Re: [Talk-GB] Removal of redundant NaPTAN data

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

When I come across them I always delete them.

To map them as polygons was nonsense.

A few years ago the person who added them confessed he couldn't remember 
why he'd done it.


If there is a desire to to be added they should be on the bus stops, 
similar to the fare_zones I recently added to the London Underground 
stations.


DaveF



On 04/04/2019 10:00, Philip Barnes wrote:

The Telford one certainly looks highly dubious cutting residential areas and 
bus routes.

I agree these and public transport routes are best left to organisations such 
as traveline. After all a bus route without timetable information is pretty 
useless.
  
Phil (trigpoint)



On Thursday, 4 April 2019, Nick Allen wrote:

Brian,

Sounds like a good idea.

Nick
(Tallguy)

On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 09:38 +0100, Brian Prangle wrote:

Hi everyone

Back in the day of the original NapPTAN import we imported pay scale
areas - tagged as public_transport=pay_scale_area. I don't know why
we ever did this - there's no evidence on the ground and it's highly
unlikely that any OSM data consumer makes use of them ( if indeed
they are still current). The information is better in
public_transport applications run by public transport bodies

So I'm proposing that they are all deleted

Regards

Brian



___Talk-GB mailing
listtalk...@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] RFC: Solar panel mapping in the UK

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 03/04/2019 17:23, Dan S wrote:

* The tagging is already pretty well-defined.



This would be a great project, however I think there's some confusion in 
the tagging which requires agreeing/clarifying.


Most solar rural solar farms are on arable land. There's usually a 
boundary fence around the whole site. There are usually 'blocks' formed 
from numerous rows of panels. There can be multiple blocks, often one 
per field.


Does a solar farm require a power=plant around the perimeter boundary? 
(no fill or border render, but the name is displayed in the 'standard' 
render)


Does power=plant require a landuse=industrial tag (which does fill render)

Where should the power=generator tag be placed? On the individual blocks 
or on the perimeter boundary?
or, as in this detailed example, on individual panel rows? 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/654070917


Similarly where should 'plant:output:electricity' go?
(There's another example, which I'm unable to locate at present, which 
had the power output on each row).


State side example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/340809071#map=18/33.30652/-112.83771=D
Note they're tagged as buildings, & include the address!

Some UK examples have collected 'blocks' into a relation.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9291197
If there's a boundary around them all I feel this that is unnecessary as 
OSM is geospatially aware. Similar to the schools project, any object 
within the amenity=school boundary is assumed to be part of the school.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Press opportunity

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Is that the royal 'we'?

DaveF

On 31/03/2019 12:59, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

We have been approached by the press (national newspaper/online). They are
wanting to write an article in their weekend magazine on OSM as part of a
series on "hidden work that makes the internet thrive".

They asked if they can meet an OSM mapper and meet them whilst out mapping.
Aim is to do this next week (commencing 1 April). Author is London based so
somewhere within a couple hours travel is best. Could also include a phone
interview.

If interested please let me know as soon as possible as the deadline seems
to be the end of the week.

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] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I use evidence on the ground - is it wide enough for any type of four 
wheel vehicle & are there signs of wheel tracks.


I would disagree that bridleways only wide enough for a horse are rare.

If a track is designated as a public_bridleway by signage or definitive 
statement then there is right of access even if privately owned.


AFAIA a cart (or "a vehicle which is not mechanically propelled") the 
designation has to be a restricted_byway (or higher)


I would tag your example as a track.

Overpass in the UK returns:
bridleway/public_bridleway = 15495
track/public_bridleway = 9973

Please remember there are more renderings than just the 'standard' one 
on the main page.




On 03/03/2019 16:11, Martin Wynne wrote:

What is the dividing line between:

 highway=bridleway  designation=public_bridleway

and

 highway=track  designation=public_bridleway

The wiki says a track must be suitable for farm vehicles, but it's a 
rare bridleway that is only wide enough for a horse, and not for a 
small tractor or 4x4 type vehicle.


Which taken logically would mean that highway=bridleway would hardly 
ever be used. But it's a useful indication for map users when rendered 
-- in the UK at least a bridleway is almost always a public right of 
way. Whereas a way rendered as a track is often private. The standard 
renderings for a track differentiate between surface conditions, but 
not access.


Does a track require actual evidence of recent vehicular use? The wiki 
doesn't say so. And must the vehicle be motorised? For example if the 
last time a way was used by a wheeled vehicle was a horse and cart 50 
years ago, was it then a bridleway or a track? And what is it now?


If I tag a way as a bridleway, and then a few weeks later see a 
tractor using it, should I change it to a track?


For example, is this a bridleway or a track?

 http://85a.uk/worc_way_1600x980.jpg

Thanks,

Martin.



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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 03/03/2019 22:54, Warin wrote:
If a field is used for a helicopter landing .. should you tag it as a 
heliport?
If a one off, no, but if occasional then Helipad is appropriate in that 
case.




My answer is - what is it regularly used for and is suitable for that 
use? Not what it could be or seldom used for.


Please remember 'regularly' doesn't mean the same as 'frequently'. It 
can still be 'seldom used' & regular.


Frequency of use should have no bearing on tagging. if it's able to be 
used for certain purpose, then it can be tagged to indicate it. It 
doesn't have to be a primary tag.




If it has not been used for some time then disused:*=* could be useful. 


Disused indicates an official closure, not how rarely it's used.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] BT phoneboxes

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

disused:amenity=telephone

Many that have already been decommissioned are being reused:

Filled with flowers:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5281048654.

Tagged similar to above for emergency=defibrillator & 
amenity=public_bookcase



Cheers
DaveF


On 25/02/2019 09:47, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Going back to this January discussion, has anyone tagged a kiosk/pod 
yet? what would you tag it if it isn't a 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtelephone any more?


On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:56 PM Adam Snape > wrote:


On 4 January 2018 at 17:26, Andrew Black
mailto:andrewdbl...@googlemail.com>>
wrote:

Do we know what a proportion are going to be left.  Is it
going to be close to none.


About half: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40934210
___
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] Know any nonprofits that have relocated from UK to elsewhere?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Would you care to state the reasons?

On 20/02/2019 19:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

even before the whole Brexit brouhaha, the OSMF occasionally thought
about perhaps moving the organisation elsewhere (most likely to another
EU country but all options are open in theory).

Brexit might give us a few more reasons to look into this - nobody knows.

Do any of you know of nonprofit organisations - doesn't have to be in
our sector - that started life in the UK and later moved elsewhere, for
whatever reason? If so, it would be great to hear about it; maybe the
OSMF could ask them about their experiences and collect some facts that
might inform our own course in the future.

Bye
Frederik




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/commit/4df96c4e4927c

Plus a discussion in Tagging 05/03

Unsure if this is a step forward. If it's being "misused", the common 
tags should be amended to accurately represent the areas, not deprecate 
the render. Seems like the tail wagging the dog, again.


 DaveF

On 16/03/2019 12:31, Ian Caldwell via Talk-GB wrote:

In the last day or two the standard renderer as stop rendering  common land
(leisure=common) see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311973831

Ian



___
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] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

Nothing except the fact people walk along a way is implied by path or 
footway. The legality or ability to use it is defined with sub/adjective 
tags, such as width.


The path tag is actively being discouraged. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333


OSM-Carto rendering doesn't distinguish it from 'footway' any longer.

Cheers
DaveF

On 12/03/2019 09:17, Devonshire wrote:

Both footway and path infer a way of a certain width suitable for people to 
use, neither infers any legal right of use as far as I am concerned.

If starting over path is a better word as people outside of OSM have clue what 
it is but otherwise I see them as interchangeable.

Kevin





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of Argos stores

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

This is the full list of name=Argos, shop=*

Catalogue by far the most popular, but I wondering if there any 
specialised Argos outlets selling just furniture or electrical?


catalogue,152
department_store,90
,60
yes,55
variety_store,39
general,21
supermarket,8
gift,5
convenience,4
houseware,4
catalog,2
catalogue_store,2
electronics,2
general_store,2
hifi,2
furniture,1
general_retailer,1
hardware,1
household,1
retailer,1
outpost,1

Cheers
DaveF

On 10/03/2019 14:58, Donald Noble wrote:

I noticed recently that an Argos[1] counter has opened inside the large
Sainsbury's supermarket at Murrayfield, but I am not sure how best to tag
this.

I had a quick look, and Argos stores in the UK seem to be tagged in
multiple ways, but I am not skilled enough with Overpass to check how many
of each:

- shop=catalogue
- shop=department_store
- shop=general_retailer
- shop=general
- shop=supermarket
- shop=yes
- etc.


I suspect shop=catalogue is probably the best option for a normal Argos
store, but just wondering:
a) if anything special is needed when it is just a counter in another store
(given that this is pretty much all there is own the other shops,
b) if there is any consensus on how to tag these, and
c) if so, whether these should be standardised across the UK?

[1] https://www.argos.co.uk

Thanks, Donald


___
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] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 10/03/2019 22:37, Martin Wynne wrote:

Thanks for the comments.

I'm surprised some folks can be so dogmatic,


A surprising comment considering on your 'rarity' claim.

Changing the subject a little, is it still a track if wide enough for 
a vehicle, but the landowner has physically blocked vehicles from 
entering it with barrier=block


There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be 
marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length as 
sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get 
between adjacent fields.


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 10/03/2019 23:19, Warin wrote:

Is there evidence of bridleway use?


The title of the thread is "Bridleway *or* track?"

but It's advisable to check the whole length as sections can be used 
by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get between adjacent fields.


Then the sections will have to be separated and individually tagged.


Err... Yes




{beer? I think I'll just have a cup of tea. (meaning .. don't take any 
of this discussion personally)}


Who was doing that?

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Road name contradictions in the UK

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 08/03/2019 10:15, Andy Townsend wrote:
OS Locator is/was a good source of those missing names, as shown in 
"Musical Chairs" here: 


There's also:
http://product.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/

Although don't be deceived by the 'Last Updated' date - It's not being 
updated. When I contacted ITO to check if they'd had a change of heart & 
were using OS Open Data, I received a reply "no plans to spend any time 
developing OSM Analysis or Ito Map any further"


Would it take much effort to upgrade Musical Chairs to use OS Open Roads?

