Re: [Talk-GB] cycle friendly pubs

[Andy Townsend]

On 15/09/2024 22:17, Paul Berry wrote:

Hi Jon,

> Similarly, is there one for places that welcome walkers?

I don't know of any (consensus on) tagging with respect to places that 
are friendly to walkers but there's a campaign site, Walkers Are 
Welcome (https://walkersarewelcome.org.uk), that looks like a good 
resource for checking places that might have been tagged in a 
meaningful way. Their accreditation seems to apply to a whole village 
or town. I don't think it would be safe to use that fact to armchair 
map, however, but you could scout for locations that have signage or a 
window sticker while doing a ground survey in a place mentioned on 
their website. I know of a café that's part of this scheme and boasts 
a "10% Rambler's discount" for a full English breakfast. No idea how 
to tag that though.



The only visible "Walkers are Welcome" signs that I've seen in Yorkshire 
are on routes.There's a "big" Welcome Way (partially in OSM as 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14026784 though not complete). 
There's also quite a lot of other "Walkers are Welcome" signage on 
shorter numbered routes, including around places such as Knaresborough 
that aren't listed at 
https://walkersarewelcome.org.uk/waw-towns-n-england/ yet. If anyone 
wants to try and chase some of those down then by all means have a look 
at the waypoints in 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/SWE_20240914_221740.GPX which I've 
found so far, particularly at ones that aren't currently in a route (for 
example at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=20/54.0215780/-1.5189240 
there's a "Welcome Way 3" route marker, but in the absence of others 
it's difficult to add the route).


Cheers,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] cycle friendly pubs

[Andy Townsend]

(taking a step back about general "XYZ friendly things in OSM")

Generally speaking, tags that say "XYZ friendly" rather than "XYZ 
verifiable feature exists" have met opposition - see for example the 
pushback against "motorcycle friendly" tagging (see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Motorcycle_friendly/tag_description 
among others).  One tag like that that does seem to have gained 
acceptance is https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/lgbtq#values .


With regard to "cycle friendly / walker friendly" pubs, I can think of 
pubs (such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/341321937 and the others 
run by the same owner) that make it a priority to have a large decent 
cycle parking area.  I don't know of a common way to tag that on pubs, 
but one aspect of "walker friendly pubs" that can be mapped is the floor 
material.  As an example, I added `floor:material=lino` to that pub and 
that now shows at 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#25/52.18024/0.15306 with 
a brown underline to indicate a non-carpeted floor (the other colour 
flashes on the underline are for wheelchair access and an outdoor 
seating area FWIW).


Cheers,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of historic 'stink pipes'

[Andy Townsend]

On 18/12/2020 08:39, Edward Bainton wrote:

Morning all

My local civic society is collecting the location of 'stink pipes', 
Victorian sewer ventilation shafts in cast iron. Pics here: 
https://twitter.com/TobyWoody/status/1339679166371926017/photo/1 



I've suggested they use OpenStreetMap and suggested a node with tag 
historic=ventilation_shaft. Does that seem the right tag?



That isn't a tag that anyone else has used - 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/11jU finds only the one that you've added 
recently.  Having said that, when I looked at "historic" usage in the UK 
I didn't see anything that looked a better option.


When I looked at vent shaft mapping in the UK a while back I came up 
with this list:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L3875

These are physically very different features (though sharing some of the 
same function) as your stink pipes.  If you're going to use 
"ventilation_shaft" I'd definitely also add 
"ventilation_shaft=stink_pipe" or similar to make it clear that you're 
talking about:


https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3590/3390912112_b70a3fb156_z.jpg

not:

https://www.picturesofengland.com/img/L/1106616.jpg

Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

[Andy Townsend]

On 14/12/2020 20:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
A barrier=stile on a long-established UK bridleway is 99.9% a mapping 
error. Bridleways are open to horses and bikes, and so stiles are 
forbidden - PRoW officers are pretty hot on this.


That may be the case in the comfy Cotswolds but I'm not sure that 
necessarily the case everywhere else in the country. :)


Actual steps on bridleways are common enough that I had to add a 
rendering for them at map.atownsend.org.uk (see 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=19&lat=54.417701&lon=-0.525549 
).  I might have recently mentioned 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=21&lat=54.0087259&lon=-1.0201263 
(a bridleway with an electric fence across it) on this list as well.


There are plenty of signed bridleways where horse access might be 
difficult for other reasons:  I set horse_scale=demanding on 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/762748920 , but on balance it should 
perhaps be a higher value due to the difficulty in negotiating the 
descent.  A subsequent mapper added bicycle=yes there - that's entirely 
correct, but the depth of the mud and the thickness of the trees would 
would be a challenge to even the keenest MTBer.


With regard to this alleged stile, the previous tagging and location 
would suggest to me a barrier=horse_stile (mentioned earlier in the 
thread) on the bridleway rather than a barrier=stile off it, but so much 
here needs remapping or at the very least rechecking (the stream differs 
greatly from the imagery, at least one of the bridleways looks like a 
track to me, no designation tags) that personally I'd just stick it in 
the "needs survey" bucket.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary

[Andy Townsend]

On 14/12/2020 19:21, Edward Bainton wrote:


Glad I'm not going mad. Does it say anything useful or interesting 
that the "GPS trace" is a few metres away from the boundary as marked 
on the map? (Sorry if this has been answered recently: there was 
extensive discussion on alignment not long ago, but too technical for 
me to follow easily.)


That "county boundary GPS traces" has been there about 10 years or so at 
a guess?  According to OSM's GPS traces, my first mapping in Rutland was 
around 10 years ago and I think those boundaries were there then.  I 
can't see that it ever added any value; it just serves to confuse people 
like me trying to use GPS traces to help align other imagery.


I don't remember it being discussed recently, though it has cropped up 
before (maybe 8-10 years ago?).


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Andy Townsend]

On 13/12/2020 11:30, ael via Talk-GB wrote:

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 10:44:24AM +, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:

IMHO, if it leads on to another road, track, etc. it is not a "driveway", but 
could be a track, a bridleway, a service road, or something else.

FWIIW, I would very definitely tag that as a service road. Driveway
seems quite inappropriate.


Based on what I've seen, I'd probably tag the whole thing as a track 
with appropriate surface tags :) , but I can think of plenty of 
unequivacal driveways that have public rights of way along them.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/529287631 is pretty typical, 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/119h finds lots more.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

[Talk-GB] map styles on osm.org; other sites (was: Re: driveway-becomes-track)

[Andy Townsend]

On 13/12/2020 11:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:

Note that someone who wants to show their map style at OSM website can
be included, though they must sponsor hosting

See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tile_layers/Guidelines_for_new_tile_layers


As far as I know, the main blocker seems to be
"Capable of meeting traffic demands. The proposed tile layer 
server/server farm
must be capable of accepting the traffic volume from the OpenStreetMap 
website."


ÖPNVKarte is map style that joined recently.

Dec 13, 2020, 12:08 by n...@foresters.org:

Seems to me that apart from the tagging, the issue highlighted
here is with how the general public can easily use OSM? Going to
the OSM map, the layers on offer are Standard, Cycle Map (which
does show the driveway connected) etc. but if a user wants a more
specific use this is not easy to find. To my mind this is where
more options from the worldwide map fail to deliver and is a
bigger issue that can be resolved by understanding the 'customer'
journey better?

The main blocker for a map that shows public footpaths etc. would 
actually be the "Global scope and coverage" requirement on that page, 
since public footpaths only exist in England and Wales.


It used to be possible to easily replace tiles from one of the map 
styles at osm.org with another one, but since the move to https-only 
tiles that's now much harder to do.  You can replace (say) 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/hot/9/253/166.png with 
https://tile-a.openstreetmap.fr/hot/9/253/166.png at the hosts file 
level, but need to click through a "scary browser warning" every few days.


More generally openstreetmap.org isn't really designed as a "general 
public" map destination, which is fair enough (it can't do everything).  
It's easy to make suggestions like "it should do X as well" - the tricky 
bit is actually doing it and maintaining it.  I'd definitely prefer a 
project landing page that's closer to the German one 
https://openstreetmap.de/ , but I don't have the skills, energy, time or 
enthusiasm to make that happen.  I particularly like the "showroom" 
there - a link to lots of different map styles, separate from the main 
openstreetmap.de map.


Another example that is surely worth mentioning here is 
https://cycle.travel - that's designed for a particular use case. I 
suspect that most people become aware of OSM by seeing the name at the 
bottom-right of a completely different site that someone sent them to 
because it was useful.  Another indication of this is the number of help 
questions that we see where people are having problems with "the 
openstreetmap app" or "the site gives an error" (and that site clearly 
isn't openstreetmap.org).


Best Regards,

Andy


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

[Talk-GB] Map styles and rendering various things (was: Re: driveway-becomes-track)

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/12/2020 21:11, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 12/12/2020 17:37, Andy Townsend wrote:

That allows maps such as 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16&lat=52.28208&lon=-2.42987 
to display it as a public bridleway (in blue)




Hi Andy,

That's a great map! It seems you have already done what I would be 
interested in doing - to provide a better map for walkers and others 
showing footpaths, stiles and gates, etc. much more prominently.


What I'm wondering is how the typical recreational country walker 
would find that map, or get it on their mobile phone app in place of 
the awful Google maps? It's a lot of work to create if no-one ever 
uses it?


Well I use it :)

More seriously, it was designed more a s proof of concept map style than 
anything else - an answer to some people saying "it is not possible to 
do X in a map style".  If you leave aside the whole "presenting 
advertising to the viewer" and "data collection from the user" parts of 
Google Maps there are still things that it does that people would want 
"a map" to do, not least:


 * being able to search for things
 * being able to get directions to things via various modes of transport
 * being able to work offline (a little bit, in the case of Google Maps)

There are fully-fledged offline map apps out there that use OSM data - 
OsmAnd and MAPS.ME are a couple that spring to mind.  See also 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Android#OpenStreetMap_applications 
and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Apple_iOS#OpenStreetMap_applications 
.  OsmAnd in particular offers a huge number of map styles (and can be 
customised too, although I wouldn't describe the process as "easy").





One thing I would ask for is more prominent rendering of benches. They 
appear only at maximum zoom on the OSM standard map, and only as a 
very small symbol. I don't suppose younger OSM mappers roam the 
countryside looking for somewhere to sit and eat their lunch, but at 
72 years of age I do (cheese & pickle sandwich and a hard-boiled egg, 
since you ask)!


At the risk of stating the obvious you can find things like this using 
Overpass as a front-end for the main OSM site - for example, 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/118H will find you benches in a certain area.


https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=17&lat=52.452965&lon=-0.55873 
shows benches a couple of zoom levels lower than the standard map, but 
the icon is still (deliberately) fairly small.




Something I feel strongly about, and would be a prime motivation for 
doing something about myself, is to map and provide rendering for the 
area:highway tag:


 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway



You want something like 
https://osmapa.pl/#lat=52.24738&lon=20.98893&z=19&m=os for that...


If you look at the underlying data needed to support that, it's pretty 
complex though.




Country walkers often need to include a stretch of public road in a 
planned walk, and it is very difficult to discover whether a road will 
be safe to walk along. Sometimes there are wide verges, but sometimes 
high banks or close hedges with nowhere to leap to out of the way of 
approaching traffic. It's necessary to look on Google Streetview 
before setting out, but not all country roads are covered. At present 
even apps which do render it (I believe OsmAnd) can't do much because 
it is not commonly mapped between the hedgerows along country roads. 
Legally the entire area between the property boundaries on each side 
is the public highway.


https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=13&lat=54.0689&lon=-0.9323 
shows verges (and "sidewalks" i.e. pavements)


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/12/2020 19:47, Nick wrote:

Hi Andy

Yes I understand the tag that has been used (i.e. designation) 
although I was suggesting the tag "Bridleway", the question that 
Martin posed was that "at zoom level 15, driveways are not shown", so 
the work around in this case might be to make a way with feature type 
= Bridleway?



Hi Nick,

"highway=bridleway" is in use, and is used to mean something designed 
for horses to use.  In rural areas that might coincide with something 
that also has the legal "designation=public_bridleway", but sometimes 
not - farmers may add "permissive bridleways" through their fields to 
allow access as an existing horse route.


From the description given, I don't think this is an actual bridleway 
as such (see the picture at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway ), and so I 
don't think it would make sense to map it in OSM as a "highway=bridleway".


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/12/2020 13:59, Nick wrote:


I had to check the Council GIS - so the designation is Bridleway. 
Because of the complexity, if this was tagged something like 
'Bridleway=Yes' and get that displayed on maps of footpaths, surely 
that would solve the problem?



Hi Nick,

Yes that is pretty much what is already happening here.  One of the ways 
here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/661519636 has a tag on it 
"designation=public_bridleway".  That describes the legal status of 
"bridleway" (rather than what it actually looks like on the ground).  
That allows maps such as 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16&lat=52.28208&lon=-2.42987 
to display it as a public bridleway (in blue)


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/12/2020 14:30, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote:



Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it. 
Perhaps that someone is you?


Hi Andy,

Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus, 
Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory 
space and bandwidth. I have been thinking of making better use of it, 
possibly by hosting something from OSM.


\o/





>  I'd suggest setting up a copy of the
> standard map rendering as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/
> (just for Worcestershire would be fine) and start tinkering with the
> logic that decides what sort of service road is what, such as
> 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b10aef3866bacf387581b8fea4eec265010b0d14/project.mml#L475 




Thanks. I have been looking at https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ 
but I have a lot to learn. I can do Windows programming, but on stuff 
for the web I'm only a dabbler. I looked at Mapnik and saw interfaces 
only for Python and C. If that had been Pascal, I would have dived in 
by now.


To be honest, I still struggle with the OSM Carto stuff too. That's why 
the logic stuff behind https://map.atownsend.org.uk is in lua as much as 
possible, such as at 
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L537 
.  Even if there are lots of brackets, at least they line up.  All the 
OSM Carto stuff has to do is do something with a highway value of 
"ucrnarrow" (which of course never exists in OSM).


