Re: [Talk-GB] Autumn Quarterly Project

[Dave F]

On 11/10/2016 12:36, John Aldridge wrote:
In most cases that involves filling in addr:postcode and fhrs:id on 
existing OSM features. I'm not, however, trusting that the postcode 
recorded on FHRS is accurate, and I'm not setting addr:postcode unless 
I can find corroborating information (e.g. the establishment's web site).


A way I found to test the validity of post codes is to use Potlatch 2 
'task' feature. It uses the co-ordinates from the FHRS data, which are 
derived from post code's centroid to pan to the location. If it's looks 
suspicious (I've had one in the middle of a lake) then it needs further 
verification from the establishments website. I believe there's a JOSM 
plugin that that performs similarly.


I'm collating any erroneous data to pass back to the local authority.

Cheers
Dave F.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Registered users over 3 million

[Bob]

Though it doesn't necessarily mean much osm is now over 3 million registered 
users and has 40,000 contributers last month

http://osmstats.neis-one.org/___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Registered users over 3 million

[Dave F]

That's interesting.

I wonder the reason for the increase in users/edits around April '16?

Dave F.

On 13/10/2016 15:01, Bob wrote:
Though it doesn't necessarily mean much osm is now over 3 million 
registered users and has 40,000 contributers last month


http://osmstats.neis-one.org/


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Registered users over 3 million

[Simon Poole]

Not users: contributors.

Contributors increase is mainly due to maps.me, edits haven't really
increased IMHO (that is matter of fact one of the notable things about
contributors that start off with maps.me). There was a HOT activation
roughly at the same time so which is part of the increase.

As soon as I get around to it,I'll be publishing some more detailed
analysis.

Simon

Am 13.10.2016 um 16:22 schrieb Dave F:
> That's interesting.
>
> I wonder the reason for the increase in users/edits around April '16?
>
> Dave F.
>
> On 13/10/2016 15:01, Bob wrote:
>> Though it doesn't necessarily mean much osm is now over 3 million
>> registered users and has 40,000 contributers last month
>>
>> http://osmstats.neis-one.org/
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

Greetings all!

In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked with access:psv 
tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally expect to see simply psv=* on 
these roads - and more importantly (to me) so would my contractor who is 
importing the data. I’ve checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to agree 
with the contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.

There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I propose to change 
those (manually) in the areas that I am concerned about in the UK. This is just 
to let you know, in case anyone has any violent objections or wonders what I am 
up to.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Chris Hill]

Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data consumer 
changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you edit tags and by 
doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a disaster - mappers are our most 
precious resource. 

Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not hard to do, 
you write the code once and use it whenever you need to in the future. 

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds 
 wrote:
>Greetings all!
>
>In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked with
>access:psv tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally expect to
>see simply psv=* on these roads - and more importantly (to me) so would
>my contractor who is importing the data. I’ve checked the wiki for
>“access” and it seems to agree with the contractor that psv=* is the
>preferred tagging scheme.
>
>There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I propose to
>change those (manually) in the areas that I am concerned about in the
>UK. This is just to let you know, in case anyone has any violent
>objections or wonders what I am up to.
>
>Regards,
>Stuart Reynolds
>for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

Chris,

For sure! But there are an infinite number of tagging schemes that any 
individual mapper could choose to use. I can’t realistically be expected to get 
my contractor to implement a revised import every time someone dreams one up. 
That’s why I went back to the Wiki to see what it said there, as it is to some 
extent the tagging bible, and it is quite clear that it should be psv=*. That 
and the fact that there are only 275 worldwide rather suggests that it is not 
an accepted tagging scheme.

Regards,
Stuart




Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

m: +44 7788 106165
skype: stuartjreynolds



On 13 Oct 2016, at 17:38, Chris Hill 
mailto:o...@raggedred.net>> wrote:

Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data consumer 
changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you edit tags and by 
doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a disaster - mappers are our most 
precious resource.

Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not hard to do, 
you write the code once and use it whenever you need to in the future.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Greetings all!