Cheers
DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to map new housing?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi
Welcome to OSM.

Mapping new developments is trickier without aerial imagery, but there's 
quite a bit you can do to make it more accurate than guesswork.


 * if you're mapping the roads use the GPS to walk down their centre,
   if it's safe to do so, of course)
 * Takes *lots* of photos. Videos are even better
 * If there is something already mapped in OSM Field Papers may help:
   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Field_Papers
 * I found that many new estates have a certain amount of conformity.
   Try offsetting a copy of the road centre lines to use as guidelines
   ensuring buildings equidistant from the road & the same width

To map larger buildings you can walk walk around it taking waypoints 
with a GPS whenever you're in line with the plane of a building's side. 
These points can then have a way drawn with their opposite number to 
create the buildings outline. Make sure you're far enough away from it 
to avoid GPS interference.


Cheers
DaveF



On 08/03/2019 10:35, Dave Abbott wrote:

Hi,

I'm quite new to OSM, and am wondering how I might go about mapping new
housing plots in my area.

In general, there is nothing on the imagery - I know I can walk the new
streets and map them with GPS - but how to go about mapping the new
buildings?

Is there a guide I can look at?

TIA,

Dave Abbott



___
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] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

From the footnote of that table:
"The United Kingdom Tagging Guidelines 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines> 
state that highway=path, when used it the UK, implies "a generic narrow 
path that is used in conjunction with access tags". This makes the 
default "yes" assumption dubious."


What does foot=yes mean?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_examples
Some wiki pages say it's 'legal right' another says "A urban path 
without any legal status suitable for walking."


This is a reason why I take much of the wiki with a pinch of salt. 
'foot=yes' should be used in combination with the access tag (usually 
when it's  set to 'no' or 'private') not as a stand alone sub tag (ie 
highway=footway;foot=yes).


Are there any data users who use 'highway=footway;foot=yes' to 
distinguish from other footways?


DaveF


On 15/03/2019 11:05, David Woolley wrote:

On 15/03/2019 01:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

AFAIA, neither tag had any impied permissions or condition attributes.


They do, and they are country specific.

<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_Kingdom> 





___
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] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I believe there's a difference between discouraged & deprecated.

i agree path & footway are synonymous. When they're substituted for each 
other there's no difference in meaning.


The path proposal never produced a clear, unique definition.

AFAIA, neither tag had any impied permissions or condition attributes.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Path

DaveF

On 15/03/2019 00:09, Warin wrote:
Path and footway are the same .. to me. When I first joined OSM I was 
told they had different default permissions to allow UK people to do a 
short way of tagging those permissions, true or false I don't know. 
Seemed like a nasty way of doing it to me. In Australia .. the view 
was taken - country side = path, city = footway. Still nasty.


I disagree that path is being 'actively discouraged'. If it were then 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath would be marked 
'depreciated'.


On 15/03/19 00:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Hi

Nothing except the fact people walk along a way is implied by path or 
footway. The legality or ability to use it is defined with 
sub/adjective tags, such as width.


The path tag is actively being discouraged. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333


OSM-Carto rendering doesn't distinguish it from 'footway' any longer.

Cheers
DaveF

On 12/03/2019 09:17, Devonshire wrote:
Both footway and path infer a way of a certain width suitable for 
people to use, neither infers any legal right of use as far as I am 
concerned.


If starting over path is a better word as people outside of OSM have 
clue what it is but otherwise I see them as interchangeable.


Kevin





___
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] Lake District NationalPark

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 13/03/2019 21:28, Paul Berry wrote:

Relation looks OK to me but I can't see the name at any zoom level:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/287917


Yes, it takes a long time to fully render. it must be quite low down in 
OSM-Carto's hierarchy, & depending on a national_park's size & shape 
labels don't always render at the same zoom level.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

highway=bridleway was, I believe, conceived to be used as a shortcut tag 
for the below, but if the way is a track, they should be included.


DaveF

On 11/03/2019 08:49, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:

Access tags for a bridleway in the UK or in my experience  England and Wales 
should be horse=designated, foot=designated and bicycle=designated. As Andy 
mentioned the important tag is designation=public_bridleway.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 10/03/2019 23:45, Martin Wynne wrote:
There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be 
marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length 
as sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get 
between adjacent fields.


It's a public bridleway, with the usual "evidence", so no argument 
about that.


But is it highway=bridleway or highway=track?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack

Specifically this, except substitute path for bridleway:
If the way is not wide enough for a two-track vehicle, it should be 
tagged as highway=path.




There is evidence of recent wheeled use, which I think was a tractor 
gaining access across the adjacent fields for the purpose of 
hedge-trimming alongside it. It clearly was once a vehicular track.


Then split the way up. Tag the sections accessible by vehicles as
highway=track
horse=designated
foot=designated
designation=public_bridleway
surface=*

width=* is also useful for both bridleway & track


What I think I'm getting at is this -- is the highway= tag intended to 
represent the physical appearance, or the intended use?


With track, it probably has to be a bit of both, Physical appearance 
should provide an indication of intended use. Unlike metalled highways, 
tracks, unfortunately, rarely have clarifying reference signs like the 
A4, M62 etc


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Possible Unattributed Map on Labrokes Website

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 07/02/2019 20:52, Chris Hill wrote:

On 07/02/2019 18:25, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 17:59 +, talk...@manet-computer.co.uk wrote:


Hi All,

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but is there anyone who 
can look at https://thegrid.ladbrokes.com/en/shoplocator to see if 
they are using OpenStreetmap data without proper attribution?


Looking at the NN8 area there are indications that the map is based 
on an Openstreet map extract from Late July to Late August 2017, 
Buildings added 24/07/17 are shown but buildings added 28/08/17 are 
missing.




It is very definitely OSM, but not sure how you go about reporting it.

Phil (trigpoint)
I have contacted Ladbrokes asking them (nicely) to add attribution. 
Let's see how they respond. 


I'll give you odds of 5 to 1 they don't.

They're probably /really/ cheesed off, atm, with the racing hiatus.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Notes (Was: We're missing changes...)

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I'm sorry to say, but I think that sounds patronising to both Note 
writers & OSM editing software.


Computers (that's what smart phones are) are used to enter the notes & 
map editing contributors need no knowledge of trig' & co-ords to draw 
dots & lines.


'encourage' includes teaching users how to use OSM software.

Cheers
DaveF



On 11/02/2019 15:14, ael via Talk-GB wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:40:23PM +0000, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

I think we should be encouraging those who add notes to contribute directly
to the do-ocracy that is OSM. Quite a few notes take longer to type than
actually editing the problem they are highlighting.


I think that you underestimate the problem for someone who knows little
of computers, has no knowledge of coordinates and trigonomentry, and
has minimal understanding of maps.

I strongly suspect that most OSM contributers have far more education than 
average.

ael

___
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] Notes (Was: We're missing changes...)

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I think we should be encouraging those who add notes to contribute 
directly to the do-ocracy that is OSM. Quite a few notes take longer to 
type than actually editing the problem they are highlighting.


If anybody (even anonymously) can add notes then users should be able to 
delete notes to discourage irrelevant notes such as 'The party's here!' 
(if a user resolves the note the URL still remains current).


A time base filtering of notes would be useful.

Cheers
DaveF

On 10/02/2019 12:11, Brian Prangle wrote:

Hi Jerry

You've spotted a major omission!  You can see  the road layout in 
Sentinel-2  Satellite Imagery ( if you've got good eyes - resolution 
is pretty poor). But you've raised a much wider question. I've always 
felt that we kind o f owe it to people who have bothered to alert us 
to errors via notes to fix them as quickly as we can ( and encourage 
them to enter more notes). However notes are undifferentiated as to 
what is major what is old etc which makes "patrolling" notes irksome. 
and so we fail to respond adequately I feel we need something a little 
more organised and the UK chapter has had a plan for a notes 
application  to 
help with this but just doesn't have the resources in terms of time to 
complete it. Any help appreciated from teh UK community. Other ideas 
might be to have a future Quarterly Project deveoted to clearing up 
notes, and to have designated  "patrol" areas where OSMers check for 
major errors and we have a an alert mechanism.

I'll contact  Amazon Logistics offlist to see if they can resolve this

Regards

Brian

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 10:41, SK53 > wrote:


* A message on the forum points out that the roads immediately to
the east of Junction 36 have been substantially altered:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=65350

* There is a note dating back over a year too:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1221610#map=15/53.4976/-1.4580=N

Aerial imagery, GPS traces, and ImproveOSM do not seem to offer
any help. There are however traces on the Strava layers, but these
are no longer suitable for making edits directly.

I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been picked up the Amazon
Logistics editors as I would have thought this would be relevant
to them.

Jerry


___
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] We're missing changes to M1 Junction 36 which have apparently been in place for a year.

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 11/02/2019 11:06, Paul Berry wrote:

OK, I'll give that a try this week and see how the GPS traces come out.


Drive around it a few times, if possible. GPS isn't the most accurate 
when taking tight bends/roundabouts. Having multiple traces provides a 
more accurate average.


Do you have a camera & mount? Always useful for recording road signs etc.

Cheers
DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Use of amenity=university within the University of Cambridge

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I'm so glad this has been resurrected again. It's not only the tag 
mentioned, but others including leisure=pitch to represent recreation 
grounds.


The university area requires amending to fit within accepted & agreed 
tagging rules.


DaveF

On 07/04/2019 12:28, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

I've noticed that there are rather a lot of amenity=university objects
in Cambridge, most of which seem to be on individual buildings rather
than actual universities or even university sites.
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/HLV This seems to be in line with the
tagging scheme described at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge
, but doesn't follow what it says at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Duniversity
"Individual elements of the university should not be tagged with
amenity=university but can be mapped with operator=* and the name of
the university".

The latter suggests that there should only be one amenity=university
object per institution, with individual sites combined via a
multi-polygon. I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, and I would be ok
with using using amenity=university on the outline polygon of each
site occupied by a university. At any rate I think it's wrong to
classify individual internal buildings/features within each site as
amenity=university.

What do other people think? Could we get an agreement to at least
remove the amenity=university tags from buildings etc within each
larger university site? How best to tag university sites/campuses is
perhaps a larger discussion, that it may take longer to reach a
consensus on.

Robert.

