Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Dave F]

On 28/08/2018 20:24, Brian Prangle wrote:

 I suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI.



I wish people would read before putting their hands anywhere near a 
keyboard.


DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Richard Fairhurst]

Brian Prangle wrote:
> I suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI.

The edit did not take place in Northern Ireland, as Dave stated
unequivocally in his original mail: "Note I didn't include Northern Ireland"
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/021690.html)

> The last time I checked NI was still in a union with the UK and therefore
> suggesting that NI OSMers form a separate discussion  is very insensitive.

I suggested the separate discussion on this topic _because_ Northern
Ireland, as Dave had explained (and as I had reiterated to KDDA one minute
previously), was not included in this edit; and therefore was not germane to
the discussion of this edit. I'd therefore ask that you please withdraw your
accusation of being insensitive.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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

Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Dan S]

For reference, here's DaveF's email where he documents his mechanical
edit: 
.
(Note also that it includes a note about Northern Ireland.)

Comparing that email against the OSM policy which Brian links to (the
Automated Edits Code of Conduct): This talk-gb seems indeed the
correct forum. The documentation happened after-the-fact rather than
in advance, as the AECoC demands. It seems relatively innocent in this
case given the consensus implied by previous threads (eg the ones
listed in DaveF's email), and I guess he took that as sufficient for
the "discussion period" - however, I agree it'd be much better to have
followed the automated-edits rules more closely, and given prior
notice of the actual edit with at least a few days' pause for
discussion. I'd have hoped the dissenters could have joined that
discussion (could we have notified them directly of the chance to join
in, just to be sure?).

I did an automated edit once, and although I was impatient at the lag
created by following the AECoC, the resulting clarity was a definite
good thing.

Dan


Op di 28 aug. 2018 om 20:25 schreef Brian Prangle :
>
> The last time I checked NI was still in a union with the UK and therefore 
> suggesting that NI OSMers form a separate discussion  is very insensitive. As 
> the community there is very upset and has not agreed to this change, having 
> demonstrated very specific needs and separate treatment of these roads I 
> suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI. Can I also 
> suggest that all future mechanical edits that affect the WHOLE UK  (including 
> NI) are discussed beforehand as required by  OSM policy before being 
> unilaterally applied so that we can avoid situations like this
>
> Brian Prangle
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 13:05, webmas...@killyfole.org.uk 
>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern
>> Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.  So having left the IRC
>> channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.
>>
>> I will also be canceling my OSMUK membership or failing that, not renewing in
>> December 2018.  I can still be reached via OSM username:KDDA or on the Talk 
>> IE
>> mailing list.
>>
>> Thanks to all who have helped me over the years,
>>
>> Clive aka KDDA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Brian Prangle]

The last time I checked NI was still in a union with the UK and therefore
suggesting that NI OSMers form a separate discussion  is very insensitive.
As the community there is very upset and has not agreed to this change,
having demonstrated very specific needs and separate treatment of these
roads I suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI. Can I
also suggest that all future mechanical edits that affect the WHOLE UK
(including NI) are discussed beforehand as required by  OSM policy

before being unilaterally applied so that we can avoid situations like this

Brian Prangle

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 13:05, webmas...@killyfole.org.uk <
webmas...@killyfole.org.uk> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern
> Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.  So having left the IRC
> channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.
>
> I will also be canceling my OSMUK membership or failing that, not renewing
> in
> December 2018.  I can still be reached via OSM username:KDDA or on the
> Talk IE
> mailing list.
>
> Thanks to all who have helped me over the years,
>
> Clive aka KDDA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Coastline and tidal rivers

[Mike Evans]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:09:47 +
"David Groom"  wrote:

> There is no consensus.
> 
> Personally I'm not in favour of the view that any body of water which is 
> tidal should be bounded by a way tagged as coastline.
> 
> Reasons for this
> 
> 1) Ask any one who lives in say central London "do you live on the 
> coast" or do you live beside a river", most would I'm sure say beside a 
> river, so surely our data should reflect that.  I think this probably is 
> what you mean by "seems more natural"
Well if they're in Central London then it is an estuary at that point so they'd 
be incorrect. Hence the expression "estuary English", and not "river English".
To quote Wikpedia "The district of Teddington a few miles south-west of 
London's centre marks the boundary between the tidal and non-tidal parts of the 
Thames". 