In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked with access:psv 
tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally expect to see simply psv=* on 
these roads - and more importantly (to me) so would my contractor who is 
importing the data. I’ve checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to agree 
with the contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.

There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I propose to change 
those (manually) in the areas that I am concerned about in the UK. This is just 
to let you know, in case anyone has any violent objections or wonders what I am 
up to.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia







Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Chris Hill]

There are not an infinite number of ways to tag things. In order to edit the 
tags you think need changing, you have to find them. So instead of editing them 
just add the tag to your list of accepted tags. If you edit you have to 
re-download the extract of the OSM data, if you simply update your list of tags 
then just run your code again. 

If you edit tags as you describe that is a mechanical edit and I would insist 
it is reverted.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)



On 13 October 2016 17:53:11 BST, Stuart Reynolds 
 wrote:
>Chris,
>
>For sure! But there are an infinite number of tagging schemes that any
>individual mapper could choose to use. I can’t realistically be
>expected to get my contractor to implement a revised import every time
>someone dreams one up. That’s why I went back to the Wiki to see what
>it said there, as it is to some extent the tagging bible, and it is
>quite clear that it should be psv=*. That and the fact that there are
>only 275 worldwide rather suggests that it is not an accepted tagging
>scheme.
>
>Regards,
>Stuart
>
>
>
>
>Stuart Reynolds
>for traveline south east & anglia
>
>m: +44 7788 106165
>skype: stuartjreynolds
>
>
>
>On 13 Oct 2016, at 17:38, Chris Hill
>mailto:o...@raggedred.net>> wrote:
>
>Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data
>consumer changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you
>edit tags and by doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a
>disaster - mappers are our most precious resource.
>
>Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not hard
>to do, you write the code once and use it whenever you need to in the
>future.
>
>Cheers, Chris (chillly)
>
>On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds
>mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>>
>wrote:
>Greetings all!
>
>In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked with
>access:psv tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally expect to
>see simply psv=* on these roads - and more importantly (to me) so would
>my contractor who is importing the data. I’ve checked the wiki for
>“access” and it seems to agree with the contractor that psv=* is the
>preferred tagging scheme.
>
>There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I propose to
>change those (manually) in the areas that I am concerned about in the
>UK. This is just to let you know, in case anyone has any violent
>objections or wonders what I am up to.
>
>Regards,
>Stuart Reynolds
>for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Dave F]

Stuart
I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham)
Compared with 77857 for psv=*

Chris
If they're to signify different entries, what are those differences.
If they're for the same entity what is the advantage of access:psv. If 
there is none, they should be change as clearly more users are expecting 
psv=*


If the changes are to a more popular or useful tag, then there's no 
harm. With fewer tags, it makes it easier for a consumer to validate the 
data.


DaveF.


On 13/10/2016 17:38, Chris Hill wrote:
Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data 
consumer changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you 
edit tags and by doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a 
disaster - mappers are our most precious resource.


Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not 
hard to do, you write the code once and use it whenever you need to in 
the future.


Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds 
 wrote:


Greetings all!

In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked
with access:psv tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally
expect to see simply psv=* on these roads - and more importantly
(to me) so would my contractor who is importing the data. I’ve
checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to agree with the
contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.

There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I
propose to change those (manually) in the areas that I am
concerned about in the UK. This is just to let you know, in case
anyone has any violent objections or wonders what I am up to.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia





Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Dan S]

Chris, I think that's a bit too dogmatic, if you don't mind me saying.
It seems to imply nothing should ever be tweaked, e.g. spelling
mistakes. It's entirely possible that the key in question was a simple
misremember rather than a deliberate choice. There have been many
larger mechanical edits applied, officiated by the imports list I
think. Or one could check with the mapper(s) who did the tagging in
question?

