Re: [Talk-gb-london] Thu 22nd Feb - Pedestrian Infrastructure Mapathon

decorative sidewalk than we have out in the suburbs (quickly mapped for the renderer, usually without crossings). Hopefully I'll manage to get to one of your pub meet-ups as well. -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-gb-london mailing

Re: [Talk-gb-london] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database (CID) conflation

is actually rather high, inspite of TfL - it's certainly orders of magnitude better than TfL's own maps, which seem relentless riddled with strange errors. On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:11 PM Robert Skedgell <mailto:r...@hubris.org.uk>> wrote: TfL have recently posted this on Facebook: &q

Re: [Talk-gb-london] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database (CID) conflation

the conflation done by the contractors was quite poor, but most of it was of much lower quality and should have been reverted. On 10/08/2023 16:57, Robert Skedgell wrote: As the project was quietly abandoned in January 2023, is it time for a post mortem of this incomplete project? On 15/11/2022 12:0

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Millennium Bridge temp closure

You could use a conditional restriction, perhaps something like foot:conditional=no @ 2023 Oct 14-2023 Nov 05 Wheelchair:conditional=no @ 2023 Oct 14-2023 Nov 05 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions On 12/10/2023 11:20, Matthew Scanlon wrote: Hi The Millennium Bridge

Re: [Talk-gb-london] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database (CID) conflation

As the project was quietly abandoned in January 2023, is it time for a post mortem of this incomplete project? On 15/11/2022 12:01, Whittaker, Ed via Talk-gb-london wrote: Hello Following very helpful feedback earlier in the year, we are now looking to recommence efforts to complete the

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Tube exits

On 07/04/2023 10:08, Bjoern Hassler wrote: Hello everyone and happy long weekend! I'd like to launch a campaign to collect accurate London tube exit information and how to get there from the platform. The exits are typically already in OSM, but often they are only labelled partially. I do

[Talk-gb-london] #waymap-project-SB cycleway vandalism

was done. https://osmcha.org/changesets/131431567/ I hate to think what else I'll find. -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-gb-london mailing list Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

Re: [Talk-gb-london] [Talk-GB] Separate sidewalks added by #waymap-project-SB in West London

ail/talk-gb/2021-October/027947.html> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023, 08:56 Robert Skedgell, <mailto:r...@hubris.org.uk>> wrote: We have had a large number of separate sidewalks added around Shepherds Bush, mostly by user alisonlung (possibly based in the USA) with some contributi

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Separate sidewalks added by #waymap-project-SB in West London

e there are defined crossing points, or where there is a clear benefit to pedestrian routing - delete most sidewalks added by these users on residential streets, leaving crossings as nodes on the highway -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)

[Talk-gb-london] Separate sidewalks added by #waymap-project-SB in West London

by these users on residential streets, leaving crossings as nodes on the highway -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-gb-london mailing list Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

Re: [Talk-gb-london] [Talk-GB] Is TfL data allowed on OSM?

Hi Andy, Many thanks for taking the time to look into this. So far, the following are my concerns with the TfLCID import: 1) Community "engagement" with talk-gb-london appears to operate in write-only mode. Ed Whittaker from TfL's contractor Sweco has posted twice (13/05/2022 and

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Update on TfL CID conflation plans

Is @AyushS183 one of yours? Apologies if not. I'm less than delighted with an import of TfLCID data where in at least one location no attempt was made to check the imported data against available imagery or infrastructure mapped in OSM. Chobham Road (w10818748) no longer has cycle lanes on

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Conflating TfL CID cycle data to OSM

., but I'm happy to change those if you were planning to use another key. -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-gb-london mailing list Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

Re: [Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)

On 15/12/2020 15:06, Simon Still wrote: > > >> On 15 Dec 2020, at 14:35, Robert Skedgell > <mailto:r...@hubris.org.uk>> wrote: >> >> If 1057 is used on a carriageway >> rather than on a lane or track, it presumably indicates a route, >

Re: [Talk-GB] What is needed for something to be classified as a 'cycle route' (London)

On 15/12/2020 13:26, Simon Still wrote: > See discussion on  > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95752985#map=18/51.46201/-0.12146=C > > > There appear to be a large number of sections of road in some areas of >

