[Talk-GB] Beta test of cycling date merge-tool
Hi All, I previously discussed[1] what our plans were with regards to the cycling data that is coming out of the DfT. It's now got to the stage where I'm soliciting beta testing and feedback on the approach. The project has its own page on the wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DfT_Cycling_Data_2011 The demo of both the data, and the merging functionality built into p2, is available at http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-demo/ I've got my own list of improvements that I'm hoping to make to potlatch, but I'd really like to hear your views too! Cheers, Andy [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-October/012256.html ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Beta test of cycling date merge-tool
Andy, Just some observations from Birmingham that may be useful. I'm assuming that you have been able to look at the dft data to see how relevant it is? In working with Birmingham City Council (BCC) on cycle parking recently I had access to three lists of cycle parking points. The very incomplete BCC asset register list, the dft list and our own OSM list. As a stab we believe the final number of locations in the city will be about 750 (500+ known thus far). The BCC list had about 60% of this possible total, the dft list 40% and not all necessarily the same as BCC (for example most stands on Network Rail land were not included in BCC list), and OSM which had less than the other two but contained many locations that are in neither of the BCC or dft data sets. The BCC and dft data had the number of stands for parking rather than the number of spaces for bikes. The BCC set included parking for motorcycles. The three data sets all have different co-ordinates for the same parking provision. The BCC data is definitely OS based, the dft set I believe is not, though can't be sure, but are generally very close to the BCC locations though not the same. In verifying we have been revisiting each location to get a more precise positioning and thus OSM is now the most reliable. You can follow the progress of mapping the Birmingham cycle parking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Birmingham/Bicycle_Parking Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Andy Allan [mailto:gravityst...@gmail.com] Sent: 16 November 2011 09:21 To: Talk-GB Subject: [Talk-GB] Beta test of cycling date merge-tool Hi All, I previously discussed[1] what our plans were with regards to the cycling data that is coming out of the DfT. It's now got to the stage where I'm soliciting beta testing and feedback on the approach. The project has its own page on the wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DfT_Cycling_Data_2011 The demo of both the data, and the merging functionality built into p2, is available at http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-demo/ I've got my own list of improvements that I'm hoping to make to potlatch, but I'd really like to hear your views too! Cheers, Andy [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011- October/012256.html ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Beta test of cycling date merge-tool
Just had a quick look at the Nottingham one - seams to be an even bigger work of fiction than the local cycle maps produced by the council (unless council publications override public footpath signs) - one jumping out straight away is the A60 trunk road (from the BBC Island through to West Bridgford) being marked as an LCN - the are no cycle facilities along the route from what I can remember (defiantly no lanes, can't remember ASLs, and no signs except where a signed LCN crosses the road). Unless anything has changed in the last eight weeks or so the area in West Bridgford (inside the area bounded by A52/River Trent) - apart from the area round Emmanual/Beckett Schools - Open Cycle Map currently reflects the On The Ground reality (aside from a few ASLs). I assume the general premise of on the ground mapping still applies - although it would be useful to fill a couple of gaps where the signing is ambiguous where there are two valid routes! Is there anyway to hide the foreground layer as I don't seam to be able to click the background one once the foreground has loaded. Is compressed gravel along grass with no real edging really surface=dirt, not to sure about one part of NCN15 near me - parts of the line are defiantly mud (well water usually - get tempted to take it natural=lake at times!) about 50cm wide, but the newer bit over the flood defences is defiantly compressed gravel! The DFT data has the post flood defences work layout. Kev On 16 November 2011 11:52, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: Andy, Just some observations from Birmingham that may be useful. I'm assuming that you have been able to look at the dft data to see how relevant it is? In working with Birmingham City Council (BCC) on cycle parking recently I had access to three lists of cycle parking points. The very incomplete BCC asset register list, the dft list and our own OSM list. As a stab we believe the final number of locations in the city will be about 750 (500+ known thus far). The BCC list had about 60% of this possible total, the dft list 40% and not all necessarily the same as BCC (for example most stands on Network Rail land were not included in BCC list), and OSM which had less than the other two but contained many locations that are in neither of the BCC or dft data sets. The BCC and dft data had the number of stands for parking rather than the number of spaces for bikes. The BCC set included parking for motorcycles. The three data sets all have different co-ordinates for the same parking provision. The BCC data is definitely OS based, the dft set I believe is not, though can't be sure, but are generally very close to the BCC locations though not the same. In verifying we have been revisiting each location to get a more precise positioning and thus OSM is now the most reliable. You can follow the progress of mapping the Birmingham cycle parking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Birmingham/Bicycle_Parking Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Andy Allan [mailto:gravityst...@gmail.com] Sent: 16 November 2011 09:21 To: Talk-GB Subject: [Talk-GB] Beta test of cycling date merge-tool Hi All, I previously discussed[1] what our plans were with regards to the cycling data that is coming out of the DfT. It's now got to the stage where I'm soliciting beta testing and feedback on the approach. The project has its own page on the wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DfT_Cycling_Data_2011 The demo of both the data, and the merging functionality built into p2, is available at http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-demo/ I've got my own list of improvements that I'm hoping to make to potlatch, but I'd really like to hear your views too! Cheers, Andy [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011- October/012256.html ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Beta test of cycling date merge-tool
On 16 November 2011 14:08, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote: Just had a quick look at the Nottingham one - seams to be an even bigger work of fiction than the local cycle maps produced by the council (unless council publications override public footpath signs) - one jumping out straight away is the A60 trunk road (from the BBC Island through to West Bridgford) being marked as an LCN - the are no cycle facilities along the route from what I can remember (defiantly no lanes, can't remember ASLs, and no signs except where a signed LCN crosses the road). Unless anything has changed in the last eight weeks or so the area in West Bridgford (inside the area bounded by A52/River Trent) - apart from the area round Emmanual/Beckett Schools - Open Cycle Map currently reflects the On The Ground reality (aside from a few ASLs). It's always the case that councils have separate views on what counts as a route (generally a line drawn on a map) compared to us (on the ground reality). It's a good example of why we're not blindly accepting the data - local knowledge is key - but if the fictions are over-prevalent then I'll enquire as to what's going on, check there isn't a problem with the conversion etc. Is there anyway to hide the foreground layer as I don't seam to be able to click the background one once the foreground has loaded. If you go Background - Vector File you can toggle show/hide any of the layers Is compressed gravel along grass with no real edging really surface=dirt, not to sure about one part of NCN15 near me - parts of the line are defiantly mud (well water usually - get tempted to take it natural=lake at times!) about 50cm wide, but the newer bit over the flood defences is defiantly compressed gravel! The DFT data has the post flood defences work layout. Unsurprisingly the surveyed surfaces list isn't a 1:1 mapping for our values of the surface key, but we've tried to pick the best mapping. Again, thanks for the feedback and I can review the conversion. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Beta test of cycling date merge-tool
On 16 November 2011 11:52, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: Andy, Just some observations from Birmingham that may be useful. I'm assuming that you have been able to look at the dft data to see how relevant it is? I haven't seen any of the data for any place that I'm personally familiar with. I have, however, seen all the different things that were to be surveyed, and a lot of it is exactly the kind of thing that we'd normally collect. Some of the things that would be useful but is generally unsurveyed in OSM - such as lighting status of paths, or widths of cycle lanes - would be quite interesting to add into OSM. In working with Birmingham City Council (BCC) on cycle parking recently I had access to three lists of cycle parking points. The very incomplete BCC asset register list, the dft list and our own OSM list. I'd expect the DfT data to have stuff we have, have stuff we don't, and to miss out stuff we have too! Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Beta test of cycling date merge-tool