Dan

2016-10-13 18:00 GMT+01:00 Chris Hill :
> There are not an infinite number of ways to tag things. In order to edit the
> tags you think need changing, you have to find them. So instead of editing
> them just add the tag to your list of accepted tags. If you edit you have to
> re-download the extract of the OSM data, if you simply update your list of
> tags then just run your code again.
>
> If you edit tags as you describe that is a mechanical edit and I would
> insist it is reverted.
>
> Cheers, Chris (chillly)
>
>
>
>
> On 13 October 2016 17:53:11 BST, Stuart Reynolds
>  wrote:
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> For sure! But there are an infinite number of tagging schemes that any
>> individual mapper could choose to use. I can’t realistically be expected to
>> get my contractor to implement a revised import every time someone dreams
>> one up. That’s why I went back to the Wiki to see what it said there, as it
>> is to some extent the tagging bible, and it is quite clear that it should be
>> psv=*. That and the fact that there are only 275 worldwide rather suggests
>> that it is not an accepted tagging scheme.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stuart
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> Stuart Reynolds
>> for traveline south east & anglia
>>
>> m: +44 7788 106165
>> skype: stuartjreynolds
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 Oct 2016, at 17:38, Chris Hill  wrote:
>>
>> Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data
>> consumer changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you edit
>> tags and by doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a disaster -
>> mappers are our most precious resource.
>>
>> Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not hard to
>> do, you write the code once and use it whenever you need to in the future.
>>
>> Cheers, Chris (chillly)
>>
>> On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Greetings all!
>>>
>>> In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked with
>>> access:psv tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally expect to see
>>> simply psv=* on these roads - and more importantly (to me) so would my
>>> contractor who is importing the data. I’ve checked the wiki for “access” and
>>> it seems to agree with the contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging
>>> scheme.
>>>
>>> There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I propose to
>>> change those (manually) in the areas that I am concerned about in the UK.
>>> This is just to let you know, in case anyone has any violent objections or
>>> wonders what I am up to.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Stuart Reynolds
>>> for traveline south east & anglia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

Dave, yes - sorry. Mistyped what I had been sent. It is only 127, two of which 
are one single instance of access:psv:bus, which surely ought to be just bus=*, 
and one single instance of access:psv:maxweight

Chris - I will quite happily build in different tagging schemes if I feel that 
the tagging is correct and likely to be repeated elsewhere. But I don’t believe 
that this is. It is unexpected, and it is undocumented. I haven’t looked to see 
if it is one user, or 127 different users. But either way it is at most 127 out 
of the 40,000 contributors that we apparently had last month according to a 
different thread today. And the whole purpose of me asking was, anyway, to find 
out if people had a real need to tag in this unusual way before I changed it, 
rather than to be told that if you found me doing it, you’d insist [my italics] 
on it being reverted.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 13 Oct 2016, at 18:07, Dave F 
mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:

Stuart
I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham)
Compared with 77857 for psv=*

Chris
If they're to signify different entries, what are those differences.
If they're for the same entity what is the advantage of access:psv. If there is 
none, they should be change as clearly more users are expecting psv=*

If the changes are to a more popular or useful tag, then there's no harm. With 
fewer tags, it makes it easier for a consumer to validate the data.

DaveF.


On 13/10/2016 17:38, Chris Hill wrote:
Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data consumer 
changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you edit tags and by 
doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a disaster - mappers are our most 
precious resource.

Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not hard to do, 
you write the code once and use it whenever you need to in the future.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds 
 
wrote:
Greetings all!

In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked with access:psv 
tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally expect to see simply psv=* on 
these roads - and more importantly (to me) so would my contractor who is 
importing the data. I’ve checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to agree 
with the contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.

There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I propose to change 
those (manually) in the areas that I am concerned about in the UK. This is just 
to let you know, in case anyone has any violent objections or wonders what I am 
up to.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia






Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Chris Hill]

Dan, I'm not being dogmatic, I'm being practical. If a data consumer 
needs to edit the data rather than incorporate the options into their 
data handling stream they are making their process vulnerable to 
anyone's edits. If Stuart edits access:psv=* to psv=* his process will 
work, until someone adds the next access:psv=* or until someone who 
expects to see the access:psv tag and reverts Stuart's edit. If he deals 
with both there will be no problem at all.