PS: I'll invite David Earl to comment here, as he was behind the
Project Drake work that did a lot of the mapping of University
buildings.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Preston Park, Brighton

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Some park runs regularly alter their course to avoid causing damage to 
the grass,

Bus routes are permanently marked with bus stops
Complexity isn't a reason to map an item of not

On 04/06/2019 14:02, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:

An Overpass query for relation["type"="route"]["operator"~"parkrun",i]
throws up 38 mapped Parkruns globally of which I'm (at least partially)
responsible for mapping four. I should probably add some more, either from
memory or via tourism (could be a good personal project...)

I think if a bus route with all its potential complexity can be mapped then
a Parkrun can be as well - it's only 5km so how complicated can it be!





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Preston Park, Brighton

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

Polygons shouldn't be attached to highways=* which represent an 
infinitesimally thin centreline & provides no assumption of width. If 
you wanted to add a gate to the outline of the park it would also, 
inaccurately, act as a barrier on the road.


is there a pond in the rose garden? it looks lie paths & grass/planters 
on the aerial views.

The rose garden's extent appears as if it should follow the bounding hedge.

Path into the playground?

add a leisure*=recreation_ground around the Croquet and Tennis Club, 
Include address/website etc


* I appear to be in the minority on this, but I believe 
recreation_ground should have a leisure tag not landuse as it fits 
better with other 'leisures' such as park, pitch, playground etc.




Some of the fields are edged with small wooden posts to prevent driving
onto the grass. Is this a 'fence'? if so, what is its type?


Do the posts have a horizontal bar preventing bikes/wheelchairs? if not 
then they're just posts & not a fence.


DaveF



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

Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

I've yet to hear a valid reasoning for this relation type. It's much 
more beneficial to add addresses instead.


There appears an increasing tendency to collect almost anything together 
into a relation. See public-transport's 'stop_area' as another example 
This is not why relations were conceived. It just adds duplication, 
confusion & errors.


Personally I would delete associatedStreet.

DaveF

On 01/06/2019 11:10, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Has anyone else come across relations grouping road assets? i.e. the road
itself plus shops, buildings, street objects? e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1866997 Has this format become
accepted elsewhere in the world or is it experimental?

Regards,
   Jez



___
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] road relations

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

You're talking about a different subject, which 'associatedstreets' 
won't resolve.


DaveF

On 01/06/2019 12:06, Colin Smale wrote:

On 2019-06-01 12:34, Gareth L wrote:


I was about to say, relations of this manner seem duplicitous of simply having 
an address.

  Using only the street name to link objects is unreliable. A street can
be divided into multiple segments. Think of a residential side-road with
the same name as the road it branches from. A house on the corner may be
part of (i.e. front gate leads to) the main road, or may be part of the
side road. The location of the front door (entrance=main on building
outline?) is also unreliable. Only the route of the front path would
give you the answer.

C.


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 01/06/2019 12:00, Colin Smale wrote:

Relations are great to represent real-world relations that cannot be
inferred (reliably) from the other data in OSM. Often a geometrical
relation exists, such as a node inside a polygon, but not always.

OSM loves to allow things to be inferred from the data, but there is
usually a way of entering the attributes/relationships explicitly as
well, for the cases where the heuristics fall down.

The wiki says about relations: "Relations are used to model logical (and
usually local) or geographic relationships between objects. They are not
designed to hold loosely associated but widely spread items. It would be
inappropriate, for instance, to use a relation to group 'All footpaths
in East Anglia'.Why don't PT stop_areas fit with this?


As all items have co-ordinates, OSM is geospatially aware; and of course 
any objects with the same value tags are already 'collected together' & 
searchable.


'stop_areas' - Bins are irrelevant to routing from A to B. Do any 
routers use them?


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Snowdonia National Park missing?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I thought how to fix it was explained to you last time:
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=287245

On 18/06/2019 20:23, Brian Prangle wrote:

Hi everyone

Probably a broken a relation. Beyond my skills to investigate and fix. Can
someone suitably equipped please take a look?

Regards

Brian



___
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] TfL Cycling Infrastructure Database

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

This looks very interesting, well worth investigating, but could any 
comments be posted here please -  We get notifications, they're recorded 
& date sorted. I've yet to see a wiki discussion that doesn't become 
incoherent after a dozen posts.

.
DaveF

On 10/05/2019 17:03, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Firstly, exceptionally pleased that TfL see OSM as *the* major people
access cycling data :D

Their data is highly accurate, and there's definitely going to need to be
some clever conflation tooling. Bike stands are fine, but advance stop
lines, etc. are specialist subjects in my book. I'm sightly overawed by the
quantity and am unsure whether volunteers are going to be able to get
through it, but again that is something you'll be talking about in your
report, no? There would need to be some tool development regardless of who
does the conflation.

Also, you could start some discussion in the talk tab of that wiki page if
there's anything that needs thrashing out.

...and now I know what a "Sheffield" bike stand is :)

Regards,
   Jez

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 3:42 PM Martin Lucas-Smith - CycleStreets <
list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net> wrote:



Transport for London (TfL) have created a new database of cycling
infrastructure, containing 240,000 assets, covering all of Greater London.

This groundbreaking database contains every cycle infrastructure asset
within Greater London, including assets on and off-carriageway. The assets
surveyed are: cycle parking; signals; signage; traffic calming measures;
restricted points (e.g. steps); advanced stop lines; crossings; cycle
lanes/tracks; and restricted routes (e.g. pedestrian only routes).

TfL is keen to make this available to the OpenStreetMap community under a
compatible open license, to ensure maximum use of the CID. TfL is also
potentially willing to consider tool development to help facilitate
sensitive merging in of this data.

There is a new Wiki page, giving full details, at:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database


Demonstrator map:
-

A demonstrator map, for the purposes only of evaluation by the OSM
community at this stage, has been created by CycleStreets.

This demonstrator map contains only one of the 25 areas that have been
surveyed.

We are specifically seeking comments on data quality and usefulness of
this
data from the OSM community. Initial analysis by CycleStreets is that the
data is of excellent quality, and very suitable for conflation into OSM,
to
increase both comprehensiveness and metadata quality.

https://tflcid.cyclestreets.net/
(Use the controls on the right to change feature type.)

Usage notes: The controls on the right of the map allow the different
feature types to be selected. The OSM layer (available at zoom level 19+)
also provides a live feed from the OSM API, to enable quick comparisons.
The two photos of each asset are in the process of being supplied; those
already available and cleared in GDPR terms are included in the popup.

It is stressed that at this point, no permission is given for re-use of
the
data in any way, but TfL strongly intends to make this available in
future.
All 25 areas would be covered in the final data release, not merely the
one
shown currently in the demonstrator map.


Feedback is very strongly encouraged, as soon as possible. What are
people's thoughts?


Martin, **  CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists
Developer, CycleStreets **  https://www.cyclestreets.net/


___
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] What is a residential area?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 07/05/2019 12:17, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 07/05/2019 11:34, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
Your OSM example look fine to me - a single property is still where 
people reside. Any other details, such as garden, should be mapped 
individually within that area.


Thanks Dave. But in that case, why in the iD editor when I change 
"Residential Area" to "Garden" does it remove the landuse=residential 
tag?



Specifically for the iD editor: I've no idea. The guy responsible for it 
has some strange tagging schema notions. It's why I don't use it.


But most editors will make decisions that an object can only have one 
'primary' tag. In this instance leisure & landuse don't mix, which is 
why I said they needed to be mapped separately.





Should I be creating a duplicate way as a "Garden" on the same nodes?
if garden extends to the extent of the landuse area, then you can, but 
not it's not essential.


One place you shouldn't attach polygons using the same nodes is to 
'highway' ways. They represent an infinitesimally thin centre line with 
no road width implied. In this instance, residential areas should only 
be mapped to the boundary of the properties.




Or should I leave it as "Residential Area" and add a leisure=garden 
tag? When I do that, the OSM standard map doesn't render the garden.


See above

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Your OSM example look fine to me - a single property is still where 
people reside. Any other details, such as garden, should be mapped 
individually within that area.


The mistake early in OSM's life was to use this tag to indicate a 
village/town/city as a whole, with a blanket polygon covering the whole 
urban area, but now most contributors are detailing it around schools, 
parks etc.


One problem that's still not been fully resolved is areas of dual usage, 
ie residential properties above shops. Personally I lean towards mapping 
the shops clearly as they're more likely to be searched for.


DaveF


On 07/05/2019 11:11, Martin Wynne wrote:
What is a "residential area" in the iD editor? How many dwellings are 
needed in what proximity to become one? Is it a physical plot of land 
on which at least one person lives? Or the usual meaning of a 
village/hamlet/housing estate/suburb where a number of people live?


In my patch there are lots of instances where a single house or an 
isolated pair of cottages along a country road have been mapped as a 
"residential area". Which seems a strange use of words to me.


See for example:

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/611028880

Google streetview:

 https://goo.gl/maps/yk1SNzrmRPpvZL3Y6

Perhaps it's the iD editor at fault? landuse=residential is strictly 
correct, but calling it a "residential area" doesn't accord with most 
folks understanding of the term.


I tend to change them to leisure=garden, access=private. When I do 
that, the iD editor removes the landuse=residential tag. Should it? 
Should I put it back?  I also put a fence or hedge or wall around or 
between them if visible on Bing, add the buildings, and a name if it's 
known to me or shown on OS OpenData.


But is that the correct thing to do? If I do one, am I obliged to do 
all the others nearby? Users of OSM might legitimately wonder why some 
properties and residents are singled out for this treatment, and 
others are not? Should we concentrate on adding detail, or aim for 
uniformity of treatment?


cheers,

Martin.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/112368662



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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 07/05/2019 12:40, Martin Wynne wrote:

Are we trying to create a legal reference document?

Or a description of what a visitor would see on the ground?


From OSM's main welcome page:

"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and 
current"

https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome
/
Real as in physical, current as in still physically there (OSM should 
not be mapping razed buildings or the routes of long gone railways)




If I look at the place I linked, I see a house in a garden and a 
hedge. If you ask most folk what they see, they would say the same.


I don't know anyone who would say "I see a residential area". Or "I 
see a plot of land with planning class C3 or C4".


