton wrote: Just a quick question: what sort of role should overpass turbo play in my researches on this topic (and on canoe portages especially)? I use it all the time when looking for things that people might have mapped using tags that I wasn't aware of.  In

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

On 02/09/2019 16:57, Mark Goodge wrote: I'm a little puzzled by one of the lines on the permissions grid on that page. There's a line for "Legal RoW but access discouraged", with a suggested tagging of "discouraged/private" for pedestrians (and similar tags for other users). Quite apart

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMTracker for Android - detailed survey of paths & tracks layout

> Why on earth are there 2 versions of OSMTracker for Android on the Play store?! It's open source software, so it's fairly technically straightforward to "clone, modify and resubmit".  What restrictions Google put on this sort of thing currently I don't know, but I suspect they're mostly limited

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

There are certainly places where the rights-of-way as signed don't match what appears on e.g. OS Landranger - I was in one south of York just a couple of days ago. There in fact the OS data (including OS Opendata / older OS maps which have been traced into OSM) doesn't match what's on the

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

On 26/07/2019 13:28, David Woolley wrote: On 26/07/2019 12:57, Stephen Colebourne wrote: unless there is an explicit "private" sign There is no legal need for "private" signs.  The default assumption should be that everything is private ... in England and Wales.  Scotland is somewhat more

Re: [Talk-GB] Newish user causing damage-...

18:10, Colin Smale wrote: Thanks Phil. On 2019-06-23 18:59, Philip Barnes wrote: On Sun, 2019-06-23 at 16:50 +0100, Andy Townsend wrote: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2922 (apologies for terseness - sending from pub beer garden) Thank you Andy. I have reverted this, I had

Re: [Talk-GB] ITOworld maps

On 13/07/2019 15:33, Brian Prangle wrote: ITOworld  maps which showed a huge variety of visualisations of OSM data seems to have gone offline. Hi Brian, I suspect that many (most?) of the visualisations that ITO used to provide could be done with Overpass / Overpass turbo (even as far as

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Downloading OSM slippy map tiles

On 07/07/2019 19:26, Iain Simpson wrote: I've just tried to run it again and it fails with 'urllib.error.HTTPError: HTTP Error 403: Forbidden' I assume that the OSM access methods/conditions have changed. Can anyone suggest where to look or who to contact ? My guess is that you're using http

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data [Thread 2]

On 05/07/2019 13:19, Silent Spike wrote: On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 1:02 PM Gareth L > wrote: Forgive me if this is silly question/statement, but the adj/alt names etc are in the naptan dataset. Wouldn’t it be better to have the link made between the stop in OSM

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data

On 04/07/2019 16:39, Martin Wynne wrote: In rural areas there are many places where buses are timetabled to stop but where there is nothing physical -- no signpost or shelter. Are these highway=bus_stop in OSM? (following a previous discussion on this list) I've used "physically_present=no"

Re: [Talk-GB] Newish user causing damage-...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2922(apologies for terseness - sending from pub beer garden)

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

On 01/06/2019 13:55, Michael Collinson wrote: ... I tried, then going out to "just verify" and found that I was hopelessly inaccurate. It defeats the point, to get a highly accurate localised network for folks who might depend on it. I did something similar on the dev server a while back

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

On 01/06/2019 11:11, Jez Nicholson wrote: Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed withor am I being a Luddite? I personally wouldn't map sidewalks in a dense UK city like that (though some people do, with the intention of

Re: [Talk-GB] Farmland (crop or animals)?

On 24/05/2019 10:43, Gregory Marler wrote: What is going on with landuse=farmland, and what are we going to do? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarmland With regard to tagging, I agree with a lot of what you say there, but I suspect that the first thing to do is to talk to

Re: [Talk-GB] Déjà vu

On 23/05/2019 12:40, Gareth L wrote: Ive used http://overpass-api.de/achavi/ for this, if there is no trace of the element. Not so good on mobile. Another overpass option is to search on a particular date, for example: [date:"2018-09-04T00:00:00Z"]; node({{bbox}}); out geom; (that's saved

  1   2   3   >