If you get stuck either ask here or on IRC or at help.osm.org.  The 
"serving tiles"guides are designed to be able to be followed without any 
programming expertise (especially the Docker one).  Also see 
https://ircama.github.io/osm-carto-tutorials/ - there's a lot of useful 
stuff there too.





Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the 
cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm 
buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:


 https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg

It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. 
If I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded 
tagging for the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the 
world "track" means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.


This is where the farm drive leaves the road - this is definitely more 
than a "track" - note the double gates:


 https://goo.gl/maps/XEs4XKs5UUHNBt8E8


To be honest, there will always be edge cases where it's difficult to 
say where the OSM tag should change, or even what OSM tag would be best 
to start with.   I can think of plenty of places that are 50/50 
agricultural track and service road or driveway, and plenty more that 
are 30/70 or 70/30 etc.  Ultimately we've just got to pick the best tags 
we can, and sometimes there will be odd effects as here.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/12/2020 12:34, Martin Wynne wrote:
A common situation is that a service road/driveway continues as a 
track beyond the initial residential destination. This is common on 
farms.


On the standard map at zoom level 15, driveways are not shown. But 
tracks and footpaths are. This seems counter-intuitive in that 
driveways are usually wider and more substantially surfaced than farm 
tracks.


The result is that a track, and sometimes a footpath, appears to start 
in the middle of nowhere.


An example of that is at:

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.2816/-2.4320

What is the process for getting something done about this?

It's only a problem with one particular map rendering (other maps such 
as https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/52.2892/-2.4360&layers=C look 
sensible), so you'd need to raise that with that map rendering.  In the 
case of the map that you are talking about, that would be 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto .  If you look 
through the issues list there you'll see that this problem has been 
discussed before, and (for the reasons that ipswichmapper has already 
mentioned, it hasn't been fixed because it's a hard problem to solve.


Once a problem has been reported and is already known about (as is the 
case here) someone would need to figure out a way to solve the problem.  
There are a few possibilities:  One is to "only suppress urban driveways 
not rural ones", which would require that somehow the map can tell 
whether a location is "urban" or "rural".  Another might be to "not 
suppress driveways that have other tags".  In your case 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/661519636 has foot, horse and bicycle 
tags that could potentially help here.  Any technical solution would 
still need to convince the volunteers that maintain this map style that 
the change is a "good idea", and would not cause more serious knock-on 
problems elsewhere.


Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it.  
Perhaps that someone is you?  I'd suggest setting up a copy of the 
standard map rendering as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ 
(just for Worcestershire would be fine) and start tinkering with the 
logic that decides what sort of service road is what, such as 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b10aef3866bacf387581b8fea4eec265010b0d14/project.mml#L475 
.


If you think "that someone is really _not_ me" then you can still use 
another map, and can make sure that all appropriate tags are added to 
things so that other maps can use them.  I certainly owe some thanks to 
that area's mappers as 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16&lat=52.28208&lon=-2.42987 
(which shows designations and PRoW refs) is all filled in there.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/12/2020 09:59, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:



In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, 
like most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage 
would be light and limited to those in the OSM community. I use 
Hetzner for my hosting (OpenTrailView, Hikar, MapThePaths) - I pay 
around EUR 19/month but that is for a larger system that has to deal 
with the whole of Europe rather than just the UK.


https://www.hetzner.com/cloud?country=gb 



The second-lowest spec of these, the CPX11 is giving you 2GB RAM and 
40GB disc space for EUR 4.19 a month. OK we'd need more than that long 
term, but I suspect that would get us going in the early stages.



That'll depending on what you want the server to do, I think. For an OSM 
Carto Map style with automatic updates and reasonable performance you'll 
probably need > 6Gb memory for the whole of the UK these days.  Maybe a 
CX31 at €11 per month (i.e. about the price of a couple of pints and a 
"substantial" pork pie for those in tier 2)?  
https://map.atownsend.org.uk is a CX41 I believe, and renders Mapnik / 
Carto CSS map tiles that cover UK and Ireland. It could probably include 
another "medium sized OSM country" in the same map style as well without 
too many problems.



On the question of "could we show feature X" (e.g. "cycleways with 
foot=yes" different to "cycleways with foot=no) the answer is 
technically yes, but you need to decide which subset of features you 
want to show because there simply aren't enough ways of visually 
distinguishing things that users can actually tell apart, especially 
when combined with other features.



As an example, have a look at the legend at 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16&lat=-24.98988&lon=135.10862 
.  That shows:


 * designation (public footpath / bridleway / retricted byway / BOAT /
   UCR / none)
 * width - either "narrow" (not wide enough for a 4 wheeled vehicle) or
   "wide" (wide enough)
 * trail_visibility
 * some surface information (unclassified unpaved roads rendered
   differently to paved roads)
 * tunnel yes/no
 * long ford yes/no
 * bridge yes/no
 * embankment yes/no
 * long distance foot / bicycle / horse riding routes
 * access=destination and =private viewed from a pedestrian perspective

and of course combinations of the above.


It does not show:

 * explicit OSM keys (e.g. footway/cycleway/path/bridleway)
 * explicit OSM access tags (e.g. "foot=yes or no on a cycleway")
 * undesignated cycleways differently from other undesignated paths

In order to one of those (for example just "displaying cycleways as 
cycleways") you'd need to remove something else that's already rendered, 
otherwise users won't be able to tell features apart.



Assuming that people are planning to go down the mod_tile / Mapnik / 
Carto CSS route, I'd suggest:


1. decide what zoom levels you want, which will influence exactly which
   software to use
2. deciding where to start from (e.g OSM's Standard style, mine, or a
   different one altogether)
3. deciding exactly what you want to change
4. make those changes,
5. see what "unintended consequences" have occurred
6. fix those and iterate round until happy

Assuming you can deal a couple of hours overnight downtime while the 
database reloads I'd suggest doing most of the "deciding what to show as 
different things" work in lua and the "deciding what to show it as" in 
Carto CSS.  It's much easier to understand and to maintain.



With regard to the "boring bit" (scripts to load databases, keep 
databases up to date etc.) most of the stuff used by 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk is public (links to everything are at the 
top of the changelog).  Much of the rest (e.g. automatic https 
certificate renewal) is standard and is documented in 1000s of other 
places around the internet.  If anyone wants any help or advice with any 
of the above please just ask.



There may be a temptation to think "the end goal is a phone app , so 
actually we probably want to look at $some_other_technology instead".  I 
would strongly suggest following a well-trodden path first while so that 
the things that are new to whoever is doing this are have 
well-documented solutions.  I haven't yet found a vector tile stack that 
is (a) well documented and (b) free of vendor lock-in that could go on 
https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ yet, for example.  Once whoever is 
doing this is familiar with things, trying something a bit more 
off-the-wall will be more likely to work without everything breaking.



The biggest requirement is for someone to actually commit to doing the 
work to set something up - nothing will happen without this.  If OSM UK 
are happy to fund a server, and for it to fit in their DNS somewhere 
then that's one less expense to worry about - but someone still needs to 
do the work.



Best Regards,


Andy




___
Talk-

Re: [Talk-GB] Is "GB revert request log" wiki page something that should be recommended?

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/12/2020 10:17, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
It is about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log 
 that appears

to be abandoned.

I believe that that was set up to deal with a particular 
"overenthusiastic / fantasy contributor" a few years ago.


Similar requests for community action these days tend to be made in IRC 
or on this list, or (to the DWG) via the usual direct methods (email or 
"report user").


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/12/2020 12:24, Thomas Jarvis wrote:

(snipped)

I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that 
I ask the community here to see what the consensus is.
I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the 
sole reason being because it renders differently.


... actually I got a PM about this; I hadn't realised it was intended as 
a DWG question!


For completeness, the bits of my reply that were the answer to the 
question were as follows:


   Around the world people use both of these taggings, and often
   renderers will render them the same.

   In the UK, something like I imagine
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/582204090/history
    to be would
   typically be tagged “cycleway” even though it’s shared-use; in
   Germany it’d be typically “path”. Someone once did a bit of mailing
   list archaeology about the origins of “highway=path” within OSM (it
   wasn’t one of the original ones) and there are a couple of theories
   about where it came from.

   Some people have strong views on this - for example
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333
    .

(and in answer to the renderer question)

   Indeed, “how it renders in a particular renderer” is rarely a good
   reason to tag something a particular way.

   However, it doesn’t look from
   http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=582204090
    that the status
   quo here was “cycleway” before you changed it, so I’d probably lean
   that way.

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] electric fences

[Andy Townsend]

To add a similar question about other common electric fence crossings - 
what do people normally do with "the bit of electric fence on a hook" 
(with an insulator that allows you to unhook it, let people through, and 
hook it up again) and "an electric fence with no crossing at all".


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8152509363 is an example of the 
former and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8152399307 the latter.  
Taginfo finds 167 "gate" values internationally 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/gate#values (not all gate types) 
and 63 "gate:type" values 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/gate%3Atype#values - but I've no 
idea what many of those actually mean.


For stiles, there's 1 use each of "insulated_hose" and 
"insulated_section" https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/stile#values 
, which sounds like what you're looking for here.


I don't think that there's a good example for the "electric fences move 
about" problem.  If they're moveable, they probably won't be there at 
all half the year either.


Best Regards,

Andy


On 23/11/2020 10:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
So it is a footpath where somewhere along it there is an electric 
fence, but location changes?


Maybe wheelchair=no + note tag with an explanation placed on path
would be a good solution?


Nov 23, 2020, 06:25 by mar...@templot.com:

There are several instances locally where a footpath across a
field is crossed by an electric fence.

The farmer usually fits a length of rubber hosepipe over the wire
so that walkers can safely step over the fence. Sometimes with the
aid of a couple of concrete blocks.

How to map? Technically it is probably a form of stile. But the
problem is that the location isn't fixed. Electric fences are
moved about according to which area of the field the livestock are
currently grazing. In a large field the position could change
significantly.

But walkers with restricted mobility do need to know that there is
one somewhere in the field. The position might be important if
there is an alternative gate or other access which could be used.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

[Andy Townsend]

Following a lack of answers to questions at 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=5229644 (in 
lots of cases they've responded, but have not actually answered the 
question) with a DWG hat on I've sent them a message that they have to 
read before continuing to map at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4214 .


I'd like to know the source used for the comment "You sometimes have to 
ignore signage as they are signed with convenient numbers rather than 
the real ones"at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60806661 .


I suspect the "signage to be ignored" referred to there are the large 
blue signs telling drivers "if you want to go to the M6 south, go this 
way".  However, I'd expect the information on the 100m markers to be 
more useful.  Is anyone aware of a previous changeset based on those, or 
photos on e.g. Mapillary that might help?


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] FWD: Revert the "Felixstowe to Nuneaton" relation

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/11/2020 15:56, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote:



https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7521925

That is the relation I am talking about.

An edit made by user nplath seems to have made this relation into
a clone of the "Ipswich To Cambridge-Ely" relation. You can tell
this because the number of members went down from ~400 to ~150.


You can see the history of the relation at 
http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=7521925 .


The changeset that you're talking about, 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67930034 , claimed to be a 
revert, and a previous changeset that affected the line 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67336351 was reverted in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/67709664 .  Comments made on 
changesets by this user can be seen at 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=8350466 , but 
unfortunately they don't include all of the reverts and counter-reverts.


>  If somehow to members of this relation can be reverted to back when 
there were 400 members, then that would be good.


Given that the original change happened in March 2019, no-one's going to 
be able to "wave a magic wand" and restore this relation to back how it 
was then, since there will be ways that existed then that don't exist 
any more.  However the restore is done there will be quite a lot of 
"manually filling in gaps" needed.


Are you asking the list because you'd like to check that it is a good 
idea, because you'd like to do it yourself but don't know how, or simply 
don't have time to do it yourself and just wanted to make more people 
aware of the problem?  All of these perfectly valid reasons of course.


If I was going to do it I'd probably start by undoing the relation back 
to the changeset 67822240 version with "undo.pl" from the perl revert 
scripts, and then fill in the gaps manually by looking at 
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/10rc (that's an overpass query of that 
relation on a date just after the last "valid" change).  However, there 
may be quite a few gaps to fill in, so it'd likely need someone with a 
bit of free time to do that part (which depending on the answer to the 
previous question, may or may not be you).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/11/2020 10:55, Jon Pennycook wrote:
Returning to this subject, but not necessarily at roundabouts - turn 
restrictions are still being added even where they don't exist 
(apparently) - e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93759133 
 and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93750062 



I've commented on the first of these with a DWG hat on.

The contributor here adding turn restrictions that allegedly don't exist 
appears to be from https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/ . They've been active 
across several areas of England; it might be worth locals taking a look 
at some of the others to check that they match on-the-ground reality.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Multi-lingual tagging in Wales

[Andy Townsend]

On 31/10/2020 18:19, Jez Nicholson wrote:

I like it.

+ "in the event of dispute... the default language is English."? 
.although I'm not sure how to define dispute'.


On Sat, 31 Oct 2020, 11:07 Ben Proctor, > wrote:


(snipped)

"In the event of a dispute please discuss among a larger group and try 
and find consensus" might be better than being seen to "hard-code" a 
preference for one language or another.


With a Data Working Group hat on I've seen language disputes in various 
places, and it's often made worse by someone "overinterpreting" 
something in a wiki page or elsewhere that was perfectly well-meaning 
but not designed to cover the current situation at all.   If you wanted 
to refer to the DWG directly "in the event of a dispute" that wouldn't 
be a problem, since I'd expect that the first thing that we'd try and do 
is to get those involved to talk things through in a wider forum, 
possibly this list or something more local if appropriate.


Best Regards,

Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Multi-lingual tagging in Wales

[Andy Townsend]

Hi Gruff, hi Ben,

On 16/10/2020 14:08, Gruff Owen wrote:


The ability to include an :en or :cy tag name field is really helpful 
for this but it's unfortunate that ultimately we have to choose a 
single name tag for each place name - giving the impression that one 
language has precedence over another.