If the duck test is applied, your first comment prevails. Primarily, map 
what you see on the ground, Any legalese requirements (access 
restrictions etc) can be added as secondary tags.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 07/05/2019 14:38, David Woolley wrote:

On 07/05/2019 13:30, Martin Wynne wrote:
This idea of primary and secondary tags is new to me. There is no 
such distinction in the iD editor -- all applied tags are simply 
listed in alphabetical order.


Things like name, height, and colour are normally considered secondary.


Yes. Think of them as 'adjective' tags



Things like landuse, building and leisure are considered primary.

Generally if you don't have a primary tag, the object won't get 
rendered.  If you have more than one primary tag, it becomes difficult 
for renderer to choose how to interpret the object. However, if there 
is no great conflict, it is sometimes acceptable to combine, primary tags.


Indeed. If it's a polygon object It often comes down to whether it needs 
to be rendered with a fill pattern. For example, a landuse=farmland 
polygon should be able to render with an added barrier=hedge, but as 
soon as the standard rendering, OSM-Carto, finds a primary tag it 
assumes it's the only one & stops looking for alternatives.






Often combining primary tags indicates that you are oversimplifying, 
e.g. it is common to have both shop and building, but that is probably 
wrong, because the shop often doesn't occupy the whole building. 
Similarly a pub may really be the gardens, as well as the building.


If a pub has external land other than the building itself a similar 
schema to 'schools' should be used: draw an enclosing polygon around the 
extent of the grounds & tag it with amenity=pub & any other details such 
as name, address, website etc. All other areas parking, garden etc 
should be mapped with the boundary The actual buildings should only be 
tagged with building=yes/pub.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Is this a footbridge?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

I'm not convinced it's a bridge.
There's no clear evidence of a raised footway. A piece of wood dropped 
in the stream, is probably just a piece of wood dropped in the stream.
I've two similar examples close to me; one wood the other a cast iron 
frame. They're for the user to steady themselves as they take a large 
step across the stream.


I would tag your example as a ford=yes, handrail=yes.

DaveF



On 05/05/2019 13:24, Martin Wynne wrote:

Is this a footbridge? Or maybe a ford? Stepping stones?

There is a solid handrail, but only a small plank of rotten wood, 
about 2ft long by 4 inches wide, dropped in the mud:


 http://85a.uk/plank_bridge.jpg

Thanks,

Martin.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Is this a footbridge?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 05/05/2019 15:52, Martin Wynne wrote:


n.b. the iD editor is now showing this as an error: "Stream crosses 
foot path", even though tagged as a ford.


Got a Link?
If you're mapping linear ways a node at their intersection with ford=yes 
is required.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Is this a footbridge?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Given the small width of the ditch, I wouldn't bother with the separate 
way, but just put the ford & handrail tags on the intersecting node.


The way you've mapped it the ford & handrail are 5 metres in length.


On 05/05/2019 17:19, Martin Wynne wrote:


Got a Link?
If you're mapping linear ways a node at their intersection with 
ford=yes is required.


Thanks Dave. I have now added an intersection node, which has fixed 
the error.


However, it seems a bit odd to have to do that? It means there are now 
2 elements tagged ford=yes, an intersection node, AND a short bit of 
footpath corresponding to the length of the handrail.


Are some renderings now going to show 2 separate ford symbols? The 
standard OSM map was happily showing a ford symbol with only the 
footpath tagged.


Here's the link:

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.29595/-2.60809

cheers,

Martin.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to tag this?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

if it's used for advertising look up that in the wiki.

For the actual structure:
disused:amenity=telephone
covered=booth
booth=K6

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

On 08/05/2019 12:27, Martin Wynne wrote:
How should I tag this? It's a former phone box in use to advertise the 
attractions of the local pub. I don't know if it was done by the pub, 
or by the local community. Possibly it's a community-run pub.


 http://85a.uk/pub_kiosk_600x860.jpg

thanks,

Martin.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 04/07/2019 16:59, Silent Spike wrote:


My understanding is that `public_transport=platform` is any place where
public transport can be accessed


Same as bus_stop/tram_stop, you mean?


and should not literally be interpreted as
a physical platform


then why hi-jack the word 'platform' which has a clear, specific 
meaning? Yet more confusion



If anything `highway=bus_stop` is redundant data,


It's is a well established, popular tag far exceeding any PT tags


however it's necessary
for render compatibility (violating the "don't tag for the renderer rule"


I think your logic got a bit twisted around. bus_stop is the original & 
no PT tag adds anything extra to improve the database.



and (in my opinion) should not impede mapping progress.


Existing tags work, Changing for the sake of change is irrelevant. PTv2 
needs to be rescinded.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Please, please don't use public_transport=platform unless you're 
actually mapping an actual, physical, raised object, similar to railway 
platforms.


'platform' has been misappropriated from the physical railway=platform 
by those who developed the PT schema to mean an arbitrary area of 
pavement that's somewhere, roughly near where a bus stops. In OSM we map 
*physical* objects only.


It has now been regressed one stage further, being superfluously added 
to highway=bus_stop nodes. So much of the PT schema is just duplicating 
valid, existing data which leads to confusion & errors. It is a waste of 
time & effort.


--

if you're adding the bus stop & your source is naptan how can 
naptan:verified=no?


DaveF


On 02/07/2019 11:06, Ed Loach wrote:

David wrote:


Given that few people like maintenance work, if you can't map all
the
stops from first principles, it is very unlikely that imported ones will
get maintained.  Retaining the NaPTAN tagging is important in
allowing
any later remerge of the updated NaPTAN data.

I've been regularly updating local bus route relations (all now upgraded to PT 
schema v2) in Tendring [1], Colchester [1] and Maldon [2] areas of Essex. This 
involves more maintenance than just the bus stops (which for Essex were 
imported some years ago). I've written a program to help me with this, 
comparing the opendata with the OSM data so I can work out what needs updating.

Occasionally I encounter a bus stop used by a bus route which wasn't imported 
previously. In these cases I add the stop from NaPTAN (based on their latitude 
and longitude) and add the tags:
highway=bus_stop
public_transport=platform
source=naptan
naptan:verified=no
name=(NaPTAN name)
naptan:AtcoCode=(whatever)
naptan:NaptanCode=(whatever)

If the bus stop type is not MKD I add

naptan:BusStopType=(bus stop type)

and if the status is not "act" I add

naptan:Status=(status)

This last one is very rare as I think it is only once that I've found a deleted 
bus stop still part of a bus route (the road had been diverted and new stops 
installed - the old stop was on what is now a cycle path).
  

Another problem with NaPTAN stops, which applies to non-OSM
users as
well is that they have virtual stops in Hail and Ride areas.  Routers
seem to only like people boarding at those place, so, in my case, can
take me about 7 minutes out of my way against the direction of
travel,
so tell me I have missed a bus that could be easily caught.

I'll agree with this. I've been adding them at the NaPTAN location as described 
above if they aren't already in, but these are occasionally up cul-de-sacs 
(usually at the start or end of the route).

Ed

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tendring(Essex)/Bus_Routes
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maldon(Essex_District)/Bus_Routes



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 04/07/2019 16:39, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 04/07/2019 16:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:


In OSM we map *physical* objects only.


In rural areas there are many places where buses are timetabled to 
stop but where there is nothing physical -- no signpost or shelter.


These are still 'physical' in the sense that they exist in the timetable 
& Naptan documents. (Think also boundaries which don't have dashed lines 
painted across fields)




Are these highway=bus_stop in OSM?


As a guesstimate, if they came from the naptan import, then probably yes



The wiki for highway says "Can be mapped more rigorously using 
public_transport=stop_position for the position where the vehicle 
stops and public_transport=platform for the place where passengers wait.


It's disappointing to see, once again, the PT schema developers 
hi-jacking wiki pages to enforce their schema. The comments column is 
meant to describe how to use the tag not promote alternatives. This 
needs changing.



"public_transport=stop_position for the position where the vehicle stops"
But that's not happening, is it? it's being wastefully duplicated on the 
highway=bus_stop which is most often at the pole/sign location, not on 
the highway.


highway=bus_stop is perfectly adequate to locate the place where people 
wait for a bus. 'platform' is redundant


PTv2 is a complete mess. it needs rescinding.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

In OSM we map *physical* objects only.

What about border - especially
lower administrative units and
nature reserves?


From a previous post:
These are still 'physical' in the sense that they exist in the timetable 
& Naptan documents. (Think also boundaries which don't have dashed lines 
painted across fields)


DaveF

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

[Talk-GB] Shops replaced with those tagged in Google maps?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/69064630#map=16/51.3132/-0.3029

A user has removed what looks like valid data including shops & replaced 
with those listed in Google Maps


https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3167258,-0.304743,149m/data=!3m1!1e3

Anyone local to Epsom that can take a look & confirm?

A few of his other changesets (railway) might required a second look as 
well.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Trig Point references

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 12/07/2019 21:19, Philip Barnes wrote:

Hi Brian
Each pillar has a plate with an OS reassigned reference, which is easily  on 
the ground verifiable. I believe that we should be using that rather than those 
randomly assigned by a 3rd party site of unknown origin.


Hmm... Good job no one did 'randomly assigned' on PROWs 

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

If I have the patience, I split them:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.40349/-2.44502

The PROW ref should go over the stile's way even if the gate is always 
open - it's up the walker to decide which to use (even if the choice is 
obvious)


DaveF

On 22/04/2019 13:43, Martin Wynne wrote:

Often in my travels I come across something like this:

 http://85a.uk/stile_gate2_1280x720.jpg

 http://85a.uk/stile_gate_1280x720.jpg

Should this be mapped as a stile or a gate? Or both side by side?

If the latter, which node should the way be connected to?

It's a public right of way on foot, and walkers need to know that they 
must climb a stile if the gate is locked. But if you "map what you see 
on the ground" (which is the supposed golden rule), it is simply a 
track passing through a gate.


If I split the way in two, and have a short section of footpath 
passing over a stile *and* a track passing through a gate, it looks 
daft on the map, as if there is a Clapham Junction in the middle of a 
grassy field.


And if I do that, is it essential to split out the short bit of the 
track through the gate, from which the public right-of-way designation 
(and ref number) is removed?


thanks,

Martin.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 22/04/2019 15:34, Roger Calvert wrote:
The Lake District National Park instructions to footpath surveyors 
recommends:


"Where there are two items of furniture for the same crossing (for 
example, a gate and a stile alongside each other), then it is the one 
highest up the hierarchy .. or the one definitely on the definitive 
line, that is the most important."