If you import into a database, you could process the tags during the 
load (that's what people use lua for when importing the data for 
rendering) or you could change the SQL you use. If you don't use a 
database, the tag selection needs to managed by a list rather than a 
single key. Anyone working with soft data would expect this kind of thing.


As to the edit, I would always support the data being edited. If you 
want to change psv=No to psv=no, that's fine and useful, but changing 
one perfectly acceptable tagging scheme to another one to make a data 
consumer's job very slightly easier seems like a very poor reason for 
such an edit. It sets a terrible precedent.


Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13/10/16 18:15, Dan S wrote:

Chris, I think that's a bit too dogmatic, if you don't mind me saying.
It seems to imply nothing should ever be tweaked, e.g. spelling
mistakes. It's entirely possible that the key in question was a simple
misremember rather than a deliberate choice. There have been many
larger mechanical edits applied, officiated by the imports list I
think. Or one could check with the mapper(s) who did the tagging in
question?

Dan

2016-10-13 18:00 GMT+01:00 Chris Hill :

There are not an infinite number of ways to tag things. In order to edit the
tags you think need changing, you have to find them. So instead of editing
them just add the tag to your list of accepted tags. If you edit you have to
re-download the extract of the OSM data, if you simply update your list of
tags then just run your code again.

If you edit tags as you describe that is a mechanical edit and I would
insist it is reverted.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)




On 13 October 2016 17:53:11 BST, Stuart Reynolds
 wrote:

Chris,

For sure! But there are an infinite number of tagging schemes that any
individual mapper could choose to use. I can’t realistically be expected to
get my contractor to implement a revised import every time someone dreams
one up. That’s why I went back to the Wiki to see what it said there, as it
is to some extent the tagging bible, and it is quite clear that it should be
psv=*. That and the fact that there are only 275 worldwide rather suggests
that it is not an accepted tagging scheme.

Regards,
Stuart




Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

m: +44 7788 106165
skype: stuartjreynolds



On 13 Oct 2016, at 17:38, Chris Hill  wrote:

Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data
consumer changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you edit
tags and by doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a disaster -
mappers are our most precious resource.

Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not hard to
do, you write the code once and use it whenever you need to in the future.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds
 wrote:

Greetings all!

In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked with
access:psv tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally expect to see
simply psv=* on these roads - and more importantly (to me) so would my
contractor who is importing the data. I’ve checked the wiki for “access” and
it seems to agree with the contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging
scheme.

There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I propose to
change those (manually) in the areas that I am concerned about in the UK.
This is just to let you know, in case anyone has any violent objections or
wonders what I am up to.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia






Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Chris Hill]

Stuart, You explained your idea (thanks for emailing first) and you 
added 'in case anyone has any violent objections'. I voiced my 
objection. I'm not in charge nor am I the OSM Police, you should proceed 
as you see fit and so will I.


I have written about this process more than once in the past, for 
example 
http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/homogenised-data-no-thanks.html


Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13/10/16 18:33, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
Dave, yes - sorry. Mistyped what I had been sent. It is only 127, two 
of which are one single instance of access:psv:bus, which surely ought 
to be just bus=*, and one single instance of access:psv:maxweight


Chris - I will quite happily build in different tagging schemes if I 
feel that the tagging is correct and likely to be repeated elsewhere. 
But I don’t believe that this is. It is unexpected, and it is 
undocumented. I haven’t looked to see if it is one user, or 127 
different users. But either way it is at most 127 out of the 40,000 
contributors that we apparently had last month according to a 
different thread today. And the whole purpose of me asking was, 
anyway, to find out if people had a real need to tag in this unusual 
way before I changed it, rather than to be told that if you found me 
doing it, you’d /insist/ [my italics] on it being reverted.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 13 Oct 2016, at 18:07, Dave F > wrote:


Stuart
I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham)
Compared with 77857 for psv=*

Chris
If they're to signify different entries, what are those differences.
If they're for the same entity what is the advantage of access:psv. 
If there is none, they should be change as clearly more users are 
expecting psv=*


If the changes are to a more popular or useful tag, then there's no 
harm. With fewer tags, it makes it easier for a consumer to validate 
the data.


