[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Black Country Geopark
Do we have plans to map the new "Black Country Geopark": http://blackcountrygeopark.org.uk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Country_Geopark or to tag the various components as belonging to it? Is this suitable for a "relation"? -- 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] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 12:39, Mark Goodge wrote: > For non-OS maps, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the last > surviving major contributor. The wiki has some information on this: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Out-of-copyright_maps#UK See also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Unknown_author https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Anonymous_works#UK -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
If it's truly "open access land" then it's not permissive, it's merely foot=yes, surely? Dan Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 13:20 schreef Michael Collinson : > > Perhaps there should be a access/foot=open_access tag? > > Paths across open access areas aren't really "permissive". First, you > usually have some rights to wander off the path/make your own. Second, > there is (always?) some sort of regulatory/public right involved, it > isn't just dependent on the largesse of a landowner. > > In my area of Yorkshire, there are a number of open access areas where > unofficial paths have evolved over recent years. I have mapped these as > foot=yes, but that misses the extra right-to-roam dimension. > > Mike > > On 2020-07-11 12:57, Philip Barnes wrote: > > On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote: > >> That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g. > >> Scotland > >> and England). > > Not just England, Wales too. > > > > Phil (trigpoint) > > > >> A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry, > >> farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that > >> it > >> is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would > >> certainly > >> help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid > >> restrictions. > >> > >> Nick > >> > >> On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote: > >>> Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary > >>> guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate > >>> consensus? It would be super helpful > >>> > >>> Dan > >>> > >>> Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg > >>> : > .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used > foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case > in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I > suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly > open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a > permissive path' notice. > > Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to > forestry operations. > > Nick > > > > From: Nick Whitelegg > Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11 > To: Talk GB > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common > > > I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in > the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas > with public access, which are not rights of way but which > nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or > 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the > landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public > use. > > I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain > 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It > might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the > moment we don't know'. > > I tend to use: > designation for rights of way; > foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive > paths; > foot=yes for urban paths; > access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' > sign. > > Nick > > > > From: Adam Snape > Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 > To: Talk GB > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common > > It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, > foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by > default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I > can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there > might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to > an implied value. > > OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat > for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where > a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is > actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is > clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing > estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and > about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. > > Kind regards, > > Adam > ___ > 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 > > > > ___ > > Talk-GB mailing list > >
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
Perhaps there should be a access/foot=open_access tag? Paths across open access areas aren't really "permissive". First, you usually have some rights to wander off the path/make your own. Second, there is (always?) some sort of regulatory/public right involved, it isn't just dependent on the largesse of a landowner. In my area of Yorkshire, there are a number of open access areas where unofficial paths have evolved over recent years. I have mapped these as foot=yes, but that misses the extra right-to-roam dimension. Mike On 2020-07-11 12:57, Philip Barnes wrote: On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote: That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g. Scotland and England). Not just England, Wales too. Phil (trigpoint) A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry, farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that it is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would certainly help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid restrictions. Nick On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote: Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate consensus? It would be super helpful Dan Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg : .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a permissive path' notice. Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry operations. Nick From: Nick Whitelegg Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11 To: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use. I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'. I tend to use: designation for rights of way; foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths; foot=yes for urban paths; access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign. Nick From: Adam Snape Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 To: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to an implied value. OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. Kind regards, Adam ___ 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 ___ 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] Paths on Wimbledon Common
On Sat, 2020-07-11 at 11:51 +0100, Nick wrote: > That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g. > Scotland > and England). Not just England, Wales too. Phil (trigpoint) > > A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry, > farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that > it > is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would > certainly > help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid > restrictions. > > Nick > > On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote: > > Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary > > guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate > > consensus? It would be super helpful > > > > Dan > > > > Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg > > : > > > .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used > > > foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case > > > in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I > > > suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly > > > open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a > > > permissive path' notice. > > > > > > Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to > > > forestry operations. > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Nick Whitelegg > > > Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11 > > > To: Talk GB > > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common > > > > > > > > > I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in > > > the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas > > > with public access, which are not rights of way but which > > > nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or > > > 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the > > > landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public > > > use. > > > > > > I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain > > > 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It > > > might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the > > > moment we don't know'. > > > > > > I tend to use: > > > designation for rights of way; > > > foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive > > > paths; > > > foot=yes for urban paths; > > > access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' > > > sign. > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Adam Snape > > > Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 > > > To: Talk GB > > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common > > > > > > It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, > > > foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by > > > default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I > > > can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there > > > might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to > > > an implied value. > > > > > > OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat > > > for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where > > > a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is > > > actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is > > > clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing > > > estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and > > > about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Adam > > > ___ > > > 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On 11/07/2020 07:47, Steve Doerr wrote: On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote: So, it seems that Fairfield [Road] isn't known to either OS or Google. It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at that zoom level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps rather than OS. For what it's worth, I also found it in a street atlas published by Geographia. I don't know if that's the same company as A-Z. Geographia is a former publisher of maps, now defunct (and not related to the US company of the same name). I also don't know the date of the street atlas and neither do I know how old a street atlas (non-OS) would have to be in order to be able to copy a name from it. For non-OS maps, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the last surviving major contributor. The wiki has some information on this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Out-of-copyright_maps#UK The atlas should have a publication date on it, somewhere. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
That would be great, bearing in mind access rights differ (e.g. Scotland and England). A really interesting point regarding temporary land-use (forestry, farming etc.) restrictions - ideal if it was dynamic to ensure that it is always updated (otherwise users woiuld ignore). It would certainly help land managers and users. Imagine if this was in place for Covid restrictions. Nick On 11/07/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote: Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate consensus? It would be super helpful Dan Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg : .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a permissive path' notice. Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry operations. Nick From: Nick Whitelegg Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11 To: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use. I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'. I tend to use: designation for rights of way; foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths; foot=yes for urban paths; access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign. Nick From: Adam Snape Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 To: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to an implied value. OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. Kind regards, Adam ___ 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] The curious case of USRN 20602512
Morning list! I've made an FOI request yesterday and am awaiting a reply. What we could also do is find a local mapper to answer what he knows about the street. K Am 11. Juli 2020 12:37:33 MESZ schrieb Martin Wynne : > >> It is just possible (sight unseen) that it is an Easter Egg. > >We could do the same. If we don't know whether it is permissible to tag >it Fairfield Road in OSM, and there is no actual sign on it, we could >call it Fairfields Road. > >Martin. > >___ >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] The curious case of USRN 20602512
It is just possible (sight unseen) that it is an Easter Egg. We could do the same. If we don't know whether it is permissible to tag it Fairfield Road in OSM, and there is no actual sign on it, we could call it Fairfields Road. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
Is there anyone here who is competent to write some kind of summary guidance on the wiki? Ideally one reflective of the approximate consensus? It would be super helpful Dan Op za 11 jul. 2020 om 10:16 schreef Nick Whitelegg : > > > .. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive > en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights > of way (except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but > all paths are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit > 'This is a permissive path' notice. > > Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry > operations. > > Nick > > > > From: Nick Whitelegg > Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11 > To: Talk GB > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common > > > I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the > countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public > access, which are not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use > and do not have any 'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this > case that the landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public > use. > > I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain > 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have > public or permissive use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'. > > I tend to use: > designation for rights of way; > foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths; > foot=yes for urban paths; > access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign. > > Nick > > > > From: Adam Snape > Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 > To: Talk GB > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common > > It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an > error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be > the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it > and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always > preferable to an implied value. > > OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end > user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly > stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut > from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks > and housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and > about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. > > Kind regards, > > Adam > ___ > 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] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On 2020-07-11 07:47, Steve Doerr wrote: On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote: So, it seems that Fairfield [Road] isn't known to either OS or Google. It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at that zoom level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps rather than OS. For what it's worth, I also found it in a street atlas published by Geographia. I don't know if that's the same company as A-Z. I also don't know the date of the street atlas and neither do I know how old a street atlas (non-OS) would have to be in order to be able to copy a name from it. It is just possible (sight unseen) that it is an Easter Egg. When I headed the License Working Group we had an ironic case in Israel where a contributor had asked local residents what an unsigned back street was called and they told him they knew it as "Pearl Street", which he promptly mapped. A local atlas company then got angry that we were "copying their data" citing the their made-up Pearl Street as proof. Fiction can become fact. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
.. to follow that up, a good example where I have used foot=permissive en-masse is the New Forest. It's an unusual case in that there are no rights of way (except, to guarantee access I suspect, crossings over railways) but all paths are implicitly open to the public. However there is no explicit 'This is a permissive path' notice. Certain paths are closed from time to time, usually due to forestry operations. Nick From: Nick Whitelegg Sent: 11 July 2020 10:11 To: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use. I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'. I tend to use: designation for rights of way; foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths; foot=yes for urban paths; access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign. Nick From: Adam Snape Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 To: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to an implied value. OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. Kind regards, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
I would probably add to the definition of permissive, paths in the countryside, or on common-land or similar edge-of-town areas with public access, which are not rights of way but which nonetheless are in common use and do not have any 'Private' or 'Keep out' signs; it seems apparent in this case that the landowner, or other authority, implicitly does not mind public use. I think it's important to tag such paths as permissive. Plain 'highway=footway' to me at least, indicates 'This is a path. It might have public or permissive use. It might be private. At the moment we don't know'. I tend to use: designation for rights of way; foot=permissive for explicit or implicit (as above) permissive paths; foot=yes for urban paths; access=private for those with an explicit 'Private/Keep Out' sign. Nick From: Adam Snape Sent: 11 July 2020 06:20 To: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as an error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might be the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to remove it and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is always preferable to an implied value. OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or likely to be shut from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many paths through parks and housing estates etc. are clearly intended for permanent public use and about as likely to be closed as the nearby highways. Kind regards, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote: So, it seems that Fairfield [Road] isn't known to either OS or Google. It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at that zoom level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps rather than OS. For what it's worth, I also found it in a street atlas published by Geographia. I don't know if that's the same company as A-Z. I also don't know the date of the street atlas and neither do I know how old a street atlas (non-OS) would have to be in order to be able to copy a name from it. -- Steve -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
