Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

Add the new building. We should map what is currently on the ground. Please don't be slave to out of date data or fear of edits being reversed. On 4 August 2017, at 06:42, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: How different is the footprint of the new building? I would think that the new

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

2017-08-04 12:04 GMT+01:00 Dave F : > I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM is > not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed from > OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History Map.

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

Do you mean https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/445288438 is no longer there, and has been rebuilt into a rectangular building? If so, have a look at the newer DigitalGlobe imagery, and also OS OpenData StreetView to see the new building. Mind and check imagery alignment as there's normally an

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM is not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed from OSM. If you wish to store out date info, transfer it to Open History Map. Seeing OSM is a global endeavour it's disappointing you keep

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished: building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions. On 4 Aug 2017 07:19, "David Fox" wrote: > Add the new building. We

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] OSM and Diversity

Hi, Yes - I find myself in the confusing position of being very grateful for Kate's message, and for Fredrik's message. This recent discussion originated in the talk-gb mailing list. Now that OSM UK has been formed as a hub for UK-specific work http://osmuk.org/ I've been wondering if that will

Re: [Talk-GB] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

Isn't this one of the Pops (privately-owned public-space) recently mapped by GiGL? In which case the landowner might forbid photographs. Jerry On 3 Aug 2017 20:44, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > We appear to have no pics on Commons of Lewis Cubitt Square, a newly > (2016?)

[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #367 2017-07-25-2017-07-31

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 367, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9326/ Enjoy! weeklyOSM? who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

On 04/08/2017 12:11, Dan S wrote: 2017-08-04 12:04 GMT+01:00 Dave F : I'm pretty sure we've had this conversion before, where I pointed out OSM is not a historical record. If gone in the real world,it should be removed from OSM. If you wish to store out date info,

Re: [Talk-GB] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

On 4 August 2017 at 09:23, SK53 wrote: > Isn't this one of the Pops (privately-owned public-space) recently mapped by > GiGL? In which case the landowner might forbid photographs. That doesn't mean that photographs cannot be taken; just that if they ask a photographer to

Re: [Talk-GB] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

See for example: https://www.nicholasgooddenphotography.co.uk/london-blog/permit-for-photography-london. I think it's entirely reasonable to warn people about such issues. I think I may have taken photos of Granary Square but not sure if from within the private bounds. Personally I'm rather more

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

This happens to be a local convention which has evolved. I have no idea how it is done in other places as I don't tend to keep track of changes in buildings and am less likely to be in the position of regularly seeing a building & then not being aware of it being demolished. So I'm not offering it

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

Dave, I would be very grateful if you did not talk about me (or David Earl, for that matter) in such an off-hand way on this mailing list. I find it really offensive. This is nothing to do with historical mapping: it's retaining an element to avoid erroneous re-mapping of a non-existent

Re: [Talk-GB] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

2017-08-04 13:20 GMT+01:00 SK53 : > Personally I'm rather more interested in mapping POPS as they are becoming > an issue in larger cities. We could map the boundaries of POPS through a systematic procedure of standing in specific spots, looking like we don't want to buy

Re: [Talk-GB] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

Hi Brian, The GiGL data are open AFAIK. I have downloaded a copy but havent looked at it yet: it should be appearing on the GLA Data Store. Jerry On 4 August 2017 at 15:15, Brian Prangle wrote: > While we're on this subject, it isn't readily apparent to me which map >

Re: [Talk-GB] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

While we're on this subject, it isn't readily apparent to me which map base the Guardian is using for this campaign. We should be lobbying them to use an open source rather than an online POPS which does suggest a delicious irony. But if they're using OSM then good for them. I've already raised

Re: [Talk-GB] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

That was, of course, meant to go to the Wikimedia UK mailing list, not the OSM UK list. I was wondering why so many replies were about mapping... On 3 August 2017 at 13:47, Andy Mabbett wrote: > We appear to have no pics on Commons of Lewis Cubitt Square, a newly >

Re: [Talk-GB] Building that have been replaced

On 04/08/17 at 09:20am, SK53 wrote: >Around here (Nottingham) we generally put something like demolished: >building=* on the old way. Particular ly useful if you have several active >mappers not all knowing about recent demolitions. This is exactly what we try and do in Edinburgh. An

Re: [Talk-GB] Lewis Cubitt Square, Kings Cross

On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 15:29 +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote: > That was, of course, meant to go to the Wikimedia UK mailing list, > not > the OSM UK list. > > I was wondering why so many replies were about mapping... But it has sparked some useful debate, both here and #osm-gb. Phil (trigpoint)