DaveF.


On 13/10/2016 17:38, Chris Hill wrote:
Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data 
consumer changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you 
edit tags and by doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a 
disaster - mappers are our most precious resource.


Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not 
hard to do, you write the code once and use it whenever you need to 
in the future.


Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds 
 wrote:


Greetings all!

In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked
with access:psv tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally
expect to see simply psv=* on these roads - and more importantly
(to me) so would my contractor who is importing the data. I’ve
checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to agree with the
contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.

There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I
propose to change those (manually) in the areas that I am
concerned about in the UK. This is just to let you know, in case
anyone has any violent objections or wonders what I am up to.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[John Aldridge]

On 13-Oct-16 18:51, Chris Hill wrote:

I have written about this process more than once in the past, for
example
http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/homogenised-data-no-thanks.html


I agree with this... any formal tagging schema is going to end up 
obstructing useful mapping of circumstances which the schema authors 
didn't consider.


I don't think that general principle should rule out the correction of 
simple errors, though. In this case I think I might send a message to 
the original mapper to ask them whether these unusual tags were created 
inadvertently and whether they'd mind if they were changed to correspond 
to more common practice.


I'd then happily take "please don't" for an answer, though.

--
Cheers,
John

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Gregory]

I agree with what Chris says.

I continue mapping with the tagging scheme I use until someone messages me
as a discussion. By ignoring current usage (regarded with more reverence
than the wiki) your consumption will potentially miss new data that mapper
adds, they will likely be unaware of your mass manual edit.

As an occasional data consumer, I have also used tags on non-public
projects because I once looked at a local area (or did mapping of it
myself) and saw what was used. Why is it fair that you break my system
without even contacting people who mapped with those tags?

>From the east coast main line,
Gregory.

On Oct 13, 2016 6:53 PM, "Chris Hill"  wrote:

> Stuart, You explained your idea (thanks for emailing first) and you added
> 'in case anyone has any violent objections'. I voiced my objection. I'm not
> in charge nor am I the OSM Police, you should proceed as you see fit and so
> will I.
>
> I have written about this process more than once in the past, for example
> http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/homogenised-data-no-thanks.html
>
> Cheers, Chris (chillly)
>
> On 13/10/16 18:33, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
>
>> Dave, yes - sorry. Mistyped what I had been sent. It is only 127, two of
>> which are one single instance of access:psv:bus, which surely ought to be
>> just bus=*, and one single instance of access:psv:maxweight
>>
>> Chris - I will quite happily build in different tagging schemes if I feel
>> that the tagging is correct and likely to be repeated elsewhere. But I
>> don’t believe that this is. It is unexpected, and it is undocumented. I
>> haven’t looked to see if it is one user, or 127 different users. But either
>> way it is at most 127 out of the 40,000 contributors that we apparently had
>> last month according to a different thread today. And the whole purpose of
>> me asking was, anyway, to find out if people had a real need to tag in this
>> unusual way before I changed it, rather than to be told that if you found
>> me doing it, you’d /insist/ [my italics] on it being reverted.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stuart Reynolds
>> for traveline south east & anglia
>>
>>
>>
>> On 13 Oct 2016, at 18:07, Dave F >> davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>> I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham)
>>> Compared with 77857 for psv=*
>>>
>>> Chris
>>> If they're to signify different entries, what are those differences.
>>> If they're for the same entity what is the advantage of access:psv. If
>>> there is none, they should be change as clearly more users are expecting
>>> psv=*
>>>
>>> If the changes are to a more popular or useful tag, then there's no
>>> harm. With fewer tags, it makes it easier for a consumer to validate the
>>> data.
>>>
>>> DaveF.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13/10/2016 17:38, Chris Hill wrote:
>>>
 Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data
 consumer changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you edit
 tags and by doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a disaster -
 mappers are our most precious resource.

 Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not hard
 to do, you write the code once and use it whenever you need to in the
 future.

 Cheers, Chris (chillly)

 On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds <
 stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:

 Greetings all!