Perhaps "A History of the Foreshore and the Law Relating Thereto",  published 
1888 would be a useful reference.
https://archive.org/details/ahistoryforesho00hallgoog


> 
> 2)  In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal 
> water areas as coastline
Examples?

> 
> 3) If knowledge that a body of water is tidal is important it can be 
> tagged "tidal = yes"
But then the decision has to made as to where to draw the line and tag one side 
as "tidal = yes" and the other side not tagged but assumed to, in fact, be 
tidal. This just introduces an extra arbitrary boundary the inner end of which 
again becomes non-tidal.

The American Submerged Lands Act of 1953 does appear to define the line at 
which the coastline extends into estuaries etc., but this does not apply to the 
UK.  That act seems to been precipitated as a result of disputes over oil 
drilling rights.

Mike


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

[Talk-GB] Some leisure=track not rendering

[jc...@mail.com]

Has there been a recent change to the standard rendering for leisure=track? A 
racecourse and a cycle track near me mapped as closed ways are no longer 
showing. However another nearby track mapped as a multipolygon is unaffected.

Jez C

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

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths app

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,


A couple of updates on MapThePaths 
(www.mapthepaths.org.uk).


First of all, there will be no further updates of the data until the 2nd week 
in September. (Normally I update the data once a week, it was last done 
yesterday)


Secondly, there is now an (experimental, rough round the edges and not 
comprehensively tested) app available.

The app will show OSM data and council ROWs in the current location, in the 
same way as the website does. This is under "View" mode. You have

to download the data explicitly using the menu.


Create/Edit mode allows you to live edit the designation of ways and (with 
caveats - see below) create new data.

Again, you must explicitly download live OSM data via the menu system. You can 
then long-press an OSM way to update the designation tag, a useful way of 
adding or altering designations in the field.


There is also a _very_ experimental feature to auto convert a GPS trace to OSM 
ways in Create/Edit mode.

If you are walking along an unmapped path, you can perform a survey.  Select 
its designation (public footpath, public bridleway etc) and type (grass path, 
dirt path, dirt track) etc and record your route (using the red dot icon under 
'Create/Edit' mode).


When you have finished recording, you can press stop (the black square icon) 
and upload (the cloud icon) and your GPS trace will be simplified and 
autoconverted into OSM ways (with appropriate designation, highway and surface 
tags added), which will be hopefully (see below) auto-joined to the existing 
OSM highway network.


The eventual aim of this feature is to make it easy for OSM newcomers to survey 
paths without having to worry about the details of tagging. It has not yet 
achieved this aim but it does allow established mappers to quickly survey paths 
in the field and upload them.


IT IS CURRENTLY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED (and the app tells you this) to then use 
JOSM or a similar editor to refine the auto-created ways as they may suffer 
from artefacts due to poor GPS signal, and the app is still a little buggy at 
handling the terminal nodes. Nonetheless it is arguably a useful way of getting 
the designation and highway type recorded in the field without having to note 
them down.


Note that you have to grant location and storage permissions via the device's 
settings; this isn't yet fully done in-app.


It can be downloaded via the link at http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/; 
 full URL: 
http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/downloads/mapthepaths.apk.


It's not quite ready for full release just yet; nonetheless I have made an 
early version available as people might find the "view" mode in particular 
useful if they are out in

the field looking for paths to map during the current path mapping quarterly 
project.


Source repository https://gitlab.com/nickw1/mapthepaths-android.


Nick






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

Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-08-28 16:43, David Groom wrote:

> whilst in theory I'd say yes, in practice I'd say consensus is hard to 
> achieve.