The gate is higher in their hierarchy than the stile, and thus would 
normally be considered to be the one on the PROW where there is doubt 
about the definitive line.


Roger



But that would mean, if the landowner wished to close or remove the 
gate, there would be no official PROW access.


Could you clarify who these footpath surveyors are?
Do you have a link to this statement?

DaveF

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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

Bullet point replies:

 * Under the PROW section why are the 'yes' values not 'designated'?
 * byway_open_to_all_traffic - Why is motor vehicle 'private/no'?
 * Clarify which tags are optional (ie horse for Footpaths)
 * Designated ways aren't limited to
   footway/bridleway/cycleway/track/path/service/steps. Many are on
   residential roads & above
 * Access rights unknown - Can NT inform OSM of the rights?
 * The use of 'discouraged' should be discouraged. It's far too subjective.

Plus Frederik's first two paragraphs.

What data is NT providing to aid the additions of these paths? Boundary 
& water features would be useful.


I note on this page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Byways

The legalese 'vehicle' tag is incorrectly suggested to indicate the 
subjective ability:


"some byways may deteriorate and become no longer passable by any 
vehicle. If this is the case consider using vehicle=no"


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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:
This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at 
least for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it distracts 
drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide the 
information instead.


What evidence have you of this "trend"?
If anything, I believe resistance to sat-navs is on the increase, given 
the number of news stories of juggernauts stuck down country lanes.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding buildings and addresses

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Could you clarify/give an example of what you mean by 'Community Maps''?

DaveF

On 16/09/2019 00:02, Luciën Greefkes via Talk-GB wrote:

Hello everyone,
I'm currently working on mapping the neighbourhoods of Welwyn Garden City.
For that I'd like to use an accurate resource, also not to miss out of any 
(parts of) buildings.The standard aerial imagery provided in JOSM is in parts 
not good to work with, too many shadows which make it literally impossible to 
see contours of buildings.
The open data of Ordnance Survey is, as has been pointed out on the forums, too 
global to work with.
On the other hand, there are the Community Maps. They contain very decent 
shapes/contours of buildings. I would like to work with a layer like that to be 
able to compare with aerial imagery.The community map of Welwyn Hatfield gives 
Ordnance Survey as the source. I have sent a request to OS if they'd be willing 
to share the data used for the community maps, because that will be a massive 
aid in my current mapping project.
Has anyone had any experience with this, and what OS's stance on this is?
Cheers,
Luciën aka Lachgast



___
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] Amazon Logistics edits

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Construction areas aren't inaccessible. They have constant traffic of 
deliveries.

Please provide a link.

DaveF

On 29/07/2019 11:21, ael wrote:

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 09:42:27AM +0100, Dan S wrote:

"stinks of armchair mapping" - that sounds rather derogatory. My
understanding is that these are organised edits informed in
significant part by Amazon's own GPS logs from their delivery staff.

In the case that I mentioned, it was certainly not from their own GPS
logs. The construction area was inaccesible, even on a bicycle. It
was definitely armchair mapping.

ael


___
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] Amazon Logistics edits

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Andy

There is nothing wrong with adding just highway=service.

If you know that the OSM database can be improved by adding additional 
tags, then do so. (Although I note you're not too sure, yourself)


As I understand it Amazon have gpx traces from their delivery vehicles 
along roads which the general public have little or no access to. Their 
mappers having been adding good detail


Of course, they make mistakes; who doesn't. If you spot any please 
rectify or contact the mapper. I've had good feedback from them.


From the evidence I've no "concerns".

DaveF

On 29/07/2019 09:35, Andy Robinson wrote:

I've just looked at a number of Amazon Logistics in my local area. A lot of
service roads are getting added which on face value look perhaps to be
driveways but that tag hasn't been added. Just stinks of armchair mapping.
The users (three I spotted off the bat) all have the following   "I work for
Amazon Logistics. At Amazon Logistics, we've been utilizing OSM in some
cases related to our delivery programs. In connection with those delivery
programs, we have collected information that we think is valuable to the OSM
community such as names and info about new roads that are not currently in
the map today, new data on turn restrictions, and road connectivity, to name
a few. When we hear feedback, we've been editing to provide that information
for the benefit of the entire OSM user community. If you have more
questions, please contact osm-edit-escalati...@amazon.com" in their username
profiles but there is no link to what's really going on and what the basis
of the edits are.

Anyone else have concerns over benefits?

Cheers
Andy


___
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] Amazon Logistics edits

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I'm aware how construction sites work.

Trades will occasionally have small items delivered, especially if 
specialized or in an emergency.  A foreman I know had his kid's 
Christmas present sent to site to keep the surprise.


Please provide an OSM link to the site.

DaveF

On 29/07/2019 12:25, ael via Talk-GB wrote:

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 11:39:11AM +0100, Dave F wrote:

Construction areas aren't inaccessible. They have constant traffic of
deliveries.

This construction area is inaccesible for anything but large specialist
vehicles with all-terrain tyres. The construction workers are all
instructed to ask visitors to leave. There are locked gates, only
unlocked for construction vehicles to get through. It is a Health and
Safety issue, I suspect, and probably required by their insurance
company.  No doubt there are deliveries to the peripheral areas, but
that is nearly always by specialist building supplies companies with
suitable vehicles. I spoke informally in context, so it seems a bit
picky to question this. The particular roads that they marked
(residential, as I recall) were at that time bare ground tracks, fenced
off and were being used for access to other parts by the construction
vehicles.  Those details could not be seen on the satelite imagery which
happened to have very recent updates in this area.  Later they will
presumably be surfaced and become proper roads: the developers gave me a
copy of their plans.  As I recall, they are now tagged corrected as
construction roads.  As far as I am concerned, I don't think an access
tag on construction roads makes sense in any normal situation.
Construction implies that the access will vary over time.


Please provide a link.

The link is my personal knowledge and my regular visits on bicycle with
gps. I occasionally do enter such areas to get a gps trace in advance of
the completion of the roads, but only with great care and caution, and
always leave if and when asked to do so. Sometimes site-managers give me
permission to collect a trace when I explain what I am doing.

Are you telling me that Amazon have driven a large non-construction
vehicle on these unfinished roads with locked gates and construction
workers around in working hours?

ael


___
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] Amazon Logistics edits

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

It would be good if they could add address data. Probably not postcodes 
- I assume they're a customer of Royal Mail's PAF, but house numbers & 
names.


DaveF

On 29/07/2019 13:32, Gregory Marler wrote:

I've exchanged a number of messages with the Amazon mappers and their team
lead Jothirnadh. First of all, if anything isn't quite right then I would
encourage the person who spots it to...
a) contact the editor about it (or better if you post a comment on the
changeset)
b) add tags yourself to further clarify the way (OSM is a wiki).
c) a combination of the above.

Amazon are using OpenStreetMap (great) and they are putting in some work to
improve it (great).
They've been a bit behind on widely communicating with the community, but
they are slowly getting better. They're also working in a number of
countries, where similar concerns are coming up, and they're replying in
similar ways. They are keen to learn and do better.

Communication certainly helps people get better. Most (all?) of us have had
something we've learnt from other mappers. Often we don't know a tag is
used, or we don't know the map data is used in a certain way.

Amazon obviously have their specific interests in mapping, but so do all of
us. You're unlikely to see me adding tags for voltage of an electricity
line, but you may see me add the pylon.


Happy mapping everyone,
Gregory.



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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi Neil.

I contacted SG recently regarding as updated dataset under OGL v3. A 
Nicola Chidley from SG said I should use their set on rowmaps. An IT 
officer also said they were given OS copyright exemption in 2016.


As it's designated paths being added other tags as well as highway 
should be added as appropriate

foot/bicycle/horse=designated
designation=public_footpath/public_bridleway/restricted_byway/byway_open_to_all_traffic
prow_ref=* (This should be as given by the Local Authority & not some 
made up concoction which is useful to none.)

surface=*

If the contributor's adding a an unwalked path, a fixme=survey required 
tag would be useful.


I will try to obtain a more up to date version than 2013, but I won't 
hold my breath


DaveF


On 08/08/2019 23:05, Neil Matthews wrote:

In light of some recent edits in South Gloucestershire -- is it ok to
import unsurveyed footpaths based simply on rowmaps data?

Thanks,
Neil

___
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] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Public_Rights_of_Way_Data_from_local_councils
. While there's nothing listed there, it's definitely not ok to use
the data in OSM.


Rubbish.

Just because one person isn't aware of a fact, it doesn't make it untrue.
No one person has authority over other OSM contributors.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Re: shop=vacant. This is a popular alternative tag, but removes the 
previous usage from the latest version. I found knowing this helpful 
when a new shop replaces it - "There's a new café opening in what used 
to be the flower shop"

How is the name tag dealt with if disused: isn't used?

Tony.
If the shops are closed tagging them as such improves the quality of the 
database. If they are bought out lock, stock & barrel a mass swap over 
edit can be easily executed.


Cheers
Davef

On 24/09/2019 14:20, Tony OSM wrote:
I think this is all premature. The shops still have the branding, they 
could be taken over by a new company operating as Thomas Cook. I Think 
that nothing should be done until there is greater clarity.


Tony Shield

TonyS999

On 24/09/2019 14:10, Tadeusz Cantwell wrote:
Thanks, I have used once shop=vacant before, now that you mention it. 
Will read up on the wiki to see the different intended uses for them. 
The old_name is an interesting option.


On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 14:00, Jez Nicholson > wrote:


    I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself

    You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe

    On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell, mailto:t4d...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    I changed the three shops in N.I to disused;shop=travel-agent
    since I wasn't sure what the best practice was in this case.
    Not all of them had the wiki links etc. Any advice on a better
    way?

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


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




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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Something has happened. The company went into liquidation (not 
administration under which, I believe, they could still operate) & the 
shops have closed.


If your local chippy closed would you leave it mapped as still open for 
business?


On 24/09/2019 14:47, Chris Hill wrote:
Thomas Cook shops are not vacant. They may not be open to the public 
today, but they may well be reopened by a new owner in the future and 
that may even be under the Thomas Cook brand if the administrator 
sells some or all of them to another company. In the mean time they 
are still branded and still a landmark of sorts.