 In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked
 with access:psv tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally
 expect to see simply psv=* on these roads - and more importantly
 (to me) so would my contractor who is importing the data. I’ve
 checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to agree with the
 contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.

 There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I
 propose to change those (manually) in the areas that I am
 concerned about in the UK. This is just to let you know, in case
 anyone has any violent objections or wonders what I am up to.


> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Dave F]

Most of Chris's blog appears irrelevant to this case. The 
cemetery/graveyard example isn't applicable.


There's no "variations", "differences" or "flattening out the data into 
a monotonous grey".


If you have 2 tags: X1 & X2 that represent the same object, & the data 
user checks for both counts, changing them all to X1 will not effect the 
results, it just means it'll return no X2s.


Combining tags which have *equal* meaning makes it less confusing/time 
consuming for the mappers. Less lookups of the wiki to check what is 
recommended. We need to make it easier for mappers. OSM needs more 
mappers who can add accurate data. As Chris says "Our most precious 
resource are our mappers".


DaveF.



On 13/10/2016 18:51, Chris Hill wrote:
Stuart, You explained your idea (thanks for emailing first) and you 
added 'in case anyone has any violent objections'. I voiced my 
objection. I'm not in charge nor am I the OSM Police, you should 
proceed as you see fit and so will I.


I have written about this process more than once in the past, for 
example 
http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/homogenised-data-no-thanks.html


Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13/10/16 18:33, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
Dave, yes - sorry. Mistyped what I had been sent. It is only 127, two 
of which are one single instance of access:psv:bus, which surely 
ought to be just bus=*, and one single instance of access:psv:maxweight


Chris - I will quite happily build in different tagging schemes if I 
feel that the tagging is correct and likely to be repeated elsewhere. 
But I don’t believe that this is. It is unexpected, and it is 
undocumented. I haven’t looked to see if it is one user, or 127 
different users. But either way it is at most 127 out of the 40,000 
contributors that we apparently had last month according to a 
different thread today. And the whole purpose of me asking was, 
anyway, to find out if people had a real need to tag in this unusual 
way before I changed it, rather than to be told that if you found me 
doing it, you’d /insist/ [my italics] on it being reverted.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 13 Oct 2016, at 18:07, Dave F > wrote:


Stuart
I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham)
Compared with 77857 for psv=*

Chris
If they're to signify different entries, what are those differences.
If they're for the same entity what is the advantage of access:psv. 
If there is none, they should be change as clearly more users are 
expecting psv=*


If the changes are to a more popular or useful tag, then there's no 
harm. With fewer tags, it makes it easier for a consumer to validate 
the data.


DaveF.


On 13/10/2016 17:38, Chris Hill wrote:
Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every 
data consumer changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. 
If you edit tags and by doing that you upset a single mapper, that 
is a disaster - mappers are our most precious resource.


Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not 
hard to do, you write the code once and use it whenever you need to 
in the future.


Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds 
 wrote:


Greetings all!

In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked
with access:psv tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally
expect to see simply psv=* on these roads - and more importantly
(to me) so would my contractor who is importing the data. I’ve
checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to agree with the
contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.

There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I
propose to change those (manually) in the areas that I am
concerned about in the UK. This is just to let you know, in case
anyone has any violent objections or wonders what I am up to.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] access:psv

[Rob Nickerson]

Stuart,

Putting "access:" in front of psv is a documented approach as set out in
the Conditional Restrictions wiki page [1]. This is designed to create a
hierarchy from simple restrictions (e.g. access:psv=yes, often shortened to
psv=yes) to the more complex. Proceeding with "access:" follows the
schematic of starting with the restriction-type which is required for all
other restrictions.

However, due to legacy reasons, and as noted:

> In access tags that are limited to a specific transportation mode the
restriction-type *access:* is usually omitted.

The above is for info only. I make no comment and a will take no action
based on what you end up doing.

It is clear however, that these tags are equivalent as set out on the wiki.

Best regards,
*Rob*
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Warin]

On 14-Oct-16 05:22 AM, Gregory wrote:


I agree with what Chris says.

