Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[Dave F]

On 29/08/2018 20:32, Toby Speight wrote:


I consider it a "niche" that wants them hidden.


The vast, vast majority are hidden on the ground.


  I don't see
that we have to mis-tag them all to have them hidden - I can see it
would be useful to have a map with less clutter, but it shouldn't be
hard to do that without having to mangle the underlying OSM database!


Separating tags isn't "mangling" It makes the database more detailed & 
accurate.


How would you propose to do it?


Yes, I appreciate that if the highways_authority_ref were documented and
somehow agreed to be correct, then for mkgmap it would be a simple
matter of "add ref ${highways_authority_ref};" near the beginning; it
would be a bit harder to get a workable tag template for Merkaartor, but
tools like KeepRight and Geofabrik QA aren't so easily adjusted, and
unlikely to adopt new tagging until it's at least documented.


I'm sorry, but this is poppycock. All data users should have ability to 
responded to changes in the database. The tail does not wag the dog.


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

[Dave F]

On 29/08/2018 20:35, Toby Speight wrote:

Wou> ... GB doesn't include Northern Ireland, ...

Even in these days of Brexit, I don't think there's any movement for
Northern Ireland to leave GB.  You've been misinformed!

Sorry Toby, but it's you who's been misinformed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[Dave F]

On 29/08/2018 20:44, Toby Speight wrote:

0> In article ,
0> Dave F. mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> ("Dave") wrote:

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

That's exactly what's problematic about "highways_authority_ref": it
creates a tag that contains the same information as belongs in "ref".

Based on the name, the similarity to ncn_ref and the like suggests a
non-authoritative alternative identifier.


Hi Toby

Let's deal with the last point first. Unsure how you could describe 
'highways_authority_ref' as 'non-authoritative'.


'ncn_ref' isn't 'non-authoritative' or similar to it's a label given to 
an assigned highway by Sustrans, many miles of which are maintained by 
local authorities.


OK, main point: 'ref' was used almost from the start of OSM when Steve 
C. mapped the first ways. As the database evolved it became clear 'ref' 
was too ambiguous & so other 'ref' tags evolved. Please remember there 
were no focus groups meetings laying out a pathway concept. OSM is a 
truly organic development. Things change, evolve. As the database 
becomes more detailed so the tags become more detailed. Contributors 
should be expecting change & willing to adapt. Being fearful of change 
is not a reason for the status-quo.


I've used 'highways_authority_ref' as it was suggested as a more 
specific tag to the alternatives. As I said in my OP I'm wiling to amend 
that, but only after I've amalgamated all the relevant tags & someone 
comes up with a better alternative. So far no one has done so.


Getting all contributors to use 'highway_authority_ref' will be 
problematic, in *exactly* the same way it is for so many other tags. 
That is *not* a reason to not improve OSM's database.


General point to all: Others here & on private email appear to think I, 
& I alone, conceived this proposal. I did not. This is clearly evident 
from reading the links in my OP. If anyone wishes to criticize the 
proposal, please have the common decency to base it on facts & evidence.


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] un-named roads in UK

[Lester Caine]

On 29/08/18 21:21, Jubal Harpster wrote:

Stadium Mews

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/260127900

https://goo.gl/maps/JJNxamCgLy12

_https://binged.it/2C0LAw1_


PAF file ... N5 1FP

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - https://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] un-named roads in UK

[David Woolley]

On 29/08/18 21:21, Jubal Harpster wrote:

Rosneath Castle Caravan Park



https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/92291906



_https://goo.gl/maps/5zn1EEXwYER2_



_https://binged.it/2BCrYOr_



OSM has the name on the actual caravan park, which sounds more likely: 
.


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

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

[Martin Wynne]

Even in these days of Brexit, I don't think there's any movement for
Northern Ireland to leave GB.  You've been misinformed!


Hi Toby,

Northern Ireland is part of the UK but it's not part of GB.

GB is England, Scotland and Wales.

The official title of this country is "The United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland".


regards,

Martin.

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

[Talk-GB] un-named roads in UK

[Jubal Harpster]

Hi Everyone,



Our Open Maps team (https://github.com/microsoft/open-maps) has been taking a 
closer look at OSM in the UK.  Some of you may have seen my session in Milan 
where we talked about Microsoft’s ongoing OSM work in Australia.