If a shop is emptied or reused by another firm then change that one 
otherwise I think we should wait for a while to see what happens.


cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 24/09/2019 14:00, Jez Nicholson wrote:

I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself

You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell, > wrote:


    I changed the three shops in N.I to disused;shop=travel-agent
    since I wasn't sure what the best practice was in this case. Not
    all of them had the wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?






___
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] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

My OP should indicate I'm aware of variants.
There's the head office, which I believe is still functioning as a part 
of Matterhorn, a bus stop & a statue


DaveF

On 24/09/2019 15:44, Frederik Ramm wrote:


Just don't take the lawnmower over the database and assume that
everything that is called Thomas Cook is now closed without even looking ;)





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

Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published - schema mapping

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Bike riders may like to read about  the latest mess concerning cycle lanes:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/underhand-law-change-undermines-mandatory-cycle-lanes?fbclid=IwAR1oqOMvD9XjMFrLwKAr65Jw-8ifm0qXSNshRe7yhbKiZ2h7-sVlxsXLbyU

DaveF

On 22/09/2019 15:45, Mike Baggaley wrote:

I would prefer not to see cycleway:lane=mandatory as this suggests that 
cyclists have to use the lane when set. In the UK, the significance of the 
solid white line separating a cycle lane and main carriageway is that motor 
vehicles are not allowed to use the cycle lane, but cyclists can use either the 
cycle lane or main carriageway. I would only want to see mandatory used if 
there is also a separate sign prohibiting cyclists from the road (and I am not 
sure whether any of these exist). I suggest cycleway:lane={exclusive|advisory} 
which are existing tags according to the wiki. Note that UK cycle lanes can 
also be used by pedestrians, so are not strictly exclusive to cyclists.

Cheers,
Mike

• Mandatory/Advisory Cycle Lane: OSM has no differentiation between
mandatory (solid white line) and advisory (dashed white line) lane,
probably because this distinction is rare elsewhere in the world. A new tag
cycleway:lane={mandatory|advisory} is proposed as a backwards-compatible
addition that elaborates on cycleway=lane. This would be useful for routing
engines, who could infer a level of commitment to cyclists at each such
location.
https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#clt_mandat



___
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] Import UK postcode data?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

FYI in JOSM (latest) https wont generate a TMS URL. I had to change the 
pasted URL to http & then back again. then it generated & 'ungreyed' the 
Okay button. Is this expected behaviour?


On 02/10/2019 15:37, Chris Hill wrote:

Thanks,

I've just updated with August 2019 data, the next update is due in 
November I think.




___
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] Import UK postcode data?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I think this is a Win/JOSM problem - After pasting the URL If I move the 
cursor using the arrow keys the TMS URL is created.


Thanks
DaveF

On 02/10/2019 17:19, Chris Hill wrote:
Thanks for reporting a problem - I'll always try to respond if I can. 
The installation process has changed in the past but it looks familiar 
now.


I've just tested the installation instructions on JOSM version 15390 
and it worked as expected. The Okay button enabled when the URL (with 
https) and a name for the layer are both input, a max zoom can be 
added too.


I tried this on Mac OS and Linux and both worked. I don't have an easy 
access to Windows, but Java stuff should be cross platform I think.


You can use HTTP or HTTPS for the overlay as both are provided, I just 
think it's better to use HTTPS whenever possible.





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 29/09/2019 14:30, David Woolley wrote:


I think too much effort goes into these big changes.


The actual change is dead easy in JOSM. It's all this faffing about 
having to discuss it that takes up all the time.
As I said in another thread this increasing reluctance to 
removing/updating data while allowing _anyone_ to add data is 
detrimental to the OSM database. Take the new quarterly project as an 
example - anonymous users are allowed to add notes, but are unable to 
delete.


The real problem with business directory mapping on OSM is that people 
like doing the first time mapping of shops on a high street but no one 
likes maintaining them.


This thread is *specifically* about maintaining.

The number of shops that are wrong because of churn or small 
businesses, or individual closures of chain shops is probably orders 
of magnitude more than the ones that get lots of publicity.


Preventing the mass (hardly "mass" though) edit of Thomas Cook & instead 
relying on individuals to update *will* guarantee more shops will be 
"wrong".


The benefit of a one changeset edit is that it would be extremely easy 
to update if there's an (unlikely) change in the firms fortunes.




I doubt that many people are going to get misled by a Thomas Cook or 
Maplins store that remains mapped, but many may be misled by the loss 
of a specialist store that didn't make the national press.


Unsure what you mean by "misled", but surely if any shop that's 
incorrectly tagged will inconvenience someone if they use OSM to plan 
their visit?


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 29/09/2019 14:03, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Re: my comment about shop=vacant. I may have been convinced to use
disused:shop=travel_agent + name=Thomas Cook.


* travel_agency


  Not sure whether a vacant
shop with no ghost signage would still be a shop=vacant or a
disused:shop=yes.
As those two tags have the same meaning, whether there's still a name 
tag make no difference. (Although as I said, I prefer disused:shop).



I'm not keen on bulk automated closing everything called Thomas Cook
because the world is more complicated than it first seems to be. I favour
visual confirmation.


I consider multiple national/regional media reports of liquidation & 
mass redundancy as visual



Is there a case for automated addition of OSM Notes or Fixmes to
stores/locations to ask people to check?

My OP asked people to check. No ones come back.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding buildings and addresses

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Sorry, I completely missed your reply.

The only OS layer, OS Streetview, which OSM can used is included as a 
baselayer in the main editors, but isn't being updated.


MasterMap isn't an OpenLayer.

OS's 'stance' will be "No."

On 19/09/2019 08:11, Jez Nicholson wrote:

http://maps.welhat.gov.uk/GIS/CMFindIt/ using the "Innogistic Community
Map". I'm having trouble finding a product page. Innogistic were bought by
Civica, a UK public-services focussed company, in 2011 and renamed it
Civica GIS.

It uses OS mapping with detailed property outlines (that's MasterMap, no?)

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 12:43 AM Dave F via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:


Could you clarify/give an example of what you mean by 'Community Maps''?

DaveF

On 16/09/2019 00:02, Luciën Greefkes via Talk-GB wrote:

Hello everyone,
I'm currently working on mapping the neighbourhoods of Welwyn Garden City.
For that I'd like to use an accurate resource, also not to miss out of any 
(parts of) buildings.The standard aerial imagery provided in JOSM is in parts 
not good to work with, too many shadows which make it literally impossible to 
see contours of buildings.
The open data of Ordnance Survey is, as has been pointed out on the forums, too 
global to work with.
On the other hand, there are the Community Maps. They contain very decent 
shapes/contours of buildings. I would like to work with a layer like that to be 
able to compare with aerial imagery.The community map of Welwyn Hatfield gives 
Ordnance Survey as the source. I have sent a request to OS if they'd be willing 
to share the data used for the community maps, because that will be a massive 
aid in my current mapping project.
Has anyone had any experience with this, and what OS's stance on this is?
Cheers,
Luciën aka Lachgast




___
Talk-GB mailing 
listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] FIXME/fixme/OSm Notes Quarterly Project

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=2580522=true&_noCache=on

Click on 'Analysis on map'

All bits with a marker need looking at, plus roundabouts require 
splitting as the bus doesn't go all the way around.


This one looks like a right mess given the loop with the bus stop is one 
way.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2580522#map=19/52.58839/-0.21216

DaveF

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=N

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

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 21:18, Rob Nickerson 
wrote:


So far I have looked at two regions in the UK for fixmes: Warwickshire and
the North West.

In Warwickshire it can be difficult to resolve the fixmes as most (but not
all) require a lot of work. I found a completely different story in the
North West. I found a good number of fixmes there which had already been
resolved and therefore all I had to do was remove the redundant fixme=*
tag. I also found a lot of fixme tags that could be resolved just by using
the latest aerial imagery and/or GPS traces. Once again it has been a
reminder of the differences between places within a few hours of each other.

As for adding new fixme tags, I personally haven't needed to do this yet.
I am curious as to where "peak fixme" lies. If we had 10% more contributors
would we end up with 10% more fixme tags or do you eventually get to a a
point where you turn the corner and start ticking off all these quality
assurance issues?

P.S. The number of Notes is on the up again as well. There are a lot of
good descriptions in the Notes that can be used to update the map. Check
them out at
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=United%20Kingdom

Best regards,
*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


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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

As long as all sections have junction=roundabout it will work fine, if 
those creating routers are worth their salt. OSM is geospatially aware. 
Any router should be know it's in the UK & drive on the left & go 
clockwise around a roundabout.


DaveF

On 06/11/2019 07:40, Edward Bainton wrote:

Thanks both

@Andy - you're right it certainly doesn't!
As the hospital access road (running ENE-WSW) is merely wide with islands
rather than formally a dual carriageway, should it be shown as two ways
like that?

@Dave F   When you say roundabouts need
splitting, will they still get interpreted as roundabouts by routers, ie,
inferring the direction without a oneway tag, or do I tag the roundabout
segments as one-way in a circle? (or something else!)

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 00:54, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:



http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=2580522=true&_noCache=on

Click on 'Analysis on map'

All bits with a marker need looking at, plus roundabouts require splitting
as the bus doesn't go all the way around.

This one looks like a right mess given the loop with the bus stop is one
way.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2580522#map=19/52.58839/-0.21216

DaveF

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

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

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 21:18, Rob Nickerson  

wrote:


So far I have looked at two regions in the UK for fixmes: Warwickshire and
the North West.

In Warwickshire it can be difficult to resolve the fixmes as most (but not
all) require a lot of work. I found a completely different story in the
North West. I found a good number of fixmes there which had already been
resolved and therefore all I had to do was remove the redundant fixme=*
tag. I also found a lot of fixme tags that could be resolved just by using
the latest aerial imagery and/or GPS traces. Once again it has been a
reminder of the differences between places within a few hours of each other.

As for adding new fixme tags, I personally haven't needed to do this yet.
I am curious as to where "peak fixme" lies. If we had 10% more contributors
would we end up with 10% more fixme tags or do you eventually get to a a
point where you turn the corner and start ticking off all these quality
assurance issues?