OK, I might as well give up now then. If everybody started thinking "I
don't know why I bother," like I am now, where would we be?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

[David Groom]

Colin

whilst in theory I'd say yes, in practice I'd say consensus is hard to 
achieve.


David



-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Smale" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 28/08/2018 12:23:33
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

David, do you consider that it would be advantageous to have consensus 
on this matter, and a consistent tagging paradigm in OSM? I am not 
prejudging what that consensus position might be, just sounding out if 
there is any point in having the discussion in the first place.





On 2018-08-28 13:09, David Groom wrote:


There is no consensus.

Personally I'm not in favour of the view that any body of water which 
is tidal should be bounded by a way tagged as coastline.


Reasons for this

1) Ask any one who lives in say central London "do you live on the 
coast" or do you live beside a river", most would I'm sure say beside 
a river, so surely our data should reflect that.  I think this 
probably is what you mean by "seems more natural"


2)  In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal 
water areas as coastline


3) If knowledge that a body of water is tidal is important it can be 
tagged "tidal = yes"



David




-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Smale" 
To: "Talk-GB" 
Sent: 28/08/2018 08:49:01
Subject: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

That old chestnut again...

There seems to be an open discussion about how far up a river the 
natural=coastline should go. The wiki suggests the coastline should be 
the high water line going up to the tidal limit (often a lock or a 
wier) but this can be a substantial distance inland. This is AIUI the 
general scientific approach.


There has been some discussion in the past about letting the coastline 
cut across the river at some convenient point, possibly because it 
"looks better" or "seems more natural" or "is less work."


I looked at a few rivers along the south coast to see how they had 
been tagged and it seems most have the coastline up to the tidal 
limit. However the coastline around the mouth of the Dart has recently 
been modified to cut across the mouth, and Salcombe Harbour is also 
mapped this way.


Is there a consensus for a particular definition of "coastline" in 
tidal estuaries? Should we try to keep a consistent paradigm, or 
doesn't it matter?






___
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] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Dan S]

As an aside - if ISO3166 meaning of "GB" is indeed intended (i.e.
UKoGBaNI), I wonder if someone could update the info on
 to clarify that?
Currently says "General discussion for users in Great Britain"

Best
Dan
Op di 28 aug. 2018 om 13:15 schreef Andrew Hain :
>
> Imposing strict boundaries on OSM communication channels (in this case a 
> non-ISO3166 meaning for a talk list) is out of order and is not a proper 
> response to any disagreement anyone may have about tagging.
>
> --
> Andrew 
> From: webmas...@killyfole.org.uk 
> Sent: 28 August 2018 13:04:20
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland
>
> Hi folks,
>
> As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern
> Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.  So having left the IRC
> channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.
>
> I will also be canceling my OSMUK membership or failing that, not renewing in
> December 2018.  I can still be reached via OSM username:KDDA or on the Talk IE
> mailing list.
>
> Thanks to all who have helped me over the years,
>
> Clive aka KDDA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Frederik Ramm]

Clive,

On 28.08.2018 14:04, webmas...@killyfole.org.uk wrote:
> As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern 
> Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself. So having left the IRC 
> channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.

If even Germans don't keep their opinions to themselves on this list,
then why should people from Northern Ireland ;)

I'd urge you to reconsider. If someone seriously took the bigoted
approach to "othering" you on IRC just because the list was called
talk-gb then I'm sure the community will stand behind you and not behind
whoever said that, and an apology is in order.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Richard Fairhurst]

webmas...@killyfole.org.uk wrote:
> As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include 
> Northern Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.

No-one told you to keep your opinions to yourself; I simply suggested you
start a separate Northern Ireland-centric discussion (beginning with
comments on any offending changesets) if edits were being made contrary to
the wishes of the community there, rather than derailing a discussion about
a tag change in Great Britain.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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

Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Andrew Hain]

Imposing strict boundaries on OSM communication channels (in this case a 
non-ISO3166 meaning for a talk list) is out of order and is not a proper 
response to any disagreement anyone may have about tagging.

--
Andrew

From: webmas...@killyfole.org.uk 
Sent: 28 August 2018 13:04:20
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

Hi folks,

As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern
Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.  So having left the IRC
channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.

I will also be canceling my OSMUK membership or failing that, not renewing in
December 2018.  I can still be reached via OSM username:KDDA or on the Talk IE
mailing list.

Thanks to all who have helped me over the years,

Clive aka KDDA







___
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] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[webmas...@killyfole.org.uk]

Hi folks,

As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern 
Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.  So having left the IRC 
channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.

I will also be canceling my OSMUK membership or failing that, not renewing in 
December 2018.  I can still be reached via OSM username:KDDA or on the Talk IE 
mailing list.

Thanks to all who have helped me over the years,

Clive aka KDDA







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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[David Woolley]

On 28/08/18 12:54, webmas...@killyfole.org.uk wrote:

The objection is that you are undoing the effort and time spent by mappers


The data has not been destroyed, just more correctly tagged.

In general most of this information can only be obtained from armchairs, 
so it is irrelevant as to whether or not the mapper is in the area.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[Richard Fairhurst]

Toby Speight wrote:
> Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software -
> editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required?  I
> see no sign of any of this having started.

No changes are required to core OSM software, but if your own niche requires
a map on which C-road refs are displayed (and I recognise you from the SABRE
forums, so I guess that might be the case ;) ) I'd be more than happy to
help you and/or others set up a server to do that. I'm sure there are other
people here who'd extend the same offer of help.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[Dave F]

Hi Toby

You've been given the link to the previous discussions, which explains 
the reasons.


What is your objection to the reasons given for this amendment?

The wiki is a guide, not the law. It hasn't been updated yet as you & 
others still wish to discuss the situation. If it had, I suspect there 
would have been complaints that it was amended before being discussed 
(even though it has).


It's the responsibility of the creators of the software to ensure they 
keep up to date with the ever changing database.


Cheers
DaveF

On 27/08/2018 19:15, Toby Speight wrote:

Recently, all the tertiary roads in my region had their ref tags
removed, and replaced with "highways_authority_ref".  A week later the
unclassified and residential roads suffered similar attack.

* Who is supposed to benefit from hiding these data?
* Who is responsible for documenting what this tag means, and when it
   should be used in place of the standard tagging?  So far, there's no
   mention of it on its own tag wiki, nor on key:ref
* Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software -
   editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required?  I
   see no sign of any of this having started.

In short, what's going on, what's wrong with the standard tagging, and
how can we get the data back where they belong?

___
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] Coastline and tidal rivers

[Colin Smale]

David, do you consider that it would be advantageous to have consensus
on this matter, and a consistent tagging paradigm in OSM? I am not
prejudging what that consensus position might be, just sounding out if
there is any point in having the discussion in the first place.

On 2018-08-28 13:09, David Groom wrote:

> There is no consensus. 
> 
> Personally I'm not in favour of the view that any body of water which is 
> tidal should be bounded by a way tagged as coastline.  
> 
> Reasons for this 
> 
> 1) Ask any one who lives in say central London "do you live on the coast" or 
> do you live beside a river", most would I'm sure say beside a river, so 
> surely our data should reflect that.  I think this probably is what you mean 
> by "seems more natural" 
> 
> 2)  In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal water 
> areas as coastline 
> 
> 3) If knowledge that a body of water is tidal is important it can be tagged 
> "tidal = yes" 
> 
> David 
> 
> -- Original Message -- 
> From: "Colin Smale"  
> To: "Talk-GB"  
> Sent: 28/08/2018 08:49:01 
> Subject: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers 
> 
> That old chestnut again... 
> 
> There seems to be an open discussion about how far up a river the 
> natural=coastline should go. The wiki suggests the coastline should be the 
> high water line going up to the tidal limit (often a lock or a wier) but this 
> can be a substantial distance inland. This is AIUI the general scientific 
> approach. 
> 
> There has been some discussion in the past about letting the coastline cut 
> across the river at some convenient point, possibly because it "looks better" 
> or "seems more natural" or "is less work." 
> 
> I looked at a few rivers along the south coast to see how they had been 
> tagged and it seems most have the coastline up to the tidal limit. However 
> the coastline around the mouth of the Dart has recently been modified to cut 
> across the mouth, and Salcombe Harbour is also mapped this way. 
> 
> Is there a consensus for a particular definition of "coastline" in tidal 
> estuaries? Should we try to keep a consistent paradigm, or doesn't it matter? 
> 
> ___
> 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] Coastline and tidal rivers

[David Groom]

There is no consensus.

Personally I'm not in favour of the view that any body of water which is 
tidal should be bounded by a way tagged as coastline.


Reasons for this

1) Ask any one who lives in say central London "do you live on the 
coast" or do you live beside a river", most would I'm sure say beside a 
river, so surely our data should reflect that.  I think this probably is 
what you mean by "seems more natural"


2)  In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal 
water areas as coastline


3) If knowledge that a body of water is tidal is important it can be 
tagged "tidal = yes"



David




-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Smale" 
To: "Talk-GB" 
Sent: 28/08/2018 08:49:01
Subject: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

That old chestnut again...

There seems to be an open discussion about how far up a river the 
natural=coastline should go. The wiki suggests the coastline should be 
the high water line going up to the tidal limit (often a lock or a wier) 
but this can be a substantial distance inland. This is AIUI the general 
scientific approach.


There has been some discussion in the past about letting the coastline 
cut across the river at some convenient point, possibly because it 
"looks better" or "seems more natural" or "is less work."


I looked at a few rivers along the south coast to see how they had been 
tagged and it seems most have the coastline up to the tidal limit. 
However the coastline around the mouth of the Dart has recently been 
modified to cut across the mouth, and Salcombe Harbour is also mapped 
this way.


Is there a consensus for a particular definition of "coastline" in tidal 
estuaries? Should we try to keep a consistent paradigm, or doesn't it 
matter?



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[Dave F]

Hi Adam

On 28/08/2018 08:35, Adam Snape wrote:


The UK tagging guidelines have always advised against using the ref 
tag: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines 
although you'll notice from that there's still no overall agreement on 
exactly which other tag to use for unsigned references. I do believe 
this should have been discussed before the mechanical edit.


It was discussed back in '15. Some felt the two listed were specific 
enough with another option put forward, which I'm currently using. I 
indicated in my OP that that was up for discussion. Please start the 
ball rolling if you have objections to highway_authority_ref.


Point about OSM wiki: IMO giving multiple options for the same entity 
leads to confusion & errors so should be avoided.


Cheers
DaveF



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

[Tony Shield]

I'm with Colin on this.

My experience of sailing and reading Admiralty charts is that the 
coastline is the High Water line.  Yes it looks inconvenient or 
unnatural - but tidal area as implied by coastline is so important to 
small boat users. The River Dart



   Way: 194211894 waterway= riverbank

is a really arbitrary line across the river from Dartmouth Castle, this 
offends my view of what a coastline is.


Another relevant concept is salinity - tidal coastline is saline and 
does affect plant and marine life . Which leads us into a conundrum - 
things such as salt marsh and mangrove swamps which are all inter-tidal; 
where should the coastline be?


We should also be aware that an incoming tide blocks the natural flow of 
the river and causes the river to form a type of lake which reduces as 
the tide ebbs. This effect can cause people to think a river is tidal in 
that area when it is not.


In my local area the River Ribble estuary in OSM changes from riverbank 
to coastline near Warton airfield, but wikipedia describes "The Normal 
Tidal Limit (NTL) of the river is at Fishwick Bottoms, between Preston 
andWalton-le-Dale , 11 
miles (18 km) from the sea"


so where should the boundary of coastline to  riverbank be? I suggest 
where the inter-tidal range or zonal area is small - range < 1 foot, 
line of zone perpendicular to the boundary is < 1 yard (or metric 
equivalent).
A heuristic could be where it becomes long and thin? Ribble is almost 
acceptable - Dart is not as I write this.


But really I prefer the existing guidance.

Regards
TonyS999


On 28/08/2018 08:49, Colin Smale wrote:


That old chestnut again...

There seems to be an open discussion about how far up a river the 
natural=coastline should go. The wiki suggests the coastline should be 
the high water line going up to the tidal limit (often a lock or a 
wier) but this can be a substantial distance inland. This is AIUI the 
general scientific approach.


There has been some discussion in the past about letting the coastline 
cut across the river at some convenient point, possibly because it 
"looks better" or "seems more natural" or "is less work."


I looked at a few rivers along the south coast to see how they had 
been tagged and it seems most have the coastline up to the tidal 
limit. However the coastline around the mouth of the Dart has recently 
been modified to cut across the mouth, and Salcombe Harbour is also 
mapped this way.


Is there a consensus for a particular definition of "coastline" in 
tidal estuaries? Should we try to keep a consistent paradigm, or 
doesn't it matter?





___
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] Coastline and tidal rivers

[Colin Smale]

That old chestnut again... 

There seems to be an open discussion about how far up a river the
natural=coastline should go. The wiki suggests the coastline should be
the high water line going up to the tidal limit (often a lock or a wier)
but this can be a substantial distance inland. This is AIUI the general
scientific approach. 

There has been some discussion in the past about letting the coastline
cut across the river at some convenient point, possibly because it
"looks better" or "seems more natural" or "is less work." 

I looked at a few rivers along the south coast to see how they had been
tagged and it seems most have the coastline up to the tidal limit.
However the coastline around the mouth of the Dart has recently been
modified to cut across the mouth, and Salcombe Harbour is also mapped
this way. 

Is there a consensus for a particular definition of "coastline" in tidal
estuaries? Should we try to keep a consistent paradigm, or doesn't it
matter?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[Adam Snape]

Hi Tony,

Please do read the conversation, but I think it's important to stress that
no one is changing the standard  tagging here. It has never been standard
to map unsigned references for tertiary/unclassified roads under the ref
tag; indeed there has long been a consensus against doing so.

The UK tagging guidelines have always advised against using the ref tag:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines
although you'll notice from that there's still no overall agreement on
exactly which other tag to use for unsigned references. I do believe this
should have been discussed before the mechanical edit.

As a reminder, if you are adding unsigned references you do need to make
sure that you're using an acceptable source which doesn't infringe council
copyright. ie. a source that is released under a public licence such as the
Open Government Licence or one which we have explicit permission to include
in OSM and release under the ODBL.

Kind regards

Adam



On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, 19:16 Toby Speight,  wrote:

> Recently, all the tertiary roads in my region had their ref tags
> removed, and replaced with "highways_authority_ref".  A week later the
> unclassified and residential roads suffered similar attack.
>
> * Who is supposed to benefit from hiding these data?
> * Who is responsible for documenting what this tag means, and when it
>   should be used in place of the standard tagging?  So far, there's no
>   mention of it on its own tag wiki, nor on key:ref
> * Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software -
>   editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required?  I
>   see no sign of any of this having started.
>
> In short, what's going on, what's wrong with the standard tagging, and
> how can we get the data back where they belong?
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

On 27 Aug 2018 19:16, "Toby Speight"  wrote:

Recently, all the tertiary roads in my region had their ref tags
removed, and replaced with "highways_authority_ref".  A week later the
unclassified and residential roads suffered similar attack.

* Who is supposed to benefit from hiding these data?
* Who is responsible for documenting what this tag means, and when it
  should be used in place of the standard tagging?  So far, there's no
  mention of it on its own tag wiki, nor on key:ref
* Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software -
  editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required?  I
  see no sign of any of this having started.

In short, what's going on, what's wrong with the standard tagging, and
how can we get the data back where they belong?

___
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