Re: [Talk-GB] No U-turn on a long stretch of road

This probably won't help routers much, but you could at least tag the positions of the signs as nodes on the highway with traffic_sign=GB:614 + direction=forward|backward On 05/12/2020 14:27, Edward Bainton wrote: > Sorry I should have made clear  > > Rather than seeking to capture a subjective

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN wiki page

On 17/11/2020 14:53, Cj Malone wrote: > On Tue, 2020-11-17 at 14:10 +, Jez Nicholson wrote: >> Whilst i'm here, am I correct that a UPRN can *only* be on a single >> thing? >> So anything in >> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=ref%3AGB%3Auprn#values mo >> re >> than once is an

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging modal filters and school streets

Would it be worth adding something like traffic_intervention:website to link to the relevant traffic order in The Gazette (an OGL source) or the relevant highway authority's website? On 27/09/2020 00:53, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > Here is the outline proposal: > > """ > The traffic_intervention

Re: [Talk-GB] How closely do we map lamp posts?

On 02/09/2020 22:37, Lester Caine wrote: > On 02/09/2020 19:00, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: >> I don't know the area. but they look like the existing posts to me. >> Has the cycle path been realigned around them to provide better vision >> splays/ stopping room to motorists? >> >>

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

If iD really is prompting changing highway=cycleway->highway=footway without preserving cycle access, we can expect to see cycle routing becoming badly broken in a lot of places. Some of these edits were made 3 weeks ago and nothing like that appears to have been reported elsewhere. There also

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

that > also mangling tagging conventions. I genuinely don’t know! > > Gareth > >> On 3 Sep 2020, at 10:42, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >>> On 03.09.20 11:29, Robert Skedgell wrote: >>> I believe the most appropriate base tagging

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

Rather than reverting, I restored access and left the top-level highway=* tag alone. I only noticed these changes when plotting a route in Komoot and noticing that I needed to create/drag a lot of extra waypoints in order to get the expected behaviour. Hopefully Komoot will behave responsibly and

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

On 03/09/2020 10:41, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 03.09.20 11:29, Robert Skedgell wrote: >> I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging >> principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be: >> highway=cycleway + segrega

[Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway

posals-on-a-review-of-the-highway-code BCC to DWG because of the impact in cycle routing. -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

On 16/08/2020 17:46, Ken Kilfedder wrote: > I should think that in places where there is a good, cycle-dedicated way > roughly parallel to a canal, a pedestrian-respecting router would recommend > that cyclists stick to the cycle-dedicated way. A good example of this might be where NCN route 1

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

On 14/08/2020 19:14, Simon Still wrote: > > >> On 14 Aug 2020, at 16:47, Ken Kilfedder > > wrote: >> >> I believe most of the canal towpaths are 'pedestrian priority' too - >> at least there are signs to that effect all over the place.  Well >> worth tagging

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

On 14/08/2020 13:55, Simon Still wrote: > See the blog posts that I linked to.   > Plus  >  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database  > > (Our involvement has now ended but TfL should be continuing to use CID > info to improve OSM accuracy)  > > More discussion

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

On 13/08/2020 15:41, Simon Still wrote: > > In my view there is definitely scope to look at adding more info to > cycle routes/tracks/cycleways to give more information to routing > algorithms about the real experience of using them. > > Would welcome input on what as we’re doing more on this at

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMUK Instagram ideas

of the COVID-19 related highway changes, e.g. modal filters implemented with planters might be worth including. There's an obvious visual and routing impact in real life, as rendered by OSM Carto and for routing engines. -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ T

Re: [Talk-GB] And the USRN tag proposal page

agged with footway=sidewalk or cycleway=sidewalk -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings

rt and activity tracking apps like Strava and Training Peaks (both via Mapbox), VeloViewer, etc. -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

in accordance with, English law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

On 10/07/2020 13:35, David Woolley wrote: > On 10/07/2020 13:11, Colin Smale wrote: >> What does "legally accessible" mean? Are they Public Footpaths? Do we >> tag all Public Footpaths with an explicit "foot=yes" or is >> "designation=public_footpath" enough? >> > > I don't know the situation in

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

SG:3857 \ osopenusrn_202007.sql osopenusrn_202007.gpkg Is it possible that your installation of GDAL doesn't include support for the GPKG vector driver? -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN & USRN Tagging