P.S. The number of Notes is on the up again as well. There are a lot of
good descriptions in the Notes that can be used to update the map. Check
them out athttp://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country?c=United%20Kingdom

Best regards,
*Rob*
___
Talk-GB mailing 
listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing 
listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Name Suggestion Index

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 06/11/2019 14:22, SK53 wrote:

Personally I'd prefer retaining confectionery & perhaps using some kind of
sub-tag for the chocolate bit: although chocolate only/dominated shops are
much commoner than some other kinds of sweet shop.


Yes.
shop=confectionery
confectionery= chocolate/fudge etc

DaveF

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

[Talk-GB] OSM-UK misunderstands the British Isles

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

Someone involved with OSM-UK may wish to check the definition of The 
British Isles:

https://www.britannica.com/place/British-Isles

They may also wish to have a read of this:
https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/cabinet-office/external-relations/constitution/


What is the size of OSM-UK's membership?


Cheers
DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM-UK misunderstands the British Isles

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Here's OSM-UK's page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#Guidelines

On 13/11/2019 15:08, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Hi

Someone involved with OSM-UK may wish to check the definition of The 
British Isles:

https://www.britannica.com/place/British-Isles

They may also wish to have a read of this:
https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/cabinet-office/external-relations/constitution/ 




What is the size of OSM-UK's membership?


Cheers
DaveF


___
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] OSM-UK misunderstands the British Isles

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 13/11/2019 15:42, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Hi Dave,

There was a long and detailed discussion about where is covered by OSMUK.

Hi
Where/when was this discussion held?

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 14/12/2019 15:19, Martin Wynne wrote:


Is this "farmland"?

 http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg


I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.

I concur with your frustration about 'huge multi polygons', especially 
when joined to other features such as roads & rivers. I believe a few 
mappers were keen to fill in the gaps rather than map accurately. 
Personally I think there should be one polygon per field, but I admit 
that makes for a lot more work.


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 14/12/2019 16:08, Martin Wynne wrote:

I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.


Thanks Dave.

But in that case, how on OSM do we differentiate between the two?


I would have said farmland=arable/livestock, but it doesn't appear to be 
that popular.Have you searched the wiki or 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=livestock#values ?




It seems silly that in some areas of OSM we can go into ridiculous 
detail, such as whether a bench seat has a backrest, but vast tracts 
of land which visually look very different are classed as one and the 
same?


You can map in as much detail as you like. northing's really stopping 
you. Others haven't, I'd suggest, because it's 'over there' - Cities, 
where most benches are, are also where the most mappers are. People will 
almost always map what's on their doorstep as a priority.


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Reference numbers for UK admin areas?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Try this:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Nor

area(3601608485); // Sutton
//node[amenity=grit_bin]
nwr[building](area);
out meta center;

As you want a specific area, the way I do it is to get the relation 
boundary's id (from the link you gave in the forum)   & add it to 
36 (which is the start of the databases numbering for relations 
so they don't overlap with ways & nodes).


DaveF

On 23/10/2019 16:32, Edward Bainton wrote:

This is Sutton the parish within the City of Peterborough unitary authority
(there is another in Beds and another in Norfolk).

OP here: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67698

The challenge was to get Overpass to return grit bins in *this *Sutton, and
not in all places called Sutton.

The context (not in OP) was a query from someone who works with parish
councils asking whether OSM is a feasible GIS for their asset management -
because (1) parish councils are third parties to the Public Sector Mapping
Agreement and (2) they have just had a lot of  assets (or should that be
liabilities?) devolved to them from higher tiers of government.

Edward

On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 16:25, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:


Which Sutton?

Could you post the OP?

DaveF





On 23/10/2019 15:49, Edward Bainton wrote:

Hi all
On the forum marczoutendijk gave me an Overpass query to find grit-bins in
Sutton.

He added an admin-level to distinguish the parish of Sutton from the London
borough.

The only issue is, there are at least three Suttons at admin_level=10 (as
it happens, not far from each other).

They have ref numbers thus: ref:gss=E04001120 (for example)

Does anyone know what these are? There is a webpage in the wiki here, but I
can't make sense of it.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q2647

Thanks,

Edward




___
Talk-GB mailing 
listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Reference numbers for UK admin areas?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Which Sutton?

Could you post the OP?

DaveF





On 23/10/2019 15:49, Edward Bainton wrote:

Hi all
On the forum marczoutendijk gave me an Overpass query to find grit-bins in
Sutton.

He added an admin-level to distinguish the parish of Sutton from the London
borough.

The only issue is, there are at least three Suttons at admin_level=10 (as
it happens, not far from each other).

They have ref numbers thus: ref:gss=E04001120 (for example)

Does anyone know what these are? There is a webpage in the wiki here, but I
can't make sense of it.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q2647

Thanks,

Edward



___
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] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 25/10/2019 12:04, Andy Townsend wrote:

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*.


crossing=marked as a solo sub-tag should also be verified

* 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.


I've found that not only location, but editor can affect the quality of 
aerial imagery. I find it frustrating Bing is displayed at the same high 
zoom levels as others in Potlatch.


General:
I've updated crossing=zebra to crossing=uncontrolled where 
crossing_ref=zebra exists (OP+JOSM, 220 objects). I used uncontrolled as 
it's much more popular than 'marked'


DaveF



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 26/11/2019 12:01, Tony OSM wrote:

 to the preferred prow_ref format  Adlington FP 5.


As previous, this is not the preferred format. The format should be as 
supplied by the LA, the organisation which has the *authority* to name 
PROWs.
Creating a reference unique to OSM doesn't improve the database's 
quality. The whole point of references (for anything) is that they are 
communicable between all other parties. This 'preferred format' creates 
an echo chamber within OSM where only a few within OSM comprehend its 
meaning.


This 'preferred format' is the equivalent of renaming all UK road 
references (M1, A40 etc) to something like 'Oxford AR 40/5' which, of 
course, no one would suggest doing as it's a really silly idea.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Because shop=* indicates it is still open for business.
disused:shop=* indicates it not being used for it's previous purpose.

On 25/09/2019 13:24, Andy Mabbett wrote:


"Closed for business" does not equate to "vacant".

Why not some thing like

opening_hours = none




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Sustrans & OSM

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I've had the occasional limited discussions on social media. Arguments 
against using OSM fall into


1. Claim of no cost to use OS data as it's via local authority 
licensing. Unsure if it's all LAs
2. They "wanted to use mapping that had 100% reliable data for the users 
benefit."
3. Mild resentment at being informed they may not be using the best 
solution.


Can you check if they have a sponsorship agreement with OS?

DaveF

On 09/10/2019 17:31, Edward Bainton wrote:

Hi all

I'm meeting the local Sustrans office next week as they've asked me to
compile a 'map' of the NCN mileposts in my area (I think they really mean
an inventory with locator maps).

Obviously I'll be using OSM, and trying to get them to see the benefits of
doing the same. OSM seems to be largely unknown in the local office.

1. Does anyone know *any history of engaging with Sustrans*, to inform my
lobbying?
There's mention on the wiki

of
them making milepost locations available for mapping - but that's a long
time ago now.

2. Here's a sample page

of what they sent me as a precedent.
*Any suggestions for how to leverage OSM's capabilities to improve it?*
I ask as a non-techie. My own thoughts: put it online & wikify; 'live'
locator maps updating as OSM changes; filterable by NCN route.

Thanks as ever

Edward / eteb3



___
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] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 10/10/2019 00:11, Warin wrote:

On 09/10/19 21:21, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 09/10/2019 11:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed.


"Sunderland-based Hays said it planned to reopen all the shops under 
its own brand with immediate effect."


"planed' "are to be" "talks with individual landlords" 'rebranded"

That looks to me to take time ... so not immediate. And it may not be 
all shops.

Certainly the name will be different.


The cynic on my shoulder is whispering that it sounds too good to be 
true. I'm wondering how tightly bound into TC's other business ventures 
their retail outlets are.


And as has been stated the state of all shops is currently closed.
A USP of OSM is how quickly we can, or at least, should, be able to 
react to these sorts of changes, but as I said previously, there's a lot 
of faffing.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Sustrans & OSM

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

(Could you please ensure replies are sent to the forum. Thanks)

Roughly upto around 3-4 years ago, which is why I'm uncertain if a 
sponsorship arrangement is in place.


DaveF

On 10/10/2019 07:41, Edward Bainton wrote:

Thanks for that.

I will ask re any formal sponsorship etc

May I ask how long ago it is that you were in discussion with them?
On 10 Oct 2019 00:26, "Dave F via Talk-GB" 
wrote:


I've had the occasional limited discussions on social media. Arguments
against using OSM fall into

1. Claim of no cost to use OS data as it's via local authority licensing.
Unsure if it's all LAs
2. They "wanted to use mapping that had 100% reliable data for the users
benefit."
3. Mild resentment at being informed they may not be using the best
solution.

Can you check if they have a sponsorship agreement with OS?

DaveF

On 09/10/2019 17:31, Edward Bainton wrote:

Hi all

I'm meeting the local Sustrans office next week as they've asked me to
compile a 'map' of the NCN mileposts in my area (I think they really mean
an inventory with locator maps).

Obviously I'll be using OSM, and trying to get them to see the benefits of
doing the same. OSM seems to be largely unknown in the local office.

1. Does anyone know *any history of engaging with Sustrans*, to inform my
lobbying?
There's mention on the 
wiki<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_Cycle_Network#Tagging_information>
 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_Cycle_Network#Tagging_information>
of
them making milepost locations available for mapping - but that's a long
time ago now.

2. Here's a sample 
page<https://www.dropbox.com/s/c3d686qnu77t0mz/Millennium%20milepost%20Compilation.doc.pdf?dl=0>
 
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/c3d686qnu77t0mz/Millennium%20milepost%20Compilation.doc.pdf?dl=0>
of what they sent me as a precedent.
*Any suggestions for how to leverage OSM's capabilities to improve it?*
I ask as a non-techie. My own thoughts: put it online & wikify; 'live'
locator maps updating as OSM changes; filterable by NCN route.

Thanks as ever

Edward / eteb3




___
Talk-GB mailing 
listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] accurate GPS

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 09/10/2019 23:12, Warin wrote:


I'd think to get that level of accuracy you 'd need readings over some 
considerable time... days?