Well, we really don't need to choose that "one language has precedence 
over another".  If the :cy and :en data is mapped it's available for 
everyone to use.  It's entirely possible, right now, to create a map 
using only :cy names (as Ben and Andy have pointed out, 
https://openstreetmap.cymru/ does exactly that already). Other maps can 
choose to use :en names in one area and :cy in others (see 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=9&lat=51.93&lon=-4.182 
for an example of that), or hyphenate names Welsh-first or 
English-first, or use different colours for different languages, or, or...


The whole point of OSM is that it is more than just one map.



With that in mind, and admittedly polemicising the debate a little. If 
we accept the premise that the native language of Wales is Welsh and 
that OSM is a community mapping project where we have an opportunity 
to respect native communities in a way that past colonial mapmakers 
didn't. Could we take this as an opportunity to prioritise authentic 
Welsh place names where that's possible?


OpenStreetMap's approach to disputed territories tries to be neutral - 
see 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf 
.  It favours "on the ground" current usage.  The Data Working Group 
gets _lots_ of requests along the lines of "the official language of 
country X is Y, therefore all placenames in country X should be 
displayed at osm.org in language Y".  Where the majority of people in an 
area speak a different language to the majority of people in the rest of 
the country, it is only fair to reflect that local language in the 
"name" tag.  OSM should not be making decisions about which placenames 
are more "authentic" than others via some sort of "historical 
authenticity test".  Imagine trying to apply that to Kaliningrad 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1674442 (look at all the 
"old_name" tags there for context).  In Wales, OSM has occasionally had 
mappers making "forced language changes" both ways - either changing 
names in predominantly English-speaking areas to Welsh versions of the 
original English and English speakers changing original (and most common 
in local usage) Welsh names to English versions.


One other way to settle this would be to seek guidance from an 
external body. Does the Welsh Government have a position on place 
names that we can refer to? I notice that the Welsh Language 
Commissioner provides a recommended list of standardised place names 
for Wales which is licensed under OGL 3.0:


http://www.comisiynyddygymraeg.cymru/english/commissioner/placenames/Pages/Search.aspx 



Different OSM communities do this in different ways.  I believe that in 
Ireland name:ga is usually the "official" version, which may differ from 
local usage.  Sometimes that loses some local colour - in Dublin 
"Anglesea Road" used to be signed as "Bóthar Môn" but now in OSM it's 
just "Bóthar Anglesea".  See also 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/52241235 which I've heard referred to 
as "Dingle / An Daingean" (there's lots of politics both national and 
local associated with that).




All of the above is written with the big caveat that I'm new to OSM 
and not a Welsh language or place name expert in any way, I wouldn't 
go against the group decision on this and have been quite conservative 
with my edits so far because I know it's a huge topic to get into. 
Overall I think you should be congratulated for broaching the subject 
and trying to pin down a policy on it as it really does stir up a lot 
of strong sentiment in this part of the world!


As I'm sure Ben and Mapio Cymru would echo, thanks for making sure that 
Welsh names of places are recorded where they currently are not.  It 
always strikes me as a bit jarring to see English names jumping out in 
predominantly Welsh areas at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/ (which will 
use the default "name" tag if name:cy is missing in areas where it's 
trying to show Welsh names).


Moving on to Ben's original mail:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 14:06, Ben Proctor > wrote:



From a Mapio Cymru perspective we'd like to propose, for
discussion, replacing this text with the following (reasoning
follows):

/[starts/---]
In Wales the name tag should be used for the name by which the
place is widely known in Wales. This could be English or Welsh but
not both. So name: Wales or name: Cymru would be acceptable but
not name: Wales/Cymru.
/

/Where I suspect there may be further questions is where a place is 
kn

[Talk-GB] Blocked / overgrown / inaccessible footpaths and bridleways

[Andy Townsend]

Hello,

How do people normally map things like "I know there is a public 
footpath that goes through here but it is currently inaccessible"?


A taginfo search finds a few candidates:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=overgrown#values

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=inaccessible#values

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=blocked#values

So far https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/overgrown seems the 
nearest (it's undocumented but mentioned on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking ).  However, I'm sure that 
there are examples that I've missed.  Most seem to be used within note 
tags which can of course contain any old text - are there any actual 
non-note tags and values that are used for this that I'm missing?


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/09/2020 16:28, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote:


I am importing a subset of nodes from UK (those tagged with 
amenity:pub) for a pet project.


Firstly - welcome!




When analysing the data I realised that some of these nodes contain a 
website: tag that does not contain an appropriate URL schema (http/https).


Ie: www.mypub.com  rather than 
http://www.mypub.com  or https://www.mypub.com 



I'm not actually convinced that's a problem - as others have said, web 
browsers are perfectly capable of converting "www.mypub.com" into either 
"https://www.mypub.com"or ""http://www.mypub.com"as appropriate, so this 
doesn't really add any value.  "Letting the browser sort it out" is a 
great approach as it can deal with now/near future things such as 
removal TLS 1.0 and 1.1 support as well.





This goes in contradiction with the Wiki documentation for website. 



Unfortunately, OSM's wiki doesn't always reflect actual usage and this 
is one example.  Changing "www.mypub.com" to "https://www.mypub.com"; 
doesn't really add any value unless you're actually updating something 
else about the pub.  Actually, using "www.mypub.com" has some advantages 
here as it allows the user's web browser to negotiate https if available 
(the default nowadays) but fall back to http if not.




I created a proposal for a one-off, scoped, automated edit for these 
nodes to find the appropiate scheme for the existing URL and retag the 
nodes.


I added the proposal to the Automated edits log. You can read it here 
.



What would be rather more interesting would be detecting websites that 
"don't or no longer represent the pub" in some way:


 * Perhaps the pub had a website, but now has new tenants, and they now
   communicate with customers on the facebook page?
 * Perhaps the website is (like one of your examples) just for the brewery?
 * Perhaps the website now points at domain parking?
 * Perhaps the https certificate has expired, which at the very least
   indicates that the website is unlikely to be kept up to date?

Any problems found would likely need to be resolved manually, but some 
at least of the above should be detectable automatically.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/09/2020 10:25, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:


Anyone know if there's a way to at least use a UK based server or to 
conveniently ping multiple websites directly? 


In this case I don't see how that helps - it wouldn't detect domain 
parking pages, which is usually where a domain goes after the business 
that registers it folds and the domain has actual words in it (often the 
case here I suspect).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway

[Andy Townsend]

On 03/09/2020 10:58, Gareth L wrote:

I think the permissive tag is due to it being yet another perceived public 
space which is actually private, so there’s no public right of way.

Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that 
also mangling tagging conventions. I genuinely don’t know!

Gareth


Yes - bicycle=permissive seems correct based on the description so far 
(not that I've been there) if there's no public right of way.  We're 
talking England here, not somewhere enlightened like Scandinavia or 
Scotland.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Eat out to help out data

[Andy Townsend]

On 20/08/2020 09:38, Ken Kilfedder wrote:

What data are available in the EOHO set that we don't get from the FHRS?


Perhaps "opening_hours:covid19=open"?

Even that's a bit tricky - if an establishment is registered with the 
scheme I guess it doesn't guarantee that it is _currently_ open.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] New Bing Imagery

[Andy Townsend]

On 19/08/2020 10:11, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

And now I can see Amazon mappers using an iD variant
that doesn't have the offset and moving all the roads as a result:
  
https://osmcha.org/changesets/89549551?aoi=758c7f2b-faca-44e5-acd2-0cb8c33034bd
  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89549551


If that's happening at all, please comment on the changeset explaining 
the problem.  In English urban areas OS OpenData StreetView is a pretty 
good guide for alignment and if people (especially people doing a lot of 
editing) are not taking into account different imagery offsets then 
that's just wrong.


If, after being told about the problem, people are ignoring the advice 
and just banging in roads with incorrect alignments then please email 
the DWG at d...@osmfoundation.org about it.  However if people haven't 
ever been told what the best practice for a country (especially if they 
edit in lots of countries) is it's not really fair to criticise.


One other thing that I have noticed is that the imagery behind the "AI" 
detection that they have been using in some places in the UK is among 
the worst available, and I've suggested where I've seen stuff added on 
that alignment that it's wrong and needs fixing.



This is going to keep happening so long as OSM has multiple image
sources and multiple editors. Frankly I'm amazed that this isn't a
solved problem.
I don't think that it ever will be a solved problem, because the level 
of accuracy that we're worrying about in OSM has changed over the 
years.  About 12 years people were adding features from out of copyright 
maps such as NPE that sometimes might have been 200m out, or adding 
stuff with a bit of guesswork from Yahoo imagery that might be similarly 
inaccurate.  Now we're worried about 2m here or there, in 10 years time 
it'll be blades of grass(!).


Having done some mapping across the country recently, it seems like
Bing is offset to the previous best imagery across the country, but by
varying amounts. Is there really no solution that can be applied to
the source Bing layer?


If there is, it'll be Bing that does it rather than us.  When Bing was 
"new" to OSM in 2012 or so there were lots of odd offset issues in Bing 
imagery and these were sorted out over time.  I suspect that that will 
happen again.


To be honest, I'd never trust any imagery anywhere until I've seen how 
it compares with other available sources in that area (GPS traces, OS 
OpenData StreetView, etc.).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Andy Townsend]

On 14/08/2020 14:53, David Woolley wrote:

On 14/08/2020 12:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
If signage on the ground is gone or never existed then route relation 
should not be mapped in OSM*.


In the long term, this could make OSM useless for motor traffic as 
there is a general policy of decluttering signs.  One of the arguments 
for that is that everyone uses satellite navigators, so they don't 
need the signs.  I think is also used as an argument for why it can 
take councils years to fix missing street name signs.


If OSM relies on on the ground signage, when the authorities rely on 
virtual signage in online maps, it could lose a lot of roads!



That's a bit of an "extrapolation too far" I think.  I don't think 
anyone was talking about general highway signage, just addressing the 
very real problem that happens when cycle routes change and signage 
lags, and the problems that we have when, on a route that goes A-B-C-D, 
Sustrans are no longer looking after the B-C part, but _everyone_ 
following the route will still need to get from B to C, so they'll have 
to "join up the gaps" between the Sustrans-maintained parts.


The key question is what Robert asked at the top of this thread:

> We also might need to think about our tagging, as there will now be
> more levels of routes: Full NCN routes, other promoted named routes
> that aren't on the NCN.

... actually I'd add here a third category, where there are short gaps 
in existing Sustrans routes.  An example which I've mentioned elsewhere 
is https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/54.23978/-1.20491&layers=C - 
Sustrans don't have NCN 656 running along the A170, there's a gap.


> How can we distinguish these in OSM?
> network=ncn and network=rcn are typically used for national and
> regional level routes rather than specifically the Sustrans NCN.

I'd suggest that it makes no sense, in the case of the example above, to 
omit https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38353700 from NCN 656.  This is 
what is in OSM now, and I think it makes sense to join the gap where 
there is unambiguously only one way of getting from A to B.  Perhaps 
some sort of role in the relation could be used here to say either "this 
isn't technically part of NCN656, but it's the only way of following 
NCN656, so you're going to have to go along here whether you like it or 
not".  Other "no longer Sustrans but still a promoted named route" 
sections could have a different relation role.


However I don't think that it makes sense to join up routes using any 
sort of guesswork.  Taking NCN 67 at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/53.2344/-1.3726&layers=C as an 
example - there's no point in pretending that it extends north of 
Corbriggs or south of Chesterfield.


Another problem is that the on-the-road updates may not match what 
Sustrans' new maps with dotted lines on them suggest that they will do.  
The NCN1 marker at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=54.30117&mlon=-0.44081#map=19/54.30117/-0.44081&layers=C 
has recently been "re-stickered" to remove the Sustrans logo.  As far as 
I can tell that road section isn't on the list to be made 
"non-Sustrans".  I have no idea whether Sustrans' web maps are wrong, 
Sustrans' volunteer has stickered the wrong sign, or (entirely possible) 
I've misread the intent of the re-stickering.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/07/2020 14:41, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 24/07/2020 13:20, Martin Wynne wrote:



Most of them go back to OS Explorer when they find UK public rights 
of way are not shown in different colours on the OSM standard map.



This is one of the reasons why it would be nice to have a UK-specific 
stylesheet for OSM. The data is there, so there's no reason why it 
cant be rendered


That's exactly what https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html * 
does.  Nick's already mentioned https://www.free-map.org.uk/ , so you've 
now got a couple of choices - it wouldn't surprise me if there are others!


Best Regards,

Andy

* yes, I look after that site and map style.  See the "about" link at 
the top for more info; and "changelog" for links to the source of all 
the components.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/07/2020 12:03, o...@poppe.dev wrote:

Hi Mark,

there's a pretty detailled article in the wiki for e-charging and all the 
options that come with it: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station

So yeah, I guess, mapping them is totally OK.

Kai


Mark Goodge  hat am 21. Juli 2020 um 12:58 geschrieben:


Do we map electric vehicle charging points? If not, should we?


They certainly get mapped:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Wig

and get rendered on several maps, including the "standard" one:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5213870421

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Andy Townsend]

On 18/07/2020 14:47, Richard Fairhurst wrote:


As some of you may be aware, Sustrans has embarked on a project to 
review and improve the National Cycle Network.


(also following on from Jon's message) some of the changes near me do 
seem a bit odd.


https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/54.23559,-1.23235,14

shows a removed on-road section (along a busy A road) that didn't quite 
link two bits of NCN 65 and a similar gap on NCN 656.  OSM fills in both 
gaps (see https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=14!54.2365!-1.2239 
). It actually seems reasonable to me to provide a contiguous route 
rather than assume the user has some sort of teleportation device.


Does anyone know how Sustrans expect these routes with gaps new and old 
to be used, or is it just them saying that "we can't be held responsible 
for what happens in the gaps"?