I continue mapping with the tagging scheme I use until someone 
messages me as a discussion. By ignoring current usage (regarded with 
more reverence than the wiki) your consumption will potentially miss 
new data that mapper adds, they will likely be unaware of your mass 
manual edit.


As an occasional data consumer, I have also used tags on non-public 
projects because I once looked at a local area (or did mapping of it 
myself) and saw what was used. Why is it fair that you break my system 
without even contacting people who mapped with those tags?




"MY system"? Really. Once it is 'in' OSM it is no longer 'yours'. I 
think of OSM as a community .. diverse but all want a map.


Where a tag is undocumented on the wiki then it is very open to 
interpretation ... and the interpretation could well be that the tag is 
an error.


There are probably at least 40,000 different ways of tagging the same 
object ... by using the wiki documented methods the data becomes more 
usable, consistent, understandable rather than fragmented and confusing.
While upsetting a single mapper is not good, that could be better than 
upsetting many more.



From the east coast main line,
Gregory.


On Oct 13, 2016 6:53 PM, "Chris Hill" > wrote:


Stuart, You explained your idea (thanks for emailing first) and
you added 'in case anyone has any violent objections'. I voiced my
objection. I'm not in charge nor am I the OSM Police, you should
proceed as you see fit and so will I.

I have written about this process more than once in the past, for
example
http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/homogenised-data-no-thanks.html


Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13/10/16 18:33, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

Dave, yes - sorry. Mistyped what I had been sent. It is only
127, two of which are one single instance of access:psv:bus,
which surely ought to be just bus=*, and one single instance
of access:psv:maxweight

Chris - I will quite happily build in different tagging
schemes if I feel that the tagging is correct and likely to be
repeated elsewhere. But I don’t believe that this is. It is
unexpected, and it is undocumented. I haven’t looked to see if
it is one user, or 127 different users. But either way it is
at most 127 out of the 40,000 contributors that we apparently
had last month according to a different thread today. And the
whole purpose of me asking was, anyway, to find out if people
had a real need to tag in this unusual way before I changed
it, rather than to be told that if you found me doing it,
you’d /insist/ [my italics] on it being reverted.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 13 Oct 2016, at 18:07, Dave F
mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>
>> wrote:

Stuart
I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham)
Compared with 77857 for psv=*

Chris
If they're to signify different entries, what are those
differences.
If they're for the same entity what is the advantage of
access:psv. If there is none, they should be change as
clearly more users are expecting psv=*

If the changes are to a more popular or useful tag, then
there's no harm. With fewer tags, it makes it easier for a
consumer to validate the data.

DaveF.


On 13/10/2016 17:38, Chris Hill wrote:

Please don't change the tags to suit your application.
If every data consumer changed the tags they don't
like it would be mayhem. If you edit tags and by doing
that you upset a single mapper, that is a disaster -
mappers are our most precious resource.

Change your processing to include both types of
tagging. It is not hard to do, you write the code once
and use it whenever you need to in the future.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> wrote:

Greetings all!

In Nottingham in particular there are a number of
roads marked
with access:psv tags. This is unusual, in that I
would normally
expect to see simply psv=* on these roads - and
more importantly
(to me) so would my contractor who is importing
the 

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Rob,

I didn't manage to find that part of the Wiki! So thanks for bringing it to my 
attention. I will take a look later.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Oct 2016, at 23:34, Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Stuart,

Putting "access:" in front of psv is a documented approach as set out in the 
Conditional Restrictions wiki page [1]. This is designed to create a hierarchy 
from simple restrictions (e.g. access:psv=yes, often shortened to psv=yes) to 
the more complex. Proceeding with "access:" follows the schematic of starting 
with the restriction-type which is required for all other restrictions.

However, due to legacy reasons, and as noted:

> In access tags that are limited to a specific transportation mode the 
> restriction-type access: is usually omitted.

The above is for info only. I make no comment and a will take no action based 
on what you end up doing.

It is clear however, that these tags are equivalent as set out on the wiki.

Best regards,
Rob
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb