[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Severn Way finished!
Now mapped from the source to Bristol. Thanks to everyone who did part of it and especially Steve Brook and Ed Loach for filling the gap near Bewdley. cheers Richard ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
[Talk-GB] Severn Way finished!
Now mapped from the source to Bristol. Thanks to everyone who did part of it and especially Steve Brook and Ed Loach for filling the gap near Bewdley. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data!
We had a discussion recently about getting a usable source of route data for HS2. I am pleased to say that it is on data.gov.uk and is available on an OGL license. http://data.gov.uk/dataset/hs2-gis-route Can we get to use this as a backdrop in Potlatch or JOSM to get the route added? Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data!
I've placed the files at http://blackadder.dev.openstreetmap.org/hs2/ but can't get working in Potlatch at the moment. Someone else might check. Cheers Andy From: Peter Miller [mailto:peter.mil...@itoworld.com] Sent: 23 January 2012 17:38 To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data! We had a discussion recently about getting a usable source of route data for HS2. I am pleased to say that it is on data.gov.uk and is available on an OGL license. http://data.gov.uk/dataset/hs2-gis-route Can we get to use this as a backdrop in Potlatch or JOSM to get the route added? Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data!
Good to see the data being released, But I don't believe this proposed route should yet be added to OSM. You'll regularly here the phrase map what's on the ground, but we all(?) accept upcoming changes to what's on the ground can be mapped, and these upcoming changes to the land are mapped using the proposed tag (then construction tag). Not much guidance is given for when a plan has reached a status that fits with the 'proposed' tag. I'd hope everyone would agree that to map *any*proposal, whatever the source, would be ridiculous. I've only added one 'proposed' route and that was in winter 2011. The route was South Devon Link Road [linkhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.4974985122681lon=-3.59270095825195zoom=14], was proposed in the 1950's, but constantly been put to the back of the queue. Last summer as the likely hood of it happening started to increase I looked at the 'proposal' tag wiki page for the first time, and it wasn't much help. Looking at the 50 years of setbacks this route suffered I think it demonstrates a route must be likely certain to proceed before it's added to the map. For the UK I think this means two tests 1. The proposal has, at least, outline planning permission 2. The proposal has funding in place 3. The proposal is also likely to proceed. (eg Developer hasn't pulled out) So for the South Devon Link Road, I added it this winter after (1) It had planning permission, (2)Funding had been allocated and (3) the local authorities have announced it they'll now proceed with the project. The HS2 had funding in place (although is reasonable to be cynical about spending allocated to future governments), and is likely to proceed, but it does not have planning permission. Therefore I believe the HS2 route should not yet be added. Many active mappers of OSM, including me, have some level of bias in favour of high quality transport networks, but we shouldn't let that impact on how we choose what's added to OSM. All the above doesn't change the fact that the current 'proposed' tag is very generous and would appears to allows adding proposals that will not happen. Jason On 23 January 2012 17:37, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: We had a discussion recently about getting a usable source of route data for HS2. I am pleased to say that it is on data.gov.uk and is available on an OGL license. http://data.gov.uk/dataset/hs2-gis-route Can we get to use this as a backdrop in Potlatch or JOSM to get the route added? Regards, Peter ___ 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] HS2 route is open data!
On 23/01/2012 20:21, Jason Cunningham wrote: Good to see the data being released, But I don't believe this proposed route should yet be added to OSM. You'll regularly here the phrase map what's on the ground, but we all(?) accept upcoming changes to what's on the ground can be mapped, and these upcoming changes to the land are mapped using the proposed tag (then construction tag). By that reasoning we wouldn't map boundaries, as these don't appear on the ground, they are entirely abstract concepts. The point here is that this is *helpful geographical information*. If the proposal goes away or changes, remove the data. Let's be pragmatic here. We also seem to mark routes of old railways for which there is no evidence on the ground. (Quite why, I don't know, and this raises the question again of representing any historical data, but that was discussed at length recently). David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data!