Best Regards,

Andy



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

[Talk-GB] TPT / NCN62 (was: Re: National Cycle Network removal/reclassification)

[Andy Townsend]

On 18/07/2020 17:06, Adam Snape wrote:
On the subject of overlapping relations. I've recently noticed that 
the NCN 62 relation has been named Transpennine trail which is true 
for much, but not all of the route. The TPT ends at Southport, yet NCN 
62 continues further North. At the eastern end of the TPT goes far 
beyond the end of NCN 62 which ends at Selby. They need to be two 
separate relations.


The Trans-Pennine Trail is a bit confusing, both on the ground and in 
OSM.  A quick query in OSM south of Selby turns up this:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12763

"ref=62; name=Trans Pennine Trail"

and this:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1761919#map=10/53.7874/-0.6265&layers=H

"ref=TPT; name=Trans Pennine Trail"

and also this:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10521621#map=10/53.6371/-1.2158&layers=H

"name=Trans Pennine Trail (Wombwell to Selby)"

It essentially goes all over the place, and doesn't correspond to one 
particular NCN (see 
https://www.transpenninetrail.org.uk/?doing_wp_cron=1595095458.735897064208984375 
).  The Chesterfield end has two braids and partially corresponds to 
what is or was NCN 67.


The superroute I believe is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4139041

If NCN 62 isn't properly called the Transpennine Trail I'd remove that 
name from it and explain in a note on the relation why.  My recollection 
is that NCN62 and TPT signage is separate, but it's a while since I've 
seen any so I may be wrong.


The best approach for tidying would I think be to:

 * Find anything not in the superroute and figure out what the status
   actually is.
 * Ensure that routes in the superroute are split where tags change
   (e.g. bits with NCN 62 signage and bits without)

It'd be a lot of work for relatively little reward though - presumably 
that's why no-one's stepped up to tidy things up yet.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] POI files of Pub/Restaurant chain

[Andy Townsend]

On 16/07/2020 14:03, David Woolley wrote:

On 15/07/2020 14:00, o...@poppe.dev wrote:
As this data is pretty much openly accessible, I think there'd be no 
major issue with asking them if this data could be used to check all 
the places against OSM data and, if needed correct and/or create 
them, right?


I often find that business locations are way off target.  I think head 
offices often just plug the postcode into Google Maps, rather than 
asking someone to read them on their GPS capable mobile, or match them 
to actual features on the local map.


A quick check of one I know the location of shows that the co-ordinates 
given seem to be of the business park that its in rather than the 
building itself: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.22910/-1.42264 
.  That list should be OK for spotting missing examples, but if one is 
missing you'd need to visit to see which actual building it was in.  
Obviously a nominatim search of e.g. "harvester in chesterfield" will 
also return (or not) whatever OSM has.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/07/2020 12:32, Adam Snape wrote:


My main concern here is about whether we should be mapping unmarked 
routes at all and especially whether it is okay to import them without 
discussion or the explicit permission of the copyright holder.


I'd agree with that.  Generally speaking, even aside from the copyright 
issue, I don't believe that unsigned routes belong in OSM.  Where I've 
personally come across them I've not removed them (since someone thought 
it was valid to add in the first place) but have added "name:signed=no" 
to e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6366232 to allow me to 
filter "someone wrote a book once" routes from 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk .  I'd also agree with Richard's point on 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74330916 that this is not a 
general bicycle route and shouldn't be tagged as such.


If the consensus here is "this does not belong in OSM" then I'd be happy 
to see it and other unsigned routes removed (perhaps creating something 
somewhere else like umap where an overlay can be made available); if we 
don't have permission to add it then it definitely should be removed if 
the CTC haven't made the data available under a suitable licence (and 
I'm not a lawyer, but 
https://www.cyclinguk.org/about-ctc/policies-procedures/ctcs-website/terms-and-conditions 
doesn't look like it unless someone has explicitly asked).


Incidentally, there are some edge cases - Wainright's "Coast to Coast" 
was originally a book but is extensively signposted at the eastern end 
(see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7336319 ).  "The Inn Way to 
the North York Moors" https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8450999 was 
apparently also a book route, and I'd originally set it as 
"name:signed=no" but I have found one guidepost - 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7235773122 .


Best Regards,

Andy (writing in a personal capacity*)

* I'm also a member of the DWG, and we occasionally get copyright 
complaints about things like this, although I'm not aware of one in this 
case.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Andy Townsend]

(apologies for the double reply)

I just remembered I wrote a diary entry last year about this: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/391053 . That has 
some useful links in such as a pointer to the start of "designation" 
tagging, in 2009: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-March/035412.html .


Best Regards (again),

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/07/2020 12:54, Andrew Hain wrote:
I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning 
for highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset 
in Potlatch 1.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607

If Osmose is flagging "highway=footway;foot=yes" as a warning I'd 
suggest that that is a problem that needs logging with Osmose.


Speaking for myself, I've tagged "highway=footway" as "foot=yes" (where 
there is a legal right of way, such as a public footpath in England and 
Wales, or across access land), as "foot=permissive" where there isn't a 
legal right of way but general access is permitted (perhaps in 
parks/gardens that are occasionally closed but aren't restricted to 
"customers" and where there is no legal right of access) and as 
"foot=designated" where there's actual signage that suggests that foot 
traffic should go _this_ way rather than some other way which would 
otherwise be legal.


I'd also use "designation=public_footpath" if appropriate (and also set 
"foot=yes" on those to make it clear to everyone who might not 
understand a "designation" tag).  Prior to that tag being adopted, there 
was some use of "foot=designated" to indicate "this is a public 
footpath" but about 10 years ago or so (I think) people started using 
"designation=public_footpath" instead.


In summary - I'd agree with the changeset commenter that "foot=yes" was 
useful on those paths as it made it explicit that there was legal access 
for foot traffic despite there being no public footpath there.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] "secret" site

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/06/2020 00:47, David Woolley wrote:


On the other hand, there used to be part of the North Yorkshire moors 
that had "undefined" written over it on OS maps.)


Interestingly (assuming you're talking about the radar installation at 
RAF Fylingdales), at least as of my 2006 copy of OS's OL6 map, the OS 
was still lacking some of the detail - the military area is missing yet 
clearly signposted onsite, and the bridleway that runs north of the site 
is mostly signposted on the ground but mostly missing from the OS map 
(in OSM https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7600885032 and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/813719250 
). 
There are still some "odd" signposts around such as 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/fylingdales/IMG_20200531_163604.jpg , 
but at least no-one's pretending that there's "nothing there" - it's 
fairly obvious in the landscape: 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/fylingdales/IMG_20200531_183407.jpg .


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Documenting tagging practice for place nodes in London

[Andy Townsend]

Just to pick up on one point:

On 23/06/2020 22:30, Russ Garrett wrote:

* The presence of a few archaic place names which were presumably
derived from NPE or other historic maps but are generally out of use
now.
* A surprisingly large number of place names present in OS StreetView
are unmapped on OSM.


Quite a lot of stuff of the placename info on OS StreetView probably 
_shouldn't_ be in OSM.  Leaving aside farm and house names, the where I 
used to live in Derbyshire is according to OS StreetView composed of 5 
different "villages".  It's actually either 1 or 2, depending on who you 
ask.  It's probably less of an issue in London (less space for 
extraneous names), though.


Best Regards,

Andy

PS: Don't get me started on 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=poultry houses :)




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rockall

[Andy Townsend]

In situations like this I'd invite the new mapper to discuss things more 
widely (which Colin has already done on 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86624359 ) and then revert the 
changes pending any discussion here.


The new mapper is already aware of the changeset discussion (they've 
replied) so hopefully won't then just change it back.


Best Regards,

Andy


On 15/06/2020 11:17, Gareth L wrote:

Probably? I am not familiar with the disputed territories process for Osm.

It’s a weird one as only the U.K. has claimed sovereignty. Others 
don’t accept the claim, but also haven’t made a sovereignty claim 
themselves. So at the moment, the U.K. is the administrator - and 
there is an absence of any others.


I’d say it should remain mapped as U.K. administrative boundary but 
also flagged as disputed.. if that can be done?


Gareth


On 15 Jun 2020, at 10:24, Colin Smale  wrote:



A new mapper has changed the status of Rockall, removing it from the 
UK admin boundaries. As I understand it Rockall is accepted as UK 
territory although it can't be used as a baseline to extend the EEZ. 
I contacted the mapper with a changeset comment and their motivation 
is based on "fixing the EEZ".


Wikipedia suggests that Rockall is considered (administratively 
speaking) part of the isle of Harris, in the Western Isles.


As Rockall has from time to time been the subject of a territorial 
dispute with Ireland, should we use the "disputed territories" 
process for Rockall?


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86624359


___
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] Tagging showgrounds

[Andy Townsend]

On 13/05/2020 12:28, Paul Berry wrote:
Not sure about the tagging/proposal politics but since there are a 
small number of showgrounds, is there anything to stop a UK-specific 
page being set up on the Wiki for visibility?


As Jez has already said that sounds like an excellent idea.


Then if anyone wants to harmonise the tags they can use that as a 
guide to do so.


There's nothing to say we can't tag in any way we want—and again for 
this small collection of entities which are clearly all the same 
fundamental object



The problem is that they're not necessary "all the same fundamental 
object".  Ashover Showground is "a patch of grass with some nice gates 
where something happens one a year".  Stoneleigh is essentially an 
agricultural business park.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

[Andy Townsend]

On 05/05/2020 11:53, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi Tom,

I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there 
is a public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to 
be a somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. 
It's certainly being suggested here as a solution to a 
country-specific issue regarding the mapping of England and Wales' 
rights of way network.


For the avoidance of doubt, we already have "trail_visibility" as a 
useful tag here.  It's well used worldwide 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/trail_visibility#values and in 
the UK https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/trail_visibility#values 
and I (at least) use it to decide whether to render a path or not.


That said, I'd be reluctant to use any other highway tag other than "no" 
when there is a legal right of way but (say) someone's built a house 
there so there is no physical access.  By all means add 
"designation=public_footpath" (with some sort of note) but please not 
"highway=footway" (my apologies if no-one was suggesting this - it 
wasn't 100% clear in the conversation).


Personally I'd tend to just omit the highway tag for cases like this.  I 
wouldn't personally have a problem with people using "highway=no" for 
them but I take Andy Allan's point earlier, and he has far more 
experience dealing with how data consumers misuse OSM tags than I.


On the "country specific" bit England and Wales are pretty unique with 
their "public footpaths" etc.  More civilised countries (like Scotland) 
have something like "allemansrätten" in law. :)


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

[Andy Townsend]

On 04/05/2020 14:13, nathan case wrote:

Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following the 
definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being 
rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the fixme as Tony 
suggests.


It depends on the renderer, but I'd be surprised if many maps rendered 
"highway=no".


A quick overpass search finds 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/712060246 .  None of the 4 map layers 
at osm.org show that.  The effect on a renderer designed to should 
"designation" is this:


https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16&lat=54.01187&lon=-2.20735

that shows the designated PF in red and the "non-official" part of the 
route in grey.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

[Andy Townsend]

In each case nothing will happen unless changesets with bad edits are 
commented on.  Given that the messages here last month didn't get a 
reply from Amazon I'm pretty sure that Amazon's mappers or their 
handlers don't read talk-gb.  Of course - this is a perfect opportunity 
for them to prove me wrong!


If there's no reply on changeset comments report the mappers concerned 
to the DWG so that we can "remind" them to reply to community comments.


Like Chris, I've been generally impressed by the quality of Amazon 
Logistics edits, at least compared to other paid mappers around the 
world, but there are real problems with the "auto detect layer" used for 
these "AI" edits - it's quite badly offset and the original imagery on 
which the edge detection was made is I think no longer available making 
QA difficult.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)

On 03/05/2020 16:27, Andrew Hain wrote:


Also seen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84550786

--
Andrew


*From:* Chris Fleming 
*Sent:* 03 April 2020 14:06
*To:* Guthula, Jothirnadh 
*Cc:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections
I've spotted some edits using this, such as:

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=82807938&relations=true

After a ropey start, in general I've been quite impressed by Amazon's 
edits, but this one looks quite ropey, the service road drawn in is 
very ropey and it looks like you've missed the connection back to the 
main road (shown in OS Openview), in addition I don't think that 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785788619 loops back on itself, or 
at least I wouldn't draw that conclusion from imagery?


Cheers
Chris

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 10:02, Guthula, Jothirnadh via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


Hi UK OSM community,

As you might already know, Facebook released its AI-based
detections publicly on 08/09/2019

(https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Available-Countries).
With a team of mappers @Amazon we are planning to improve missing
roads in UK using Facebook detections as a source. Please let us
know if you have any ongoing projects using this data source.
While adding missing roads, we will be adding all the associated
access tags as per available on-ground resources. Our team will
edit roads manually using a normal iD editor and satellite
imageries available with FB detections as a background source and
will not use RapidID editor or JOSM. Also changeset comments will
be addressed by our team on top priority.

Regards,

Jothirnadh

___
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] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/04/2020 11:16, Peter Neale wrote:
It seems that we have had 2 of us attempting the same change at the 
same time.



Generally speaking, IRC's better for this sort of request as everyone 
sees what's happening in real time




I hope that the database change  control can cope with this.


It can - multiple deletion requests will just be ignored

> I did try to avoid such a clash by responding here before starting 
work.


I've clearly been working with people from the Netherlands and Germany 
too long :)  - I didn't interpret "I think that I understand the issue 
... A solution may be ... I am happy to spend a while trying this" as 
"I'm doing it NOW".


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/04/2020 11:09, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:

I THINK I have done it.

It took a bit of fiddling to separate some shared points, but then I 
was able to cut the offending line and delete a section at a time 
(which fitted on the screen).



That definitely sounds like "the hard way" :)

It would probably have worked (apart from the orphan nodes).


I hope that I have not disturbed anything else in the process.


I don't think so - you can see the changes here:

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=84190221

Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/04/2020 10:56, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Note that the vast majority of the points in the Way were 
pre-existing. Any fix should leave them in place.


On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:54 AM nathan case > wrote:


I’m fairly sure Potlach (assuming you want to tackle this via a
browser editor) allows you to delete larger areas in one go –
rather than deleting point by point.