We found a few examples of roads missing names that we could use some local 
help with. There does not appear to be an official name for the examples below 
and we’re trying to figure out if they came from a local source, ground survey 
or something else entirely.


Road Name

OSM

Google

Bing

Coach road estate

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/67494787

https://goo.gl/maps/PQXATz4iNMQ2

https://binged.it/2o1mF1v

Rosneath Castle Caravan Park

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/92291906

https://goo.gl/maps/5zn1EEXwYER2

https://binged.it/2BCrYOr

Merville Garden Village

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/139461452

https://goo.gl/maps/YdH5HCvhTqK2

https://binged.it/2BCq9Rx

Stadium Mews

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/260127900

https://goo.gl/maps/JJNxamCgLy12

https://binged.it/2C0LAw1




These are not major roads but they are associated with a large number of 
residential addresses so any help understanding the source of the road names 
would be helpful.



Thank You

-Jubal

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jharpster

https://github.com/jharpster


___
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:
> That's why we have
> rendering rules - if you don't like the rendering, change the rules.

What you're suggesting would imply that every worldwide site using OSM data
to display a consumer-facing map, or provide routing, needs to write a
special exception for Great Britain. With the best will in the world, that
doesn't and isn't going to happen. (I think only one such site does so, and
it's the one I run!)

Dave's edit (minutiae about highway_authority_ref vs unsigned_ref vs
official_ref aside[1]) brings this country into line with how most of the
rest of the world does it: the ref= tag is for signposted references. See
how https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref#Examples_on_ways refers to
"on the ground", "on the signs", "the usage on the signs".

Richard


[1] Personally, I honestly don't mind whether it's unsigned_ref or admin_ref
or official_ref or highway_authority_ref or one of the many other things
that have been suggested over the years. It might be worth having the
conversation here to see if there's something that people can coalesce
around, and then no doubt a further edit would be possible.

At that point, though, I would be tempted to bow out and redirect my
energies to the intriguing question of how an entirely bogus pub appears to
have survived in an allegedly well-mapped urban area for eight years. ;)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/678796800/history



--
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

[Toby Speight]

0> In article ,
0> Dave F. mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> ("Dave") wrote:

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

That's exactly what's problematic about "highways_authority_ref": it
creates a tag that contains the same information as belongs in "ref".

Based on the name, the similarity to ncn_ref and the like suggests a
non-authoritative alternative identifier.

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

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

[Toby Speight]

0> In article 
,
0> Dan S. mailto:danstowell%2b...@gmail.com> ("Dan") wrote:

Dan> The documentation happened after-the-fact rather than in advance,
Dan> as the AECoC demands.

There's still no documentation on the tag wiki at [1] or [2].
Interestingly, there is a mention of "unsigned_ref" [3] that's close to
what's proposed.  Perhaps that could be a way forward?

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref >
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway_authority_ref >
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:unsigned_ref >

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[David Woolley]

On 29/08/18 20:25, Toby Speight wrote:

Thanks for that - it predates my joining this list.  It seems to (partially)
answer only my first question - it's to benefit those who don't like their
rendering (on paper/screen or on a navigation device).  That's why we have
rendering rules - if you don't like the rendering, change the rules.  Using
the wrong tag for the data (especially a totally undocumented tag) to get a
rendering you like is really not helpful.



The people it benefits are people using OSM to navigate in vehicles, 
whether with routing software or with visual maps, as displaying 
information that doesn't exist on the ground results in their looking 
for signs that don't exist.


I would argue that the people tagging for the renderer are those who add 
references that don't exist on the ground and are not actually 
nationally unique.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[Andy Townsend]

On 29/08/2018 20:25, Toby Speight wrote:

Thanks for that - it predates my joining this list.  It seems to (partially)
answer only my first question - it's to benefit those who don't like their
rendering (on paper/screen or on a navigation device).  That's why we have
rendering rules - if you don't like the rendering, change the rules.  Using
the wrong tag for the data (especially a totally undocumented tag) to get a
rendering you like is really not helpful.


How would you suggest that data is tagged so that a renderer or a router 
knows the true local situation, e.g. "This reference tag, B1363, appears 
on signs is nationally unique and is something that drivers can use as a 
reference, but this other reference tag, C91, doesn't appear on signs, 
is unique only to the local authority that issued it, and can't be used 
for navigation"?  It's not as simple as saying "all B road refs and 
signed and all C road refs are unsigned" - there are quite a few exceptions.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

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

[Toby Speight]

0> In article <6591308.YUxS5xHkjF@solus>,
0> WebMaster@Killyfole org uk mailto:webmas...@killyfole.org.uk> ("Wou") 
wrote:

Wou> ... GB doesn't include Northern Ireland, ...

Even in these days of Brexit, I don't think there's any movement for
Northern Ireland to leave GB.  You've been misinformed!

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[Toby Speight]

0> In article <1535456684095-0.p...@n8.nabble.com>,
0> Richard Fairhurst mailto:rich...@systemed.net> ("Richard") wrote:

Richard> 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.

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

Interesting that you say there's a "niche" where road refs should be
displayed; I consider it a "niche" that wants them hidden.  I don't see
that we have to mis-tag them all to have them hidden - I can see it
would be useful to have a map with less clutter, but it shouldn't be
hard to do that without having to mangle the underlying OSM database!

Yes, I appreciate that if the highways_authority_ref were documented and
somehow agreed to be correct, then for mkgmap it would be a simple
matter of "add ref ${highways_authority_ref};" near the beginning; it
would be a bit harder to get a workable tag template for Merkaartor, but
tools like KeepRight and Geofabrik QA aren't so easily adjusted, and
unlikely to adopt new tagging until it's at least documented.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[Toby Speight]

0> In article 
,
0> Andrew Hain mailto:andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk> ("Andrew") wrote:

Andrew> Toby, I really think you need to read through the conversation
Andrew> archived at
Andrew> 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/thread.html
Andrew> and answer the points discussed there.

Thanks for that - it predates my joining this list.  It seems to (partially)
answer only my first question - it's to benefit those who don't like their
rendering (on paper/screen or on a navigation device).  That's why we have
rendering rules - if you don't like the rendering, change the rules.  Using
the wrong tag for the data (especially a totally undocumented tag) to get a
rendering you like is really not helpful.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Some leisure=track not rendering

[Dave F]

Hi
Hmm.. strange. Note Cycle Map does still render

Check here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/compare/v4.10.0...v4.13.0

Raise a query here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues

Cheers
DaveF

On 28/08/2018 18:48, jc...@mail.com wrote:

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

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

[Brian Prangle]

Thanks for your polite request Richard. I stand by my assessment, based not
on your intentions or character but based on the result. Regards  Brian

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 21:40, Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

> 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
>
___
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]

 I thought that you said  c roads would remain in NI but judging by Clive's
reaction I thought something must have changed. He's obviously not
convinced that c roads are going to remain in NI so perhaps you should
make it even more abundantly and explicitly clear that this is the case and
have it documented clearly in all the right places. Can I suggest that
perhaps you might also benefit from your own advice when making  future
country-wide automatic edits

Regards

Brian

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 21:42, Dave F  wrote:

>
>
> 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] Coastline and tidal rivers

[Mike Evans]

Hi David

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 09:09:58 +
"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".  
> Both the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries define as estuary as part of 
> a river.

Dictionaries are written for writers and are not necessarily useful as a 
mapping resource.
There's more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Estuary


> >
> >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?
> >  
> Baltic , Caspian & Black Seas
>
All are tidal to small extent, see:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2016.00046/full

But none of this helps us draw an arbitrary line across a 
river/estuary/tidal/non-tidal water body.

Regards Mike 

-- 
GPG Key fingerprint = 0D8A 33A8 F7F8 733C 7519  2A56 DB8F 7CF1 C67B BC0F


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

[David Groom]

-- Original Message --
From: "Mike Evans" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Cc: "David Groom" 
Sent: 28/08/2018 19:22:16
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers


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".
Both the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries define as estuary as part of 
a river.




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".
The Wikipedia quote to which you refer suggests to  me that this should 
be tagged as a river, since the Thames is a river, parts of which are 
tidal and parts of which are not.  But it's still a river.





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?


Baltic , Caspian & Black Seas





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

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths app

[Nick Whitelegg]

... oops, forgot to mention the app is Android only, not iOS - and only 
supports API 23+ (Marshmallow upwards).


There is now a rough guide, based on yesterday's email, available on the 
MapThePaths site. Apologies for the lack of detail on this: I am going away and 
have little time at the moment!


Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg 
Sent: 28 August 2018 18:24:11
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths app



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