On 23 January 2012 20:27, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: On 23/01/2012 20:21, Jason Cunningham wrote: Good to see the data being released, But I don't believe this proposed route should yet be added to OSM. You'll regularly here the phrase map what's on the ground, but we all(?) accept upcoming changes to what's on the ground can be mapped, and these upcoming changes to the land are mapped using the proposed tag (then construction tag). By that reasoning we wouldn't map boundaries, as these don't appear on the ground, they are entirely abstract concepts. The point here is that this is *helpful geographical information*. If the proposal goes away or changes, remove the data. Let's be pragmatic here. I agree that one should not add every aspirational route, however this is much more than an aspiration and there is considerable support for it from official sources. I believe we should indeed add transport proposals where they have committed funding and official firm support. We should of course tag is as 'proposed'. If the project goes ahead we change it to 'consturction', if it goes cold then we delete it. Fyi, I did just that on the Tintewhistle bypass to the east of Manchester. I added it when it was funded and and in the HA plans and then removed it when the public inquiry collapsed a while later. It is of course up to map rendering script to determine if it is appropriate render 'proposed' transport schemes and this will depend on the use to which it is to be put. Mapquest probably wouldn't show them (because mapquest are primarily providing maps for the traveler. OSM Mapnik will probably show it because it tries to map almost everything. Other mapping outlets can make their own decision. Good news re rendering HS2 for use in Potlatch. One suggestion... I notice that the shape file contains details of cuttings, embankments, bridges (and viaducts) and tunnels. Could you present that using distinct colours or textures or something? It is tagged separately for each side of the route, ie eastside=cutting. Regards, Peter We also seem to mark routes of old railways for which there is no evidence on the ground. (Quite why, I don't know, and this raises the question again of representing any historical data, but that was discussed at length recently). David __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Re-mapping : Are these two ways both valid ?
On 20/01/12 15:58, woll wrote: I don't really have any LEGAL opinion/knowledge to answer your question with, but here is my experience: When I first started remapping, I took your option 1 (delete the feature and re-create it) because I felt that that option would ensure that no non-odbl tainting could happen. I only added tags that I could get independently from odbl-compatible sources, or from existing knowledge (so some tags may have not been 'transferred' onto the new version). To 'transfer' the maximum number of tags, you need to look at the history in detail, to see which tags are from users who have agreed to the CTs (if you can't 'transfer' the tags from your own knowledge/odbl-compatible sources. To find non-odbl tainted data, I used: http://cleanmap.poole.ch/ the licence layer on the OSMI at tools.geofabrik.de/osmi and the licence highlighting of Potlatch. As I progressed, I started do a stricter version of your option 2, by investigating the features in more detail, mainly using the info provided by: http://osm.mapki.com/history/ that shows which tags/features are non-odbl tainted. My stricter criteria for option 2 is NO data remains from non-agreers (not your enough has been done by other licence-accepting contributors that the feature no longer belongs to the original contributor). In a lot of the cases where I was working, I found various situations like: a) All the original nodes of the feature (from users not agreeing to the CTs) had been deleted (and new ones added) b) The only tags remaining from users who have not agreed to the CTs were factual tags like the name of the road or the number of the road, that I could easily get from odbl-compatible sources/knowledge. c) All the original nodes had been moved by agreeing users (presumably by aligning to aerial imagery/more accurate GPS tracks) d) The only thing remaining from non-agreers was a small percentage of the nodes in a way, and those nodes were not very accurately positioned. When I found that ALL the non-odbl data had actually been replaced, then I added odbl=clean (this last step might not be necessary in some cases, because the tools could probably be extended to work this out for themselves if they looked at the history in detail, but I did it to be safe). When I found that the only non-odbl data remaining, could be got from odbl-compatible sources/knowledge, I re-added it, and added odbl=clean (the last bit is necessary, because even though I deleted and re-added the tags, the tools can't tell that I actually did that (because the tags are exactly the same). If there were any non-odbl tags remaining that I couldn't get from odbl-compatible sources/knowledge then I deleted them. This was very rare for the features I was looking at, and was only 'irrelevant' things (e.g. not very useful notes). I probably didn't need to do this, as for most situations, I expect that the final process that will transfer the data would automatically delete these tags (it wouldn't delete a way just because there was just 1 non-odbl tag remaining, it would just delete that tag and keep everything else. however adding the odbl=clean tag means that the existing visualisation tools will then display things correctly). If the only non-odbl data remaining was a small percentage of the nodes in a way, I deleted/replaced them with more accurate ones based on more accurate GPS tracks or imagery (and normally took the opportunity to add more nodes for more accuracy). So, option 2 is not really less work - it actually takes quite a long time to look at the history in detail (and then drilling down to look at all the nodes of a way). Option 1 is not necessarily more work either: Unless you can easily get all of the tags from odbl-compatible sources/knowledge (or you don't care if you don't 'transfer' all of the existing tags) then you also need to look at the history in detail. To specifically answer your questions: Your option 1 is obviously legal/ethical (you're deleting everything and recreating it) I personally would not be happy doing your option 2 (which would vary on everyone's different interpretation of enough). The re-mapping I have done is stricter than that and ensures that there is no tainting remaining (but that means that option 2 is not necessarily less work than option 1). -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-mapping-Are-these-two-ways-both-valid-tp7205346p7208034.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Thanks very much for this comprehensive answer. I can see that I was being a bit naive in my approach to option (2), although locally some of the history does not appear to be all that complex so checking it thoroughly might not be as big a job as it would be for data that has been touched by the hands of many, many
Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data!
I'm separating out the various sections (cutting, tunnel etc) to separate shape files and converting to lat/lon. I'll have a play with it in JOSM once done. I'm splitting with whatever the west side attribute is (the east side may be different where the natural ground slopes etc). I'll put all the various files on dev once I'm done. Cheers Andy From: Peter Miller [mailto:peter.mil...@itoworld.com] Sent: 23 January 2012 20:59 To: David Earl Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data! On 23 January 2012 20:27, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: On 23/01/2012 20:21, Jason Cunningham wrote: Good to see the data being released, But I don't believe this proposed route should yet be added to OSM. You'll regularly here the phrase map what's on the ground, but we all(?) accept upcoming changes to what's on the ground can be mapped, and these upcoming changes to the land are mapped using the proposed tag (then construction tag). By that reasoning we wouldn't map boundaries, as these don't appear on the ground, they are entirely abstract concepts. The point here is that this is *helpful geographical information*. If the proposal goes away or changes, remove the data. Let's be pragmatic here. I agree that one should not add every aspirational route, however this is much more than an aspiration and there is considerable support for it from official sources. I believe we should indeed add transport proposals where they have committed funding and official firm support. We should of course tag is as 'proposed'. If the project goes ahead we change it to 'consturction', if it goes cold then we delete it. Fyi, I did just that on the Tintewhistle bypass to the east of Manchester. I added it when it was funded and and in the HA plans and then removed it when the public inquiry collapsed a while later. It is of course up to map rendering script to determine if it is appropriate render 'proposed' transport schemes and this will depend on the use to which it is to be put. Mapquest probably wouldn't show them (because mapquest are primarily providing maps for the traveler. OSM Mapnik will probably show it because it tries to map almost everything. Other mapping outlets can make their own decision. Good news re rendering HS2 for use in Potlatch. One suggestion... I notice that the shape file contains details of cuttings, embankments, bridges (and viaducts) and tunnels. Could you present that using distinct colours or textures or something? It is tagged separately for each side of the route, ie eastside=cutting. Regards, Peter We also seem to mark routes of old railways for which there is no evidence on the ground. (Quite why, I don't know, and this raises the question again of representing any historical data, but that was discussed at length recently). David ___ 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 09:20, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I previously discussed[1] what our plans were with regards to the cycling data that is coming out of the DfT. Hi again, I've now received lots more data on this project, again for soliciting feedback. Current areas available include: Nottingham Cambridge Devon Mendip South Somerset Taunton Sedgemoor You can have a look using the demo available at http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-demo/ I'm receiving the data one area at a time. To facilitate this I've expanded the functionality of the server-side component to handle different areas independently. This will make it easier for me to add new areas as soon as I receive them. It also means that if we need to rework any particular area based on feedback from you guys, it won't impact the rest of them. If you want to mess around with the completion flag, feel free. Results are shown on the server at http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-snapshot/ The next stages in the project are getting more areas, and based on feedback when everyone is happy flipping the switch so that we can use the data for real. Have fun! Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