I believe I've resolved this in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84189877 - please let us know if 
all is OK.


For completeness, that was done in JOSM using the reverter plugin.  It 
also deleted the three extra nodes added in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82728827 .


Potlatch 2 would also have worked, but I'd have needed to delete the 3 
new nodes separately.


Some combination of  "revert.pl" "undo.pl" and/or "delete.pl" in the OSM 
revert scripts https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Revert_scripts would 
have worked, but I'd have needed to explicitly say "yes please delete 
the new way and the 3 new nodes".


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] CWGC: worldwide, war graves

[Andy Townsend]

That'd work when if I know the reference, but what if I've only seen the 
sign?


On 26/04/2020 13:09, Colin Smale wrote:


ref:cwgc=* would kill two birds with one stone, would it not?

On 2020-04-26 13:44, Andy Townsend wrote:


Hello,

How is it suggested to tag "there are commonwealth war graves here"?

At least near me, there's usually a fairly large white on green sign 
near the entrance, so even if it's not something you'd explicitly go 
out to map, it's often something that you'd notice.


Best Regards,

Andy

On 25/04/2020 22:20, Daniel Pocock wrote:


On 25/04/2020 22:55, Michael Booth wrote:

This seems to be it:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-August/010110.html

Found via a search for: site:lists.openstreetmap.org "talk-gb"
"Commonwealth"

Thanks for finding that so quickly


Daniel, what is actually being proposed to be added to OSM? Is it a list
of CWG cemeteries that could then be checked against the data we have in
OSM? I remember seeing a maproulette for cemeteries in Texas, perhaps
something similar could be done to find missing CWG cemeteries.

Please see the CWGC and TracesOfWar lists on this page:


https://anzacathon.com/data-sources.shtml

They simply have the name of the cemetery or monument, the latitude and
the longitude

CWGC has 20,000 records, TracesOfWar has 120,000 records

AWM also has about 14,000 records for places but they are not in the
IPFS world yet.

Regards,

Daniel

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


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] CWGC: worldwide, war graves

[Andy Townsend]

Hello,

How is it suggested to tag "there are commonwealth war graves here"?

At least near me, there's usually a fairly large white on green sign 
near the entrance, so even if it's not something you'd explicitly go out 
to map, it's often something that you'd notice.


Best Regards,

Andy

On 25/04/2020 22:20, Daniel Pocock wrote:


On 25/04/2020 22:55, Michael Booth wrote:

This seems to be it:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-August/010110.html

Found via a search for: site:lists.openstreetmap.org "talk-gb"
"Commonwealth"

Thanks for finding that so quickly


Daniel, what is actually being proposed to be added to OSM? Is it a list
of CWG cemeteries that could then be checked against the data we have in
OSM? I remember seeing a maproulette for cemeteries in Texas, perhaps
something similar could be done to find missing CWG cemeteries.

Please see the CWGC and TracesOfWar lists on this page:


https://anzacathon.com/data-sources.shtml

They simply have the name of the cemetery or monument, the latitude and
the longitude

CWGC has 20,000 records, TracesOfWar has 120,000 records

AWM also has about 14,000 records for places but they are not in the
IPFS world yet.

Regards,

Daniel

___
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] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/04/2020 18:38, Dave Love wrote:

On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 12:08 +0100, SK53 wrote:

Robert Whittaker has a Pharmacy QA 

Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?

[Andy Townsend]

That was the only non-OSM link I could find too.  It just looks like 
estate agents' guff, not an actual suburb (or indeed a town, which it 
was added as at one point I believe).


Best Regards,

Andy

On 30/03/2020 19:08, Steve Doerr wrote:
Is this relevant/ 
https://ecoworldlondon.com/places-to-live/current/verdo-kew-bridge


Steve


On 30/03/2020 18:58, Andy Townsend wrote:


I've sent another "message to be read before continuing to edit" 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3592 .


It'd be good if everyone could have a look at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82834995 and comment there if 
there are further problems (I've added the first obvious question).  
I've explicitly said at the current block that they should answer 
questions that have been asked before any more editing.


Best Regards,

Andy

On 30/03/2020 18:35, Colin Smale wrote:


He's back, and he's unimpressed...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82834995

"Reverted edits as many of mine were falsely removed"


On 2020-03-25 21:54, Andy Townsend wrote:


On 25/03/2020 16:02, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Heh, none of the references on the Wikipedia page link to anything 
mentioning that it exists. I call bullsh/t


Indeed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tfondie does not 
look promising.





On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 2:34 PM Andrew Hain 
mailto:andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk>> 
wrote:


I wonder if Tfondie who created the Wikipedia page may be the
same person.

I've "sent them a message that they have to read before continuing 
to edit" at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3585 .


We'll see what happens next; if there's no reply after a week or so 
I'll revert their remaining edits that haven't since been edited by 
other users; most have been reverted already but some (such as 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783299940 ) remain and look 
somewhat implausible.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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



<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
	Virus-free. www.avast.com 
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

___
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] Anyone in South-West London?

[Andy Townsend]

I've sent another "message to be read before continuing to edit" 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3592 .


It'd be good if everyone could have a look at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82834995 and comment there if 
there are further problems (I've added the first obvious question).  
I've explicitly said at the current block that they should answer 
questions that have been asked before any more editing.


Best Regards,

Andy

On 30/03/2020 18:35, Colin Smale wrote:


He's back, and he's unimpressed...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82834995

"Reverted edits as many of mine were falsely removed"


On 2020-03-25 21:54, Andy Townsend wrote:


On 25/03/2020 16:02, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Heh, none of the references on the Wikipedia page link to anything 
mentioning that it exists. I call bullsh/t


Indeed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tfondie does not 
look promising.





On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 2:34 PM Andrew Hain 
mailto:andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk>> 
wrote:


I wonder if Tfondie who created the Wikipedia page may be the
same person.

I've "sent them a message that they have to read before continuing to 
edit" at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3585 .


We'll see what happens next; if there's no reply after a week or so 
I'll revert their remaining edits that haven't since been edited by 
other users; most have been reverted already but some (such as 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783299940 ) remain and look 
somewhat implausible.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/03/2020 15:30, Lester Caine wrote:
I would also add that having been FIGHTING the Facebook Places naming 
process,


For the avoidance of doubt, I don't believe that what Facebook (and 
Instagram, and WhatsApp, et al) "places" are directly related to OSM.


At the DWG* we get a huge amount of complaints about Facebook locations 
being buggy; people send the complaints to us because they hear that 
Facebook use OSM data.  Upon investigation most or all of these turn out 
to be perfectly OK in OSM.  Sometimes what some people call a place 
doesn't match what other people call it (see 
https://web.archive.org/web/20190225133138/http://ma3t.co.uk/euanmills/euanmills/tifd.html 
et al) but generally OSM is what the complainer was expecting but 
Facebook not.


Best Regards,

Andy

* OSM's Data Working Group, who get all sorts of complaints about OSM 
Data, and also more varied complaints from people, such as those 
surprised when they search for things in Instagram it shows their 
location, and other information from local contacts that they have 
chosen to share with Facebook.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/03/2020 14:21, ael wrote:


Even then working from imagery can be very problematic. One of the
Amazon mappers added a variety of roads to a construction site which
were actually muddy tracks being used for the construction itself. A minority
were destined to become highways or paths.


Co-incidentally, a similar problem occurred at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82602527 .


The area there is a yard for the storage of portable drilling rigs.  
What was added there as a service road (since deleted but was at 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RZi ) isn't really one at all - it's just a 
convenient route through an area that happens to have no long vehicles 
on it.  Different ages of imagery show similar but different routes over 
time as where particular long vehicles in the yard happen to be parked 
changes.


One other problem that shows up here is that "Esri World Imagery" seems 
to have been used as the source of the "service road". Esri's the most 
recent source here, but it is clearly offset compared to the others (and 
in particular to OS OpenData StreetView, which is pretty reliable for 
road centrelines).


Obviously this issue isn't due to using Facebook's "AI" at all, but it 
does suggest another question - how do we know what imagery layers were 
used for FB's suggestions in that area, what age they are, and how 
offset they are?


I usually end up adding data based on GPS position, helped by looking at 
OS OpenData StreetView (for alignment using road centrelines and 
historic waterway data), Bing (fairly old but not very much offset) and 
Esri (fairly new but often quite offset relative to anything else).  If 
someone's trusting some other undocumented algorithm instead, how do 
they know whether it is accurate or not?


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?

[Andy Townsend]

On 25/03/2020 16:02, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Heh, none of the references on the Wikipedia page link to anything 
mentioning that it exists. I call bullsh/t


Indeed - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tfondie does not look 
promising.





On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 2:34 PM Andrew Hain 
mailto:andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk>> wrote:


I wonder if Tfondie who created the Wikipedia page may be the same
person.

I've "sent them a message that they have to read before continuing to 
edit" at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3585 .


We'll see what happens next; if there's no reply after a week or so I'll 
revert their remaining edits that haven't since been edited by other 
users; most have been reverted already but some (such as 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783299940 ) remain and look somewhat 
implausible.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/03/2020 11:18, Andrew Hain wrote:

Further issues:

Richmond rugby ground tagged addr:city=London Borough of Hounslow
Middlesex changed to county
Fulwell bus garage tagged name=Fulwell Bus Garage (Middlesex)

There are some legitimate edits there such as shop=supermarket for 
Lidl Fulwell, payment tags for M&S Food To Go in Twickenham may be 
legitimate and the department store tagging was by another mapper by 
an editor preset.




I saw the M&S one and suspect that the confusing tagging there is likely 
due to an iD editor restriction, not something that a new mapper is 
likely to be able to figure out how to fix. I've not been to Twickenham 
for many years and so can't comment on what the correct values would be 
there.


They haven't replied at 
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=10920176 - I 
suspects its a case of "all I wanted to do was edit things and now this 
thing keeps sending me messages!".  Their most recent OSM edits seem to 
be elsewhere.


I'd imagine that most of their problem edits can be tidied up manually 
(and thanks to all who have already done so), but if there's anything 
that can't please mail the DWG at d...@osmfoundation.org so that we can 
take a look.


Best Regards,

Andy

(from OSM's Data Working Group)



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments?

[Andy Townsend]

On 16/03/2020 15:36, ael wrote:


There has now been had one short reply essentially admitting tagging for
the renderer. I haven't replied as yet, but Andy has.


In this case it looks like the offending data's been removed, though the 
tiles haven't rerendered yet (due to the site being busy).  If there are 
possible problems elsewhere I'd suggest asking explicitly in the 
relevant changeset, or perhaps asking in this changeset if the same 
thing has happened and needs fixing somewhere else.  If it needs the DWG 
to pick it up then drop a mail to d...@osmfoundation.org with as much 
detail as possible*, although this user does seem to be responsive to 
changeset comments.


Best Regards,

Andy

(from the DWG)

* if that hasn't happened already of course.  I can't see it any a queue 
anywhere, but someone else may have picked it up and closed it already.



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

[Talk-GB] Related map vandalism reverted (was: List moderator - volunteers needed)

[Andy Townsend]

As an aside, I've recently (with a DWG hat on) reverted some "schoolkid 
vandalism" by an account with a similar-sounding name in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82191956 , and asked the user to 
get in contact via https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3559 and an 
OSM PM with the same text in it.


It's worth bearing in mind that the user sending the problem mails to 
the list and making the recent problem edits might not be the same 
person who made the initial edits from that OSM account. Sometimes 
people use the same password for many sites (especially ones that they 
don't believe to be "high value" to them - e.g. not bank accounts etc.) 
and there have been examples of people's old OSM accounts being 
"reused", presumably by people with access to a breach of another 
website (email addresses that I've used have been involved in 3 or 4 
that I know of).  We've also seen credible examples of "someone's little 
brother at the keyboard" doing this sort of edit, with no further ill 
effects once the account owner became a bit more savvy about locking the 
PC prior to leaving it unattended.


Best Regards,

Andy

On 14/03/2020 11:13, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

As may have seen in Simon's response it sounds like we currently lack 
list moderators. If this is something you would like to do please 
email this mailing list.


Likewise we probably need to think about the criteria of what makes a 
good list moderator. If there are any traits that you'd like to see in 
a mailing list moderator please share with this mailing list.


Thanks,
Rob

___
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] C roads again

[Andy Townsend]

On 08/03/2020 19:57, Andrew Hain wrote:
Is there a resource I can point anyone who puts C numbers in the ref 
tag of roads at?


Possibly the best place is previous discussions on this list, or links 
from there?


It's perhaps also worth mentioning that C roads in Scotland in OSM are 
still mostly unsigned but retain ref tags - that was a decision of the 
local community there, if I remember correctly. Northern Ireland 
(normally discussed via talk-ie rather than here) also has quite a few.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging showgrounds

[Andy Townsend]

Since I was going through these anyway to see what ought to be rendered 
at map.atownsend.org.uk, I thought I might as well list them here too.  
These are things "tagged a bit like showgrounds, excluding bus stops and 
car parks", sorted by one of the main tags.


I suspect that the ones tagged just "place", "landuse=grass" or 
"tourism=attraction" only probably need some other tag to say "this is a 
showground".   "events_venue" might be a misunderstanding of what that 
tag was for.  "recreation_ground" may be correct in some cases but I 
suspect isn't in many others. "park" I'd be similarly surprised if it 
was often correct.  In most or all cases it probably needs a local to 
make the call, though...


place:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2382298440
name     Mannsfield Showground
place     locality
source     OS OpenData StreetView

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3416147963
name     Great Harwood Showground
place     neighbourhood

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4347790541
addr:postcode     BS37 8QZ
addr:street     Westerleigh Road
name     The Windmill Fisheries Showground
place     locality


events_venue only:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5849512782
alt_name     Royal Cornwall Event Centre
amenity     events_venue
name     Royal Cornwall Showground

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6938439833
amenity     events_venue
name     Hertfordshire County Showground
operator     Hertfordshire Country Council


tourism=attraction only:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/283445694
name     Devon County Showground
tourism     attraction

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/91401877
name     Kent Showground
source     Bing
tourism     attraction

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40942963
barrier     fence
name     Norfolk Showground
tourism     attraction

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/316706558
name     Great Yorkshire Showground
tourism     attraction

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104155888
barrier     fence
name     Royal Bath and West of England Showground
tourism     attraction

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/239487854
name     Hennock Showground
tourism     attraction

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/178396540
addr:city     Newark
addr:postcode     NG24 2NY
addr:street     Lincoln Road
alt_name     Newark Show Ground
name     Newark Showground
operator     Newark & Nottinghamshire Agricultural Society
phone     +44 1636 705796
tourism     attraction
website     http://www.newarkshowground.com/
wikidata     Q15262122

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/274093728
name     Lincolnshire Showground
tourism     attraction


recreation_ground only:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/603746353
alt_name     Briscwm Fields
description     Normally farmland,  Used to hold events such as the 
Cardigan County Agricultural Show.

landuse     recreation_ground
name     Cardigan County Showground
note     Located from information on Coflein.
phone     +44 1545 570501
recreation_ground     showground
website     https://cardigancountyshow.org.uk/

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34993687
landuse     recreation_ground
name     Mirfield Showground

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/89151502
addr:city     Peterborough
addr:housename     Peterborough Arena
addr:postcode     PE2 6XE
addr:street     East of England Showground
landuse     recreation_ground
name     East of England Showground
phone     +44 1733 363500
website     http://www.peterborougharena.com
wheelchair     yes

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/415636494
leisure     recreation_ground
name     Christow Playing Fields and Showground

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4587165
leisure     recreation_ground
name     Essex Showground
source     approximate

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/30813084
leisure     recreation_ground
name     North Somerset Showground
tourism     attraction

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/547075306
addr:postcode     LE15 7TW
addr:street     Burley Park Way
landuse     recreation_ground
name     Rutland Showground
note     The new county showground site.
source     EsriWorldImagery
website     https://www.rutlandshowground.com/

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/588128321
leisure     recreation_ground
name     Strithians Showground

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26748908
landuse     recreation_ground
name     Penistone Show Ground

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/234890106
landuse     recreation_ground
name     Pateley Bridge Show Ground


landuse=grass:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/487690483
landuse     grass
name     Midsuffolk Showground

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/741042350
landuse     grass
name     Hertfordshire Country Showground

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/103153435
landuse     grass
name     Border Union Showground
note     Showground
old_name     Bridge-end Haugh
operator     Border Union Agricultural Society

and associated with that is:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/137564594
name     Border Union Showground Exhibition Centre
tourism     attraction

https

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging showgrounds

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/02/2020 09:57, Mark Goodge wrote:

Morning all,

Someone has commented on a change I made to the Three Counties 
showground last year when I changed the tagging to landuse=grass 
rather than landuse=commercial. Their suggestion is that it really 
ought to be landuse=recreation_ground, with a secondary tag of 
surface=grass.


I suspect that it'll depend on the showground.  For Stoneleigh (which 
used to host the Royal Show), I'd have said commercial was correct.  For 
Ashover https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/231760526 (much smaller!) you 
could perhaps make a case for recreation_ground or farmland, although 
for 1 day a year it's used for Ashover show and it is currently mapped 
as the little-used "amenity=show_grounds" (which doesn't seem wrong, 
either).


I've no idea what the best tag for the Three Counties Showground would 
be - perhaps that would depend on "what it is most of the year"?


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Features which move...apparently spurious edits: iD bug or "finger trouble"?

[Andy Townsend]

> Has anyone seen something similar?  Presumably this could happen to 
nodes generally, there is no reason to think amenity=post_box is a factor.


Exactly that pattern no - but occasionally new users manage to drag 
nodes by accident.


>  Is there any way to identify features which have moved by more than 
whatever distance might be considered "normal" for someone correcting a 
previously incorrect position?  This might be key to further 
investigation and correction.


Yes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/81021329 is an example of 
someone doing it.  I'm not sure what software they're using though; 
you'd have to ask.  The mapper who added the comment there is I think 
German, but I've had plent of conversations with them in English.


> I can provide the node and changeset numbers if anyone wants to look 
into the details and perhaps can spot a pattern,


That might be useful so that someone can have a look.  If you don't want 
to post anything publicly you could perhaps just mail me (or anyone else 
who wants to have a look) rather than post it forever on a public 
mailing list.


> There are some philosophical question here: which features are 
"allowed" to move and by how much?  Natural features probably shouldn't.


They do - a bit.  For example, while lowland waterways are normally a 
pretty good match for OS OpenData StreetView (which is from some time 
ago now) often their upload counterparts have changed quite considerably.


Best Regards,

Andy



On 15/02/2020 12:29, Dan Glover wrote:

If there's a better place, please direct me appropriately...

I've been using Robert Whittaker's Post Box tool to help fill gaps and 
fix anomalies in the CT postal area. I think I've now found a pattern 
which leads to "ghost" entries in locations where there has never been 
a post box and leaves the actual post box either unmapped or with a 
new node.  I have three examples where the general scenario seems to 
have been:


1. Mapper "A" creates a node with amenity=post_box.  Other details 
such as reference and collection time may or may not have been entered 
at this point.


2. Time passes, possibly with edits to the node, but no change of 
position.


3. Mapper "B" does something apparently unrelated. In the examples I 
have seen it involves multiple ways/nodes, though not necessarily vast 
numbers.


4. The node created at (1) is re-positioned in a fairly random manner 
as part of the same changeset.


5. [possibly] Mapper "C" spots the missing post box and creates a new 
node for it.  The node from (1) is still "out there", in one case it 
was 1.3 km from the original (correct) position.


Note: it transpires Mapper "A" in the three examples is the same 
user.  Three different "B"s.


I suppose the first questions are:

- Has anyone seen something similar?  Presumably this could happen to 
nodes generally, there is no reason to think amenity=post_box is a 
factor.


- Is there any way to identify features which have moved by more than 
whatever distance might be considered "normal" for someone correcting 
a previously incorrect position?  This might be key to further 
investigation and correction.


I can provide the node and changeset numbers if anyone wants to look 
into the details and perhaps can spot a pattern,  The edits are by 
three different users on widely spaced dates and the iD versions are 
all different.  The most recent example was in September 2018, so it's 
not likely the mapper would remember anything.


Robert's tool shows the distance between OSM node and Royal Mail data, 
which is how I found one of the examples - but it is "normal" for RM 
data to have discrepancies, sometimes fairly significant.  The other 
two had relatively minor offsets and were picked up through "local 
knowledge" - but analysis of old/new position could have highlighted 
them.  Unfortunately post boxes do get moved whilst retaining their RM 
reference but I'd expect that to be done in OSM by creating a new node 
and deleting the old.


There are some philosophical question here: which features are 
"allowed" to move and by how much?  Natural features probably 
shouldn't.  Man-made ones are probably something new when they do 
move.  Boundaries, however, are subject to revision, roads and 
footpaths get re-aligned. Also what's an acceptable margin for a 
correction?



Dan

___
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] "British Islands" (was "OSMUK-in-a-box")

[Andy Townsend]

 > I've been looking at IoM, Jersey, and Guernsey which AFAIK have no coverage in the Community Index. As you say, it uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2 country codes via the countryCoder so I'm expanding coverage to ["gb", "gg", "je", "im"]. I believe that there may be an issue in how Community Index calls Country Coder and have raised https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index/issues/333Yes - I couldn't get lists to work either (of geojsons).  I assumed "it's great at what it does but it doesn't do everything" (and to be fair most of what it doesn't do is pretty well documented).   Best Regards,Andy   ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] "British Islands" (was "OSMUK-in-a-box")

[Andy Townsend]

On 07/02/2020 10:55, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Personally, I interpret the coverage of Talk-GB and OSMUK to be the 
same, i.e. Northern Ireland is officially under OSMUK, but for 
practical reasons mappers may want to interact with OSMIEand the 
same for Talk-GB + Talk-IE.


I think that part of the reason historically was that older 
out-of-copyright maps (and things like townlands) were common across the 
island of Ireland.


Even if it was "overclaiming" I don't think that there would be a 
particular problem with talk-gb also being included on the list for NI 
at https://openstreetmap.community/ - the worst that could happen would 
be that someone would get an answer to their question (which might also 
include a mention of various IE resources).  I recently expanded the 
"East Midlands" coverage north a bit to reflect occasional meet-ups in 
Sheffield and the fact that we've had people attending from further 
north again.





This could make the situation of gb geojson simpler. Do you know where 
they've defined gb? I can't see it.


It uses the iD editor's country coder.  The documentation for that is at

https://github.com/ideditor/country-coder#readme

There's a list in there of what it does and what it doesn't do.

Best Regards,

Andy



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

[Talk-GB] "British Islands" (was "OSMUK-in-a-box")

[Andy Townsend]

On 06/02/2020 18:35, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>do we cover British Overseas Territories such as Gibraltar and the 
Falkland Islands?


Not as OSM UK CIC. We ended up settling on the British Islands: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Islands



The data underneath https://openstreetmap.community/ could do with an 
update as it explicitly avoids the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands 
as it uses "gb" as the definition in 
https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index/blob/master/resources/europe/united_kingdom/uk-localchapter.json 
.


The solution would be similar to what I've just done for Ireland:

https://github.com/osmlab/osm-community-index/pull/332

- define a geojson for the "British Islands" and change those resources 
that should use it from "gb".


The differences would be that we'd probably need 2 geojsons, since I've 
always assumed that the talk-gb list didn't include NI but OSM UK did, 
and that a geojson that had to include the border between Northern 
Ireland and the Republic would necessarily be more complex than the 
straightforward one I created for the island of Ireland.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Andy Townsend]

On 04/02/2020 15:37, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:

>There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch

IMHO, it would be a waste of time, if you tried to create a single 
area object (do I mean "closed way"?) to be the university.  That 
would just be most of the city centre.


The University is a collection of colleges, so could be a relation... 
 ...except that each college is probably in several buildings and they 
may not be in a contiguous area, so each college might have to be a 
relation of buildings.  So you would have a hierarchy of relations.



... or, if the general feeling is to go ahead with this change, just add 
a node in the vicinity of the Senate House / St Mary's Church for it.  
It'd be no less wrong.


By the way, there is at least one "sensibly mapped" university in Cambridge:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/3987047

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?

[Andy Townsend]

On 31/01/2020 11:41, Martin Wynne wrote:


But the places I was asking about can't really be called laybys, or 
car parks. Somewhere that a car could be left for a few hours out of 
anyone's way on an otherwise long narrow lane:


 https://goo.gl/maps/nSTAbnE4nYXTBAz59



That's a really good example, actually - it's a grassy area by a hedge 
that isn't blocking anywhere, but which might not be appropriate 
depending on the vehicle or the weather.  The vehicle parked in the 
picture is probably a 4WD with reasonable ground clearance.


What I normally ask myself is "would I suggest to anyone else that they 
park here, regardless of weather, season or vehicle"? If the answer is 
"yes" I'll map it as amenity=parking + some appropriate other tags 
(perhaps with a surface tag if it's mud or gravel).  If not I'll 
probably not add it to OSM at all but leave it as personal marker that I 
might use myself if necessary.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?

[Andy Townsend]

On 30/01/2020 18:58, ael wrote:

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 06:14:44PM +, Martin Wynne wrote:

-- even if it is, highway=layby appears to be an abandoned proposal:

  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lay-by


That was a proposal for "highway=layby".  "layby" does get used as a value:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=layby#values

but parking=layby is the most common tag/value combination for it in the UK.


Well, I call them (informal) laybys, and they are far too important to
miss off the map.

Layby is the obvious UK term, so I use
highway=rest_area
rest_area=layby.


I wouldn't personally tag something that's just a layby (or even less 
than that) as highway=rest_area; I'd save that tag for things that look 
more like the picture at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=rest%20area?uselang=en-GB 
.  From memory the examples at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/274233326#map=17/53.11757/-0.75284 on 
the A46 do fit the bill as rest_areas; but some of the others at 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qgc seem to be stretching it.




An example:https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7164280481
I did wonder about attaching a screenshot from the gps-dashcam footage
of that road, but it is nearly 300K and would probably be rejected by
the list software, and maybe a bit antisocial for those with limited
bandwidth...


The usual option there is "stick it somewhere and link to it", I guess.  
There are various image hosting sites around, or you may have other 
options (perhaps something like Google Drive, your own site, etc. 
etc.).  Perhaps also knock the size down a bit too (even MS Paint can do 
that!).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Presumed Vandalism

[Andy Townsend]

On 29/01/2020 20:32, Neil Matthews wrote:

See edits by https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Jackgeo123

I've reverted the most obvious problem changesets in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80281065 .  I've left the 
earlier stuff - if any of that looks wrong add a comment to the 
changeset explaining the problem and drop a mail to the DWG via 
d...@osmfoundation.org .


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Map with AI comes to the UK

[Andy Townsend]

On 05/01/2020 21:33, Philip Barnes wrote:

I have just come across an armchair edit using Facebook AI data.

They do seem to have failed to check that detections are accurate, or 
lack experience to identify common Midlands farmland features. They 
have mapped several hedges as tracks.



The usual suggestions apply, I think - politely explain via a changeset 
discussion comment what the problems are (e.g. that there are false 
positives and false negatives, and issues with offsets).  If that 
resolves things, great - if not raise it with the DWG.


I'm not convinced that false positives per se are a problem provided 
that iD guides them through the process of agreeing that "yes, that 
really does look like a sensible feature based on the context".  If that 
isn't happening (and that's certainly a problem to some extent elsewhere 
in iD with "automatic brand tagging", and with some Maproulette tasks 
that appear to be just "community-washing" mechanical edits) then again, 
raise it with the DWG.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon pickup lockers - how to represent (if at all)?

[Andy Townsend]

On 01/01/2020 12:49, Martin Wynne wrote:


See also man_made=street_cabinet.

The wiki page invites us to add additional usage tags:


True, but it's not really a good idea to "expand" the meaning of a key 
that's already in use too far - it just makes it harder to identify the 
(in this case) "original street cabinets" used for roadside wiring etc.





 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstreet_cabinet

perhaps street_cabinet=pickup_locker



The actual values used for this key can be seen at 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/street_cabinet#values , and 
no-one seems to be using it for e.g. Amazon / Inpost lockers. Instead, 
Phil's example of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5978482863 is a 
fairly typical example, except that worldwide quite a lot of these from 
various providers seem to be two-way - see 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/vending#values .


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render

[Andy Townsend]

On 29/12/2019 16:43, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

OS have digitised all paths in National Parks and appear to be 
gradually digitising

others. But certainly they haven't done the full set of PROWs yet.



Interestingly, just up the road from my previous example is 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/759440934 .  That's clearly signed as 
a public footpath, it's well within the national park (see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/759440934#map=15/54.4519/-1.0957 ), 
but it's not shown at 
https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/54.44738,-1.08281,18 .  Maybe 
they've only  done the national parks that London-based journos are 
likely to visit? :)


Looking elsewhere in a couple of areas I'm familiar with, as well as 
missing data, there are plenty of of basic digitisation errors around, 
e.g. gardens seeming to be significantly larger then they should be.  
This is, I guess, only the free version - maybe there's a parallel 
complete version for paying customers?  (a bit like the story repeated 
about the Soviet Union during the Cold War - "they may only be shipping 
Ladas over here, but their military technology is equivalent to ours").  
To check this I did try registering for a free trial to view "National 
Park Pathways", but got the message "We're sorry, we're experiencing 
some technical difficulties at the moment. The OS Maps team are working 
hard to fix the issue".


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render

[Andy Townsend]

> I've a contributor who says it's evidence that some PROWS don't existany 
> more. They're still shown in Bing's OS Explorer map & in the localauthority's 
> digital database.

... and are still on the ground in at least some cases.  As I read this I've 
just walked past here:

https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=24&lat=54.4339599&lon=-1.11039565

and there's a public footpath signed north  and a bridleway signed west just 
around the corner.  Neither is in OSM as I write this either, but they will be 
within a week or so.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

[Andy Townsend]

On 18/12/2019 23:47, Warin wrote:

On 19/12/19 00:41, Mike Baggaley wrote:
Perhaps setting both building=yes and disused: building=apartments 
would fulfill all the needs.


Err no. Having both tags on the one object is contradictory.

How is it determined which tag to render?

Aside from this particular question, that's actually a problem that 
happens all the time with things like "amenity=pub; tourism=hotel" - the 
answer is that the renderer decides which one should take precedence.  
This might just be "render layer X before layer Y", or it might be an 
active if/then/else rule to determine exactly what gets rendered for 
that tag combination.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Andy Townsend]

On 16/12/2019 11:59, Gareth L wrote:

I’m all for using a polygon per field, but am unsure what to do at the 
boundaries. Do I make 2 field polygons meet? Or leave a gap as there’s a 
track/hedge/fence/small coppice/ ditch/drain ? I’m probably not going to be 
able to map the boundary particularly accurately in a first pass, so would 
rather omit than put in inaccurate barriers


If it helps, here's what I tend to do:

 * Firstly, I only tend to add farmland etc. after I've added fences,
   walls, ditches, gates, bits of woodland etc. (it's just easier that
   way around).
 * If the crop extends right up to the hedge, I'd tend to have the
   hedge sharing nodes with both fields.
 * If there's a ditch, track or other separating feature I'd try and
   draw the hedges either side (if they exist) and have the farmland
   not sharing nodes with the ditch but with the hedge (if it exists). 
   Similarly I wouldn't attach farmland to roads.
 * If there's an uncultivated strip around the edge of the field I
   wouldn't tend to include that in the "field".  Similarly if an area
   is left as scrub (perhaps to wet for crops), I'd map as scrub.

None of this is definitive - people have different approaches. If you 
want examples of the above, have a look in my changeset history from > 3 
months ago in the East Riding of Yorkshire for example 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/75049826 etc.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Elections Online website - candidate for OSM?

[Andy Townsend]

On 03/12/2019 09:47, Edward Bainton wrote:

Hi all

General Elections Online 
 (hosted 
at parliament.uk ) have got a failed page where 
the Google map is overlaid with "Development purposes only".


I was planning to suggest they use OSM instead.

Can anyone point me to the precise technical detail their webmaster 
will need? Is it the wiki page, Deploying your own Slippy Map 
?



It depends very much on what they want to do.

At the highest level, they have a choice of two options - they can pay 
someone else to provide a service to them or they can create something 
themselves without using a third party.


IF someone else is providing a service the amount work that they need to 
do could be anything from nothing (like a new kitchen planned and 
installed for you for lots of £) to quite a lot (order some units from 
B&Q and assemble it yourself).


Andy's already mentioned https://switch2osm.org/ - that has an 
(incomplete) providers list at https://switch2osm.org/providers/ .  Many 
of the organisations there will be able to help and will be able to help 
them and may offer different products for different levels of involvement.


There's also the "completely do it yourself" option, which is actually 
somewhat easier than the kitchen analogue of a pile of timber from 
Jewson's.  One option that would achieve this would need:


 * Some map tiles underneath (which don't need to be hugely detailed)
 * A way of displaying constituency boundaries on top
 * A way of handling "user clicks on constituency A, display details"

The hard part might actually be making the whole lot robust enough to 
cope with demand over the next couple of weeks.  What wouldn't be a good 
idea would be using an existing set of free-at-the-point-of-use map 
tiles (such as the ones at OpenStreetMap.org) and expecting them to 
"just cope" with the volume - see 
https://twitter.com/OSM_Tech/status/1122495446465810438 for what 
happened when the London Marathon did that (for completeness the 
relevant policy is at 
https://operations.osmfoundation.org/policies/tiles/ ).


If they did want to "completely do it themselves" then 
https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/manually-building-a-tile-server-18-04-lts/ 
will get them some raster map tiles, and 
https://switch2osm.org/using-tiles/ and the examples at (to pick just 
one example) https://leafletjs.com/ will allow them to create overlays 
over those, and allow people to click through for particular information.


With regards to the "hard part" they can restrict the map zoom to 
something that is not too high (enough so that constituencies are 
visible and clickable should be good enough) prerender tiles and cache 
them, but I'm sure they must have lots of familiarity with this sort of 
problem given that they already run a public and intermittently very 
busy website.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMF board election

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/11/2019 10:26, Rob Nickerson wrote:
Are there any questions that you want asking of the candidates for 
OSMF directorship? We have until 2019-11-13 00:01 UTC to submit these.


(for completeness)

List of candidates:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM19/Election_to_Board

Questions so far:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/AGM19/Election_to_Board

Given that we have candidates this time that have not so much split 
opinion but torn it into tiny little pieces, could be an interesting time.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] FIXME/fixme/OSm Notes Quarterly Project

[Andy Townsend]

On 05/11/2019 22:51, Edward Bainton wrote:

What do I do about a fixme on a relation?

A bus route near me says fixme=check relation plus members - appears 
broken

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2580522#map=14/52.5823/-0.2418&layers=N

Presumably 'broken' means the route has gaps in it?

On a PC you can browse to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2580522 
and then zoom in to see what might be wrong with it.  Certainly the 
sections at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2580522#map=19/52.58621/-0.27555 
don't seem to add up.  The view from the hospital car park should 
confirm where the relation should go there.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Sustrans & OSM

[Andy Townsend]

On 04/11/2019 18:19, Edward Bainton wrote:

(much snippage)
Sustrans appear to have moved the NCN routes off their own site 
altogether (perhaps not news to you), and link directly to 
osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn 
. The behaviour is pretty 
horrible - eg, can't cope with more than one NCN/LCN route on a given 
stretch of road, which the OpenCycleMap layer does very nicely. OTOH 
there's a link to a route description and to buy the Sustrans paper 
map. I've no experience of these.


Just to throw in a local anecdote as an aside, as I understand it 
Sustrans near Derby changed their mapping to match what was in OSM 
because (a) what we had was a better representation of the signage on 
the ground and (b) it was a better route for cyclists!


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] FIXME/fixme/OSm Notes Quarterly Project

[Andy Townsend]

On 22/10/2019 10:38, and...@black1.org.uk wrote:

On 2019-10-21 11:26, Andy Townsend wrote:


I don't have data for the whole UK, but do have numbers for "OSM
notes" and "fixme tags" for a couple of areas going back at least a
couple of years.  If people are interested I could pull the numbers
together.


I'd be interested in seeing these figures.


You can see the figures for around York going back to January 2019 at 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/tmp/notesandfixmesnearyork.ods (I got bored 
of copying numbers at that point).  The raw data's in there so you can 
pretty it up a bit if you want.


The area that this corresponds to is 
http://tools.geofabrik.de/calc/#type=geofabrik_standard&tab=1&bbox=-1.454,53.767,-0.654,54.247 
.


Best Regards,

Andy





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

[Andy Townsend]

On 25/10/2019 11:43, Jez Nicholson wrote:

+1 for a bot edit


Perhaps Maproulette would be a better option?  Zebra markings would 
often be visible on aerial imagery, and a comparison of newer vs older 
imagery might allow people to identify recent changes*.


Best Regards,

Andy

* Somewhat offtopic, with almost all of the wood/forest edits I've been 
doing recently I've used surveys to confirm which imagery is latest (and 
around https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/54.2593/-1.2397 it's Maxar 
Premium), but using Bing for extra clarity and better alignment, and 
also using OS OpenData waterway and road centreline data for alignment.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] FIXME/fixme/OSm Notes Quarterly Project

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/10/2019 10:53, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:




21 Oct 2019, 11:46 by bpran...@gmail.com:

Hi everyone

So  far according tothe taginfo script we've managed to ADD 415
fixmes and remove 84 FIXMEs. I don't have data yet on OSM Notes.
Don't know what's going on here with the increase when the aim of
the project is to reduce the numbers by fixing the issues
indicated nad thereby improve the qualit yof the data.

In my typical mapping surveys, even targeted at fixing fixmes and 
closing notes I often add more

than close.


Same here.  To add to what Mateusz has already said, all notes and 
fixmes are not alike though - what was originally one note "all the 
shops are missing here" might become two for two bits of minor details 
that need checking, after adding all the rest.





I would also compare with previous months - maybe previously people 
were adding say 400 fixmes/month

and removing 10/month?


I don't have data for the whole UK, but do have numbers for "OSM notes" 
and "fixme tags" for a couple of areas going back at least a couple of 
years.  If people are interested I could pull the numbers together.




Should we be converting fixmes to OSM Notes -will this give the
occasional mapper more chance of seeing them and adding detail or
fixing them?

Please no!  We already see examples of people closing notes because they 
don't want them to "clutter them map" and there have been "notes wars" 
in a couple of places around the world.


A significant number (probably most?) OSM notes and fixme tags need 
local knowledge or an on-the-ground survey, so an occasional mapper 
simply isn't going to be able to resolve them.  A mapper who is visiting 
somewhere new and actively wants to look for OSM notes and fixme tags 
can do that already, however they are represented.


Where it probably isn't worth adding fixme tags would be just drawing 
attention to some other missing data.  For example, a few years ago 
every house in Reading* had "fixme=add precise address" on it, which 
meant that to get a useful list of things that needed fixing there you 
had to explicitly filter those out to get a list, and then add one more 
item "collect housenumbers".  The same issue with OSM notes would be 
even more of a problem given that OSM notes are more visible than fixme 
tags.


Best Regards,

Andy

* See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98977855/history for an 
example.  It's worth noting that the house numbers and later postcodes 
did get added - you'd need to ask the person who did that whether the 
"fixme" tag was a factor here.  They certainly deserve a big pat on the 
back for adding all that data.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] non-squared buildings

[Andy Townsend]

On 30/09/2019 11:15, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Some people seem quite animated about non-squared buildings in 
OSMcan anyone tell me why it matters so much? because 'accuracy'?


A possible (slightly contentious) view might be that:

 * some people have been complaining about the quality of HOT additions
   - sometimes unfounded, because it's more a "new user" thing than  a
   "HOT" thing per se.
 * one of the complaints - perhaps because it's an "easy to find"
   problem - is unsquared (or unrounded) buildings
 * HOT therefore make a big deal about squaring buildings

I've never been hugely bothered by it personally - people can easily 
square them up later if that's appropriate.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way vs. tracks

[Andy Townsend]

On 29/09/2019 19:37, Edward Bainton wrote:


Do I mark a track, with all it's passability tags, and then tag horses 
& foot=designated? That acknowledges the track, but disregards the 
documentation here 
 
which says "Public bridleways should be tagged:highway 
=bridlewayanddesignation 
=public_bridleway" .



I've edited the relevant wiki page to make it clearer:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbridleway#England_and_Wales%3A_Public_bridleways

If something is designated as a public bridleway add the 
"designation=public_bridleway" tag.  This is separate to the highway tag 
- that might be highway=bridleway, but as you point out could very 
easily be highway=track or highway=service.  I've also seen examples 
that on the ground really aren't substantial enough to be called 
highway=bridleway, but are legally signed as that.




2.
What should I do with this footpath 
, which appears on OSM 
and also on the OS map 
 
as a public footpath.


There is absolutely no indication of it on the ground: no beaten path, 
no fingerboard, no break in the hedge at the SW end (it wouldn't need 
one at the NE end, open country).


Do I delete as probably sourced from OS, or leave as it's a right of way?


That's a good question.  Cambridgeshire is listed at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors , so I suspect that the 
data from the council would be licence-appropriate for OSM per 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility .


If there's no physical access through a hedge I'd definitely ensure that 
there isn't a "highway=footway" running through a hedge.


Given the complicated history of the ways involved, it isn't necessarily 
the case that someone "copied from OS"; they may just have seen a public 
footpath sign at one end and tagged the way there, unaware that the 
footpath crossed several roads and went through a hedge.  I've certainly 
done that in the past.  In fact:




(For some reason the history shows me as the author of Version #1 of 
that path, but actually it long predated my edits in this area. iirc 
the history, before my edits elsewhere apparently over-wrote it, 
showed it as added several years ago)


It is possible to find out what happened here.  Here's a query for the 
ways in mid-2015:


https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHs

and here's one for mid-2016:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MHt

The way that was there before many, many splits is 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/210211088/history , and the edit that 
joined it to the Peterborough road was 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35688401 back at the end of 2015 
(the changeset comment helpfully says that the GPS trace used was from 
June 2015).  Obviously back then it's quite possible that there was 
signage and no hedge.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Next quarters project will be fixmes and notes

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/09/2019 13:24, Michael Booth wrote:
Fixmes can only be viewed in iD or with a QA tool, while notes can be 
viewed on osm.org and StreetComplete which is useful for actually 
going out and surveying them.


If you're a Garmin user you can use 
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/Notes01 from the command line to get a 
list of fixmes in a certain area.  I'm sure there are other options as well.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] How do I switch off digests?

[Andy Townsend]

On 04/09/2019 23:53, Edward Bainton wrote:
Any way to get single emails from this list rather than a daily 
(ahem..) digest? It was an option when I signed up but I can't see how 
to change it after registration. (Tried by following the the 
subscribe/unsubscribe page but it's not the right place.)


Digest mode is one of the questions I see from 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb when I select 
"Unsubscribe or edit options", and enter userid and password. It's quite 
a way down the screen...


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Andy Townsend]

On 03/09/2019 22:58, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 17:03, Dan S  wrote:

Op di 3 sep. 2019 om 16:06 schreef Michael Booth :

Even though the wiki doesn't say you can use historic=memorial on a
relation, I would tag it as that.

Done; though "historic" seems inapt.
It's a memorial to something that happened in the past, so I can see the 
logic behind "historic" here, but on the more general point it's true 
that OSM's top-level tags are often broad categories that include more 
than the meaning of the original English word (natural, shop, landuse 
all have this to some extent).



The "type=*" tag on a relation is usually used to
indicate what sort of relationship is represented, e.g.
type=multipolygon.

Done, but JOSM protested that "the multipolygon is not closed"


As currently drawn, it's not actually a multipolygon (i.e. one or more 
closed areas with optional holes).  I'd suggest drawing a line around 
the outline of the white area (making the whole thing an area rather 
than three crossed lines).  That'll give anything that wants to make 
sense of what it is more chance of depicting it correctly and will still 
be accurate.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Canoeing infrastructure/river features

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/09/2019 17:50, Edward Bainton wrote:
Just a quick question: what sort of role should overpass turbo play in 
my researches on this topic (and on canoe portages especially)?


I use it all the time when looking for things that people might have 
mapped using tags that I wasn't aware of.  In your case I'd definitely 
try searching values for words like "canoe" or others that you think 
people might have used (see e.g. 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=canoe#values ).  If 
nothing else that'll identify areas to look where people have added 
other things.


Using that method you can find e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1739117028 (which is tagged as a 
tourism=theme_park?) and if you query the map or turn the data layer on 
you'll also see https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6764328677 .


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/09/2019 16:57, Mark Goodge wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by one of the lines on the permissions grid on 
that page. There's a line for "Legal RoW but access discouraged", with 
a suggested tagging of "discouraged/private" for pedestrians (and 
similar tags for other users).


Quite apart from the fact that "private" is simply wrong for any 
public right of way, the use of "discouraged" for pedestrian users 
seems to me to also conflict with the wiki, which suggests that this 
is a functional tag (the wiki example is HGV traffic on narrow roads). 


I suspect that the issues that they're trying to deal with here are:

 * Rights of way such as byways open to all traffic that have traffic
   regulation orders on them because they are currently not navigable.
   I've certainly seen example where a PRoW was closed to foot, horse
   and vehicle traffic even though it likely wasn't the walkers doing
   the damage.

 * Paths in moorland (where here it _is_ the walkers doing the damage),
   perhaps in CROW act areas, that need to be closed temporarily to
   allow heather etc. to regrow.

But public rights of way come in all shapes and sizes, from broad, 
well-maintained paths to barely visible routes across difficult 
terrain. If we want to tag their relative ease of use, then surely a 
more appropriate tag than "discouraged" should be used. If a right of 
way on foot exists, then it is, ultimately, up to the user whether 
they use it or not.


Indeed - but from reading what the NT have said I don't think they're 
opposed to tagging of surface, trail_visibility etc. to enable people to 
make their own mind up.


(as an aside https://map.atownsend.org.uk/ does look at various subtags 
on non-PRoWs and won't show some paths on that basis)




The reason why I'm uneasy with this here, is that it relates to 
similar concerns already expressed by Frederik Ramm. There's quite a 
lot of NT property which is crossed by public rights of way, but that 
the NT would prefer people not to use as they provide a route onto the 
property that bypasses the "official" entrance. I can understand why 
they'd want to do that, but I don't think it's appropriate to reflect 
that in how the paths are mapped in OSM.


Indeed, but I think we'd need an example where that was happening?  I've 
often found myself inside an NT property "by accident" via a PRoW that 
doesn't go through a main entrance, but can't remember ever remember 
being prevented from using it or even "persuaded not to".  The exception 
is where big for-pay events are held and PRoWs are temporarily closed - 
a non-NT example of that I can think of is Chatsworth Country Fair.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMTracker for Android - detailed survey of paths & tracks layout

[Andy Townsend]

 > Why on earth are there 2 versions of OSMTracker for Android on the Play store?! It's open source software, so it's fairly technically straightforward to "clone, modify and resubmit".  What restrictions Google put on this sort of thing currently I don't know, but I suspect they're mostly limited to an API usage check and a " dodgy code behaviour" check (that'd be the case for an Enterprise Play Store submission).> Which is the right one and how to get an old one removed?   Maybe there isn't one "right one" ?  My recollection was that there was a problem with OSM-hosted tile usage in one of the versions (which may have been since resolved) and there was a bit of a delay getting it fxed.  Perhaps someone fixed it in "another" version in the meantime?Whatever it is, I'd suggest that the best place to ask the question would be to the relevant app authors via the Play Store support link, or github (at least one of them has a public issues list there).Best Regards,Andy   ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire

[Andy Townsend]

There are certainly places where the rights-of-way as signed don't match what 
appears on e.g. OS Landranger - I was in one south of York just a couple of 
days ago.  There in fact the OS data (including OS Opendata / older OS maps 
which have been traced into OSM) doesn't match what's on the ground now - a 
former airfield has been reclaimed for farming and other purposes and the 
former airfield's service roads don't always exist at all any more.  There's 
also a public footpath that abruptly stops at the River Wharfe.

Maybe a compromise might be (assuming the licence is suitable) importing only 
the "designation" tag for entirely new footways (i.e. without a highway tag at 
all)?

That way there's no danger of general purpose map users (which would tend to be 
using maps based on "highway" tags) being misled, and it would still be 
possible for people seeking out these paths to find them and survey them.

One place where a PRoW import could help is where people have added data 
remotely such as Amazon-traced service roads, tracks and driveways.  This 
doesn't avoid the need for a survey, but it does add another dimension to the 
traced data.

Cheers,
Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/07/2019 13:28, David Woolley wrote:

On 26/07/2019 12:57, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

unless there is an explicit "private" sign


There is no legal need for "private" signs.  The default assumption 
should be that everything is private


... in England and Wales.  Scotland is somewhat more enlightened about 
things:


https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/act-and-access-code

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Newish user causing damage-...

[Andy Townsend]

This user's back again, had to be reverted again (thanks southglos!) and 
I've blocked them again https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3033 - 
this time for a period of time with a request to email the DWG about 
what they're trying to do.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)


On 23/06/2019 18:10, Colin Smale wrote:


Thanks Phil.

On 2019-06-23 18:59, Philip Barnes wrote:


On Sun, 2019-06-23 at 16:50 +0100, Andy Townsend wrote:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2922
(apologies for terseness - sending from pub beer garden)

Thank you Andy.
I have reverted this, I had already reverted their previous changes.
Must admit I thought they had given up.
Phil ( trigpoint )

*From:* colin.sm...@xs4all.nl
*Sent:* 23 June 2019 16:21
*To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* [Talk-GB] Newish user causing damage-...

User JS0102 has 17 changesets to their name, and many of them
have critical comments against them. The earlier 16 changesets
were reverted, but this afternoon it was the turn of
Gloucestershire to get cleaned out, and half the River Wye has
been turned into a culvert.

Can someone block this user until they understand what they are
doing?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JS0102

Thanks.

___

Talk-GB mailing list

Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

  


https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

  



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] ITOworld maps

[Andy Townsend]

On 13/07/2019 15:33, Brian Prangle wrote:
ITOworld  maps which showed a huge variety of visualisations of OSM 
data seems to have gone offline.



Hi Brian,

I suspect that many (most?) of the visualisations that ITO used to 
provide could be done with Overpass / Overpass turbo (even as far as 
styling the results 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_turbo#MapCSS_Styling ) - if 
there are any ones that you particularly miss it might be worth asking 
on help.osm.org as someone will surely be able to figure out the 
overpass syntax.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data [Thread 2]

[Andy Townsend]

On 05/07/2019 13:19, Silent Spike wrote:
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 1:02 PM Gareth L > wrote:


Forgive me if this is silly question/statement, but the adj/alt
names etc are in the naptan dataset. Wouldn’t it be better to have
the link made between the stop in OSM and the record in naptan
(using the codes prior mentioned).
My thinking is data consumers could link and retrieve values using
that. Merging the extra data values again might potentially
develop discrepancies over time.

I’d think the atco code is unique and (hopefully) not reused, but
the alt names etc could be modified over time.


A perfectly valid question and something I wonder also.

For example, the indicator field is somewhat meaningless to a data 
consumer unless they know what it represents as per the NaPTAN schema 
- so perhaps it's best left out of the OSM data?


FWIW I did actually append that to name when displaying those because it 
"looked useful" (to append to the name and distinguish between other 
identically named stops):


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L5010

As to the original question "Would there be any objections to an import 
of the following scope" - certainly not from me.  I wouldn't personally 
use the PTv2 "platform" tag but its presence doesn't break anything.


The most interesting bit would be the "Manually conflate and review the 
data before upload using JOSM" - any JOSM CSS style that you end up 
using to highlight duplicates would be really useful, as would a basic 
OSM diary entry describing the process and the end result.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data

[Andy Townsend]

On 04/07/2019 16:39, Martin Wynne wrote:
In rural areas there are many places where buses are timetabled to 
stop but where there is nothing physical -- no signpost or shelter.


Are these highway=bus_stop in OSM?


(following a previous discussion on this list) I've used 
"physically_present=no" on one of those - after verifying that buses 
actually stop there. Example:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/502390265

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Newish user causing damage-...

[Andy Townsend]

  https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2922(apologies for terseness - sending from pub beer garden)   From: colin.sm...@xs4all.nlSent: 23 June 2019 16:21To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.orgSubject: [Talk-GB] Newish user causing damage-...  User JS0102 has 17 changesets to their name, and many of them have critical comments against them. The earlier 16 changesets were reverted, but this afternoon it was the turn of Gloucestershire to get cleaned out, and half the River Wye has been turned into a culvert.Can someone block this user until they understand what they are doing?https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JS0102Thanks.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Andy Townsend]

On 01/06/2019 13:55, Michael Collinson wrote:


... I tried, then going out to "just verify" and found that I was 
hopelessly inaccurate. It defeats the point, to get a highly accurate 
localised network for folks who might depend on it.




I did something similar on the dev server a while back here:

https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/54.0167/-1.0486

(turn the data layer on to see it).  What surprised me was the things 
that I hadn't expected beforehand to be important (angles through gates 
being an obvious one) that actually were.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

[Andy Townsend]

On 01/06/2019 11:11, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Brighton has also just gained a sidewalk 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/JAn which i'm not overly impressed 
withor am I being a Luddite?



I personally wouldn't map sidewalks in a dense UK city like that (though 
some people do, with the intention of micromapping all the dropped kerbs 
etc.).  It's perhaps worth mentioning that at least some of the sidewalk 
edits there are by someone who has tended to contribute well-meaning but 
not entirely accurate edits from afar - it took me lots of additional 
surveys of Sutton in Ashfield* to verify that many of their previous 
"roads" simply weren't.


At first glance quite a lot of joins seem to be missing, and some shops 
were located between the sidewalk and the road (which you've just 
fixed).  Maybe if you're going to add a certain level of detail, you 
can't just ignore everything else on the map, although it's pretty 
common to do updates in stages - when mapping rural areas I'll often do 
streams first (armchair), then roads and paths (survey) then extra 
detail such as field boundaries, gates, stiles etc. (a mix of both).


Best Regards,

Andy

* you could therefore perhaps describe it as "successful armchair 
mapping" :)



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Farmland (crop or animals)?

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/05/2019 10:43, Gregory Marler wrote:

What is going on with landuse=farmland, and what are we going to do?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarmland

With regard to tagging, I agree with a lot of what you say there, but I 
suspect that the first thing to do is to talk to the wiki editor about 
it.  It may be that they thought that they were just changing the wiki 
in line with actual usage, it may be that they've actually discussed it 
with lots of other people elsewhere first (just not visible at first 
glance to me).


For international tagging discussions the tagging list is probably the 
best* mailing list, but it's probably worth also mentioning on the wiki 
talk page for the tag too (and maybe the talk page for the wiki editor).


Best Regards,

Andy

* or maybe "least worst" - there's a discussion there about how terrible 
mailing list discussions are compared to controlled spaces on the 
tagging list at the moment - but that's more to do with what happens 
when people who don't agree (and don't even agree how to talk about 
things) encounter people who don't agree with each other.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Déjà vu

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/05/2019 12:40, Gareth L wrote:
Ive used http://overpass-api.de/achavi/ for this, if there is no trace 
of the element. Not so good on mobile.



Another overpass option is to search on a particular date, for example:

[date:"2018-09-04T00:00:00Z"];
node({{bbox}});
out geom;

(that's saved as https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Jhf )

These sorts of searches should work back to 2012 I think?

Best Regards,

Andy



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