Surely these should be ref:GB:uprn and ref:GB:usrn, as UK is not an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code? Having had a quick look at USRN data, it appears that roads may have more than one USRN, as a road may have more than one of 'Designated Street Name', 'Officially Described Street', 'Numbered

Re: [Talk-GB] "secret" site

Is it mapped or does it appear to be redacted on NLS's out-of-copyright OS maps? On 28/06/2020 09:27, Tony OSM wrote: > I question the meaning of the word 'secret' when used in a newspaper. My > observations are that secret means the reporter didn't know about it. > > Tony > > On 28/06/2020

Re: [Talk-GB] JOSM Plugin for the FHRS API

The fhrs:authority tag isn't normally necessary as it can be inferred from the surrounding local authority boundary. There are some exceptions to this, including premises where the food hygiene authority is the City of London Corporation, but which are not located within the City of London

Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle Track - part/soft protection tags - proposal

That seems to cover everything I can think of in London. I'll have to get off my backside and take some Mapillary images of new infra as soon as the experimental traffic orders come into force. On 19/06/2020 16:29, Simon Still wrote: > Try this - description and photo of each type I’ve

Re: [Talk-GB] COVID road changes

LB Southwark have just made some ETOs which explicitly mention the London Streetspace programme in the London Gazette announcement. The orders come into force on 2020-06-25 and expire on 2021-12-29. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3579196 This could be a good opportunity to work out how to

Re: [Talk-GB] COVID road changes

mes be used for > updates without a survey being essential. > > This will show notices for "Cycle tracks, bus lanes & tramways" and > "Road restrictions": > > https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/notice?results-page-si

Re: [Talk-GB] COVID road changes

n sometimes be used for updates without a survey being essential. This will show notices for "Cycle tracks, bus lanes & tramways" and "Road restrictions": https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/notice?results-page-size=50=1=1=latest-date=G408040001+G408040004=all-notices -- Rob

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

On 18/12/2019 16:26, David Woolley wrote: > On 18/12/2019 15:59, Robert Skedgell wrote: >> It's parking a car on a >> footway which is illegal in London (an offence which is only subject to >> civil enforcement), unless explicitly allowed by the local authority. > >

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

to > access private property. > > Phil (trigpoint) For access to a private property as a destination, hopefully kerb=lowered at the intersection of the highway=service and barrier=kerb ways would be interpreted as allowing it by a router. -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition

seem to fit the original case. * In the OP's example, this is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/676088956 -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Strava heatmaps - permission reconfirmed

y present to end users. https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360019440271-Mapbox-maps-not-updated-from-OpenStreetMap-recently- -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Managed open water swimming

gt; this tag), in which one can use RFID keys to borrow a bike from any of > various locations... > > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/network#values > > Best > Dan > > > Op do 12 sep. 2019 om 12:26 schreef Robert Skedgell : >> >> There are

Re: [Talk-GB] Possible removal of FHRS tags

This is a very late reply, but there are other cases where fhrs:authority is useful, particularly for premises where the City of London Corporation is the local authority. It's probably not a useful tag within the City of London itself, but is for Port of London areas like the Royal Docks

[Talk-GB] Managed open water swimming

There are a few open water swimming areas which are operated by the landowner, but use RFID wristbands provided by NOWCA or Great Swim Local to manage booking and attendance. I feel that the operator=* tag should probably contain the operator of the site, so does anyone have suggestions for the

[Talk-GB] Dubious edits to parks in Bromley

reverting. -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Spurious No U turns in GB

On 27/06/2018 16:01, David Woolley wrote: > On 27/06/18 15:30, SK53 wrote: >> # Junctions with islands which also cause a single carriageway to >> split and merge around the junction. >> # > > I would definitely agree that this is tagging for the renderer, and > wrong. > > However, I can think of

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

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 p

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

of the map (as noted in an earlier comment). Perhaps also operator=* for the borough responsible, or TfL as appropriate?  -- Robert Skedgell  (rskedgell) Original message From: Andy Allan <gravityst...@gmail.com> Date: 10/01/2017 15:10 (GMT+00:00) To: Robert Skedgell <

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

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 -- From: "Robert Skedgell" <r...@hubris.org.

[Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

=site name=* ref=legible_london -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb