Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Guided Busway Cycleway
On 16/09/2013 10:08, Oliver Jowett wrote: On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 11:58 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: It's signposted as a bridleway (only the northern section), so it is technically correct. On the basis of map whatbyou see on the ground, thats a valid change. So long as it have bicycle=yes, and retains the NCN information, I don't think it matters that much. Oliver is right though, use by horses is essentially non existent. In visual terms, one might call it a track, which happens to be designated a bridleway. It does render differently (I know, don't tag for the renderer, but it seems reasonable for a renderer to infer the primary use from the highway tag) If you're on a road bike you'd usually want to avoid anything that shows up as a brideway .. Taking a bike down http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/52724259 was interesting :) Indeed, but it's a rather subjective approach. The usual rule is map what you see, not what you think, and in this case it is signed as a bridleway (and is also designated as such). A good rendering would take note of the surface tag when displaying cycle specific information. David ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Guided Busway Cycleway
On 16 September 2013 11:49, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: On 16/09/2013 10:08, Oliver Jowett wrote: It does render differently (I know, don't tag for the renderer, but it seems reasonable for a renderer to infer the primary use from the highway tag) Indeed, but it's a rather subjective approach. The usual rule is map what you see, not what you think, and in this case it is signed as a bridleway (and is also designated as such). A good rendering would take note of the surface tag when displaying cycle specific information. Well, it does already have designation=public_bridleway too. I'll try to ride the length of the path some time checking what exactly is signposted. I wonder if cyclestreets assigns different costs to highway=bridleway vs highway=cycleway? It does show them differently in the resulting directions, at least. Oliver ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
Re: [Talk-gb-midanglia] Guided Busway Cycleway
On 16/09/2013 12:52, Oliver Jowett wrote: I'll try to ride the length of the path some time checking what exactly is signposted. http://www.cyclestreets.net/location/32577/ I wonder if cyclestreets assigns different costs to highway=bridleway vs highway=cycleway? It does show them differently in the resulting directions, at least. I'll ask Simon. David ___ Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia
[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Acesss behind houses in North Birmingham
A while ago, I mapped and tagged a few of the access/service roads behind houses in north Birmingham (locally, we call them gullies). You can see them on: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.5403/-1.9234 as, for example, brown/pink dashed lines south-east of Booth Farm Road; and white lanes either side of Perry Wood Road. Clearly the tagging is inconsistent. I'm not precious about it, so should they be re-tagged (how?), removed, or what? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Don't tell Brian...
...but I just added some Birmingham houses he'd missed! http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17874700 ;-) -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Acesss behind houses in North Birmingham
I've wondered about these in the past too. I'm not quite sure that track is correct even though they are unpaved (to me a track is more rural). How about: highway=service service=alley surface=unpaved I guess the next question is - what if the alleyway is only wide enough for wheelie bins/pedestrian access? Do you tag them the same way and add motor_vehicle=no (or a maxwidth tag) or do you tag them as a highway=path or highway=footway instead? Confused? Me too! Regards, Rob On 16 September 2013 20:26, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: A while ago, I mapped and tagged a few of the access/service roads behind houses in north Birmingham (locally, we call them gullies). You can see them on: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.5403/-1.9234 as, for example, brown/pink dashed lines south-east of Booth Farm Road; and white lanes either side of Perry Wood Road. Clearly the tagging is inconsistent. I'm not precious about it, so should they be re-tagged (how?), removed, or what? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Acesss behind houses in North Birmingham
The main thing is that they are marked as private access if they are gated. This way we ensure that the routing engines do not try and use these as short cuts. If not gated, I would be tempted to mark as unpaved assuming part or all of the alley is indeed unpaved (I wouldn't worry too much about the end sections that may be paved where it rejoins the road). Rob On 16 September 2013 22:13, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: To complicate matters, a minority are paved, and a few are paved for some of their length. On 16 September 2013 22:05, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: I've wondered about these in the past too. I'm not quite sure that track is correct even though they are unpaved (to me a track is more rural). How about: highway=service service=alley surface=unpaved I guess the next question is - what if the alleyway is only wide enough for wheelie bins/pedestrian access? Do you tag them the same way and add motor_vehicle=no (or a maxwidth tag) or do you tag them as a highway=path or highway=footway instead? Confused? Me too! Regards, Rob On 16 September 2013 20:26, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: A while ago, I mapped and tagged a few of the access/service roads behind houses in north Birmingham (locally, we call them gullies). You can see them on: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.5403/-1.9234 as, for example, brown/pink dashed lines south-east of Booth Farm Road; and white lanes either side of Perry Wood Road. Clearly the tagging is inconsistent. I'm not precious about it, so should they be re-tagged (how?), removed, or what? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] Using store locator as source
Hi OpenStreetmap HADW, I've worked with a number of retailers on digital projects, usually involving some-kind of store locator and I'm certain they would encourage anything that points more customers to their stores, especially if it requires no additional resources / cost on their side. If there is no license on their website regarding the information, then shouldn't it be considered public domain? Worth noting, often the data is held in their systems as a post code, and is likely to have been converted at some point to the necessary lat/lon - this process might not be as perfect as OSM would like, so some common sense should be used to interpret this data. Hope that helps, Adam On 15 Sep 2013, at 23:27, OpenStreetmap HADW osmh...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 September 2013 22:24, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 15/09/2013 21:41, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: I'm pretty sure that store locators pages on chain store web sites are not safe sources, but can someone confirm this. What do mean by safe? Inaccurate? Unlawful? Likely to be an infringement of the operator's copyrights (a store locator will have database rights, like a map), and if a map had actually been used from the site, which seems unlikely in this case, of the rights in the map (store locators often have rather better maps than the Bing one used in this case). If it is OK to use store locators, I can see people exporting all the big name store locators into the map. There's nothing really wrong with the closed polygon that can't be fixed by These are side issues. The issue I was consulting on here was the copyright one. removing the building tag. The mapper's clearly used the Bing aerial background imagery to trace the area used Asda's website for other data. Seeing the car park originates from '09, I'm going to guess the supermarket polygon was expanded from a POI. I can't think of any data being more I can't remember. However the current mapper has left at least two POIs behind when they have mapped buildings, so I have a feeling it wasn't mapped at all. Also, I seem to remember thinking about mapping this myself, but holding back because I would have had to use the weak source, local_knowledge, to identify it as Asda, so I would have wanted to re-visit it on the ground, first. The reasons I didn't just remove building=yes were: - I felt uncomfortable about building on something that might have come from a copyright map (I was half expecting a usable map of the site on Asda's web site); - the site outline is wrong. It takes in a health centre and community centre and some blocks of flats that are not part of the Asda site - I felt getting that right was something for another day; - getting the mapper to fix it would be more likely to avoid the same mistake being made again, and get them to fix their other instances - I know of at least one other with the building tag on a site Incidentally, the building tag may be an Id issue. JOSM doesn't set building by default on shops. accurate than the operator's web page. I'm not sure why you so concerned about this instance. Nothing in OSM is completely accurate. If you know ways to improve the data, do so. However, the accuracy is a side issue, that can be handled offline. My concern is about the principle of whether store locators are a special case of a database that is exempt from the normal rule about not importing databases, even piecemeal. If they are, I would expect a source code of something like store_locator, rather than the full URL, or, if the full URL for that store were visible on geographic site, simply website. (In this case, I suspect the real sources were survey (by eye, not GPS), Bing, and then only using the web site for phone numbers, website and address. Although they didn't have opening hours at all, those should have been available on site.) (What made me look at it was that it was local and had no changeset comment.) ___ 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] Using store locator as source
On 16 September 2013 14:18, Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com wrote: If there is no license on their website regarding the information, then shouldn't it be considered public domain? Err, no. That's not how the law works - either on copyright or on database rights. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Using store locator as source
On 16 Sep 2013, at 16:14, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 September 2013 14:18, Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com wrote: If there is no license on their website regarding the information, then shouldn't it be considered public domain? Err, no. That's not how the law works - either on copyright or on database rights. Lol, good point - perhaps I should ask if any of them can attribute a license to the locations on their sites - what would be the best license for them to use? Creative Commons, or something else? Any good URLs to share would be handy to make a stronger case - if they don't just look at me blankly that is. Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Using store locator as source
On 16/09/2013 17:35, Adam Hoyle wrote: On 16 Sep 2013, at 16:14, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: Err, no. That's not how the law works - either on copyright or on database rights. Lol, good point - perhaps I should ask if any of them can attribute a license to the locations on their sites - what would be the best license for them to use? Creative Commons, or something else? Any good URLs to share would be handy to make a stronger case - if they don't just look at me blankly that is. Almost all retail sites will claim blanket copyright in every page of their websites. Just to take one at random, I went to http://www.boots.com/ . See the bottom of the page, and you'll see the copyright statement. Furthermore, any maps or use of postcode location they use may also be copyright to someone else, like Royal Mail. But just because something is copyright doesn't mean they can't give you permission to use it for certain purposes. They don't need to change their copyright to do that, as long as they understand the implications, that the specific information referred would be released under the ODbL. I'd have thought most stores would be only too glad for their locations to be published, but because of the blanket copyright claimed, they'd each need to be asked. The caveat is that they may not be in a position to give you permission if the data is itself tied up in copyright to someone else - for example if it is derived using the Royal Mail postcode to location database. Depending who you ask, they may not realise this is the case. But if you read off the location of a store from their branch finder from a map, you can be sure that's not allowed and they can't themselves give you permission because it doesn't belong to them. And if it's not a map, but say the postal address, how are you then going to obtain the location to mark it on a map? The kind of stores we're talking about are in sizeable places, and the numbers aren't huge, so doing it on foot is surely perfectly do-able and quicker and easier than approaching every chain for a complicated permission which they may themselves get wrong. Doing it on the ground means you get them all, systematically, in one place too irrespective of size or whether they have an online branch finder. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