Thanks for telling us how to toggle the various layers - quite neat (the visible but not click-able even more handy!) The rest of this message may appear to be a bit negative, but it's not supposed to be - hopefully it's constructive feedback! What would be useful is for there to be a way of picking out features / icon-ising them (e.g. cycle barriers/parking) - is there any chance of a GPX with those sorts of things in (making it trivial to copy to our GPSes for double checking OTG)? I'm not convinced some of the matching has been too brilliant - for example on Daleside Road it's put a cycleway (well footpath full of paint) as the LCN, then put the A-Road Daleside Road alongside it as an LCN too - the signage does all point to the cycleway. Additionally some of the bits have no textual data in them - spotted a few along Maid Marian Way (See http://imageshack.us/f/835/mainmarianway.png/ ) for an example. There are a number in the city centre. It would also be handy to edit the data before merging - for instance down the Nottingham and Beeston Canal they have lcn:name=Nottingham Canal but all the signage around the whole of the 16km circular route (and all other publicity) calls it THE BIG TRACK (although to be fair most of the usable signs have gone up in the last few weeks, the previous signs were about the size of a beer mat!) Something odd has also gone on with the import south of the Broadmarsh Bus Station - if you find Carrington Street its to the east of it, just north of the canal - two random bent lines with no labels! http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/337/broadmarshcentre.png/ (I think they are the roads into/out of the bus station). Finally bicycle=no would be handy to have in a different colour. (And est_width 2.5 seams to mean 25cm in Nottingham, although generally they seam to be reasonably accurate (i.e. 1.25)) Taken as a whole the data seams to be useful for finding locations to go and survey but not for importing - it's just too bitty and out of touch with reality (especially if we try and keep in touch with the OTG signage/logic). Then again perhaps my logic has been flawed - basically:- - If it has NCN route numbers (6,15,64) on the signs it's ncn:yes; ncn:ref:6/15/64 - If it's a non-NCN named route crossing county boundaries (i.e. The Erewash Valley Trail) it's rcn:yes. - If it's a non-NCN named route within Nottinghamshire (e.g. The Big Track, New Basford Avoiding Tram Tracks) it's lcn:yes and gets a relation with it's name in it. - If it has blue signs pointing to a destination (e.g. West Bridgford, Emmanuel School) it's lcn:yes - when a cycle path is adjacent to a road the LCN is on the cycle path unless the signage/road markings makes it obvious it's not. - If it has blue signs but with no directional signage it's either highway:cycleway; or bicycle:yes - If it has a cycle lane it's simply cycleway:lane *Slightly OT 1*: What would be even more useful would be for Nottingham City Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council to actually sign all these cycle routes - the named LCN The Green Line is a really useful cut through through West Bridgford with lots of tyre tracks down it (and IME more cyclists than peds - not too surprising when it runs from the edge of the town centre to the high school on the outskirts of the town and is parallel to a main road for it's entire route) but is spoilt with steps at either end - alas the only signs present are Public Footpath. There are numerous routes like this I have spotted (both with the city's paper maps and the DfT data). The OTG routes, and this DfT data, are full of holes in the network - the printed maps seam to take the path of least resistance between the gaps in the DfT data! *Slightly OT* 2 : Where do we stand on naming routes which aren't named on the ground (or in the DfT data)? - the Clifton Commuter Cycle Route for instance is obvious to work out when you know the three ends are NTU City campus, NTU Clifton campus and Clifton centre (i.e. follow the LCN signs for Clifton, NTU Clifton, and City Centre / NTU City) but the only place with those destinations and the route name is council publicity. The three commuter cycle routes would be handy to have on OpenCycleMap as they are generally very quick routes which are easy to follow and have few things to get in the way (although only of one them is anything more than signs put alongside the bus lanes and a few ASLs). Kev On 16 November 2011 14:32, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 November 2011 11:52, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: Andy, Just some observations from Birmingham that may be useful. I'm assuming that you have been able to look at the dft data to see how relevant it is? I haven't seen any of the data for any place that I'm personally familiar with. I have, however, seen all the different things that were to be surveyed, and a lot of it is exactly the kind of thing that we'd
Re: [Talk-GB] Doodle: OpenStreetMap Brighton mapping party
Hi, Just as a follow-up. Shaun has picked November 19th. I'll soon make a cake diagram, but please already sign up at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brighton#Brighton_Mapping_Party cheers, Derick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