Otherwise you get bias from, as you hint, the atmospheric conditions, 
the satellites in view - their bias, angles ..

Unless you have access to correction data, say from a local fixed GPS.



Indeed.
For Simon to assume he got a single 2cm "accuracy" let alone 
consistently is naive. To believe it usurped OS's reading is silly.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed.

On 09/10/2019 11:00, Martin Wynne wrote:

The advantage of turning them all to disused: is that they are done.

The disadvantage is that there is no local confirmation. However .. I 
think most will agree that even without a local survey .. the shop is 
closed.


Not so fast -- see:

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49985369

Martin.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

2cm? I'm intrigued, what model are you using?
What were the atmospheric conditions on the day you took your reading?

DaveF

On 09/10/2019 11:05, Simon Ritchie wrote:

I've been working with some GPS equipment that claims to be accurate to
2cm.  To test it, I've been visiting local OS trig points, taking position
measurements and checking if they are correct.

Unfortunately I've discovered that the data I'm getting from the OS is not
nearly as accurate as my equipment claims to be, which is wrecking my
testing.

We tend to assume (well, I do anyway) that OS trig points are very accurate
position markers, but compared with modern equipment, that's no longer so.
I thought people might be interested in knowing how accurate they are.

A related issue is this:  GPS devices don't work in terms of OS map
references.  If your tracker device gives you a position in that form, it's
done a conversion.  How accurate is that?

The GPS device in a typical tracker is accurate to maybe three metres, so
the position you see on the screen will always be a bit wrong.  If you get
it to display your position in OS map reference form, it will need to do a
conversion, which introduces an extra error, so the result will be even
more wrong.  Not good if you are trying to produce an accurate map.

The OS published a spreadsheet giving the positions of their trig points in
OS map references.  This is available from them as a spreadsheet and Ian
Harris has used that data to create the web site:http://trigpointing.uk

The OS also offer a web page that can convert this to other forms including
Cartesian, which is one of the forms that my GPS device gives me:
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/gps/transformation/

To test my equipment, I take the OS map ref of a trig point, convert it to
Cartesian form,  visit the trig point, get the position in Cartesian form
from my device and compare the two.

The results are typically out by at least half a metre.  Is my equipment
faulty, or is the OS data wrong.  How accurate is the published position of
the trig point and, when I use the OS web page to convert that to Cartesian
form, how accurate is thatt?

This OS document was very enlightening:
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/legacy/docs/gps/updated-transformations-uk-ireland-geoid-model.pdf
It explains how the Cartesian coordinates work, which is useful.  It
reminds me that OS maps pretend that the Earth is flat, which introduces an
error, but that's tiny, and for my purposes itcan be ignored.  It explains
how accurate you can expect the published measurements of trig point
positions to be - they can be out by as much as 60 cm!  In general, the
document stresses that there is no sure-fire way to convert a position from
one system to another.  The result will always be inaccurate.

So now I know that the published positions of the trig points are a bit
wrong, but how accurate is the conversion from OS map ref to Cartesian form?

OS map references plus height above sea level and Cartesian coordinates
both specify a position using a 3D coordinate system.  The origin and the
direction of the axes are different in each system so you can't compare thm
directly.  However, the distances between two points should be the same
regardless of which system you use.  If you have two points in the same
coordinate system (a1,b1,c1) and (a2,b2,c2) and the difference along each
axis is a,b and c then the distance between them is

 the square root of (a squared plus b squared plus c squared) by
Pythagoras

If you have two points in a different coordinate system representing the
same two positions, the distance between them should be the same.

So I can test the accuracy of the conversion from OS map references to
Cartesian.  In the table below, on the left, we have the trig points at Box
Hill and Leith Hill in OS map reference form, the difference along each
axis and below that the resulting distance.  On the right we have the same
calculation but using the Cartesian coordinates from the OS conversion page.

Below that I do the same comparison, this time using the trig point at
Mickleham Down and the one at Leith Hill.

In both cases, the distances are out by over two metres.

So, I'm trying to test equipment which is supposed to be accurate to two cm
using data that is out by at least two metres.  That's not going to work.
I need something more accurate to compare my results with.


  OS Map Ref
   Cartesian

 Box Hill Leith Hill   Difference   Box Hill  Leith Hill
Difference
easting517971.06  513949.28  4021.78   x 4000676.63  4006902.33
   -6225.70
northing   151163.16  143161.71  8001.45   y  -21724.35   -25963.72
4239.37
height above  171.97 307.00  -135.03   z 4950992.32  4946141.89
4850.43
sea level

distance8956.35 8958.70


 Mickleham  Leith  Hill  DifferenceMickleham  Leith
  Hill 

Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I think you're missing the point. Most contributors believe postcodes on 
buildings or property nodes, add quality to the OSM's database, but 
object to the import of codepoint as it's just not accurate enough as 
stated in this, & numerous other threads.


There's no point in importing to stand alone nodes as deliveries are 
destined for buildings. Adding to streets is also pointless for the same 
reason plus they can have multiple postcodes.


DaveF

On 03/10/2019 01:40, nd...@redhazel.co.uk wrote:

On 02/10/2019 13:43, Russ Phillips via Talk-GB wrote:
I'm wondering if it would be feasible and advisable to import the UK 
postcode data from OS OpenData Codepoint 
. 




I support it. From my own experience, requests like this tend to 
attract objections, so it is important for people who agree with such 
proposals to speak out.


The key and, in my opinion, sufficient reasons for importing postcodes:

- Objectively, postcodes are an important type of addressing and 
geocoding data in the UK. We've had two quarterly projects encouraging 
adding postcodes to the OSM database. Some people (including myself) 
don't like the fact the postcodes are proprietary to Royal Mail but we 
are here to map the world, not to judge it.


- They are accepted in the OSM database and there is no tagging 
ambiguity. Their place is _in_ the OSM database, not in external 
overlays. They are searchable in most applications (OsmAnd, Maps.me), 
the exception is Nominatim, which uses an outdated overlay but this is 
more a workaround for lack of such data in the database, than a solution.


- Code-Point Open is a legal and open source of postcode data. In fact 
it is the _only_ legal source of such data in bulk. All other sources 
are either derived from CPO or are based on local knowledge.


All reasons _against_ the import I've seen so far are based on 
personal preferences. People are objecting because they don't like the 
idea of proprietary address data, do not find them important enough, 
do not find them comprehensive enough. These views are useful in 
establishing the context but are not a reason to block the import of 
what _is_ available.


Talking about technical aspects:

- The key (and deliberate) limitation Code-Point Open is that it 
doesn't distinguish between residential postcodes and postcodes 
assigned to "large users". This is not ideal but still useful - we 
know the postcode exists at a given location, we just can't be sure if 
it is the only postcode there.


- Quality of building in OSM database. Large buildings, especially in 
town centres, are often not partitioned correctly. Different parts may 
have different street names and postcodes. Code-Point Open may in fact 
be helpful in finding and correcting such issues.


- Some postcodes are for PO boxes (usually collocated with post 
offices) are are best left out.


My recommendation: import missing postcodes "as is" (as points) with 
extra tags denoting the import, import date and an accuracy metric 
from CPO. Keep it searchable and easy to remove or update, if 
necessary. Code-Point Open is updated quarterly and sometimes 
centroids move to another building. Filter out PO boxes and postcodes 
which are already in OSM (I usually check if there is an OSM object 
with a matching addr:postcode within a 10m radius of the code point). 
Do not attempt to merge them with buildings as it is not guaranteed to 
work in all cases. This is best done manually and in some cases it may 
require a survey.


Best regards,

ndrw6



___
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] Import UK postcode data?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 04/10/2019 01:52, nd...@redhazel.co.uk wrote:

On 04/10/2019 00:26, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
I think you're missing the point. Most contributors believe postcodes 
on buildings or property nodes, add quality to the OSM's database, 
but object to the import of codepoint as it's just not accurate 
enough as stated in this, & numerous other threads.


This is incorrect. CPO/ONSPD postcodes _are_ accurate, up to date and 
include all postcodes in the UK except NI. 


Please note: "not accurate *enough*"

They are not complete (contain one and only one delivery point per 
postcode), 


No. The centre point is not associated with *any* delivery point. It is 
an arbitrary mean, calculated mathematically. it could, in theory, be 
located in the middle of a park.
Even postcodes unique to one property/business aren't accurate as their 
positions are misaligned by the effect of adjacent areas.


which is pity, but that's not a reason not to use the ones that are 
available, which is still _far_ more that what we have in the database.


Quantity does not equate to quality.



This may not be a perfect solution but the information CPO/ONSPD 
contains is still extremely useful for geocoding. Search for a 
postcode and you are _guaranteed_ to get an address in a close 
vicinity to a place you are looking for. 


No. With an import of the centroids points you're only guaranteed to be 
given the location of the node with the postcode.



How about not needing to start Google Maps when searching for a 
location on the go?


There's no point in importing to stand alone nodes as deliveries are 
destined for buildings. Adding to streets is also pointless for the 
same reason plus they can have multiple postcodes.


Addresses on nodes are commonly used in the UK OSM. Many mappers 
prefer them over placing addresses on buildings. There are also many 
cases (POIs) where nodes are objectively better than buildings. So, 
no, there right and wrong solution here.


Allow me to clarify. I should have maybe said 'properties' which can be 
represented by nodes instead of 'buildings'.
My objection, which I thought was clear, was to "standalone nodes" with 
just a postcode tag.





Besides, the main reason for importing these data is that we can get 
_all_ postcodes in the database.


Again quantity /= quality. If you can't manipulate data then it's 
useless. These standalone postcode nodes will relate to nothing.


This gives users confidence that when they search for a postcode they 
will reliably get a result they are looking for. This is not possible 
when merging postcodes with buildings simply because we still have 
only a small fraction of buildings in the database.


By the way, I'm not against merging addr:postcode with buildings, 
that's exactly what I was doing myself when adding postcodes manually. 
However, this is not a process that can be automated (lack of 
buildings, single OSM buildings having more than one address/postcode).


Then add buildings.

Based on my experience with mapping postcodes with CPO, I would 
recommend starting with an import and merge postcodes and buildings 
later.


Experience has shown that doesn't happen. I'm thinking US TIGER imports, 
but I'm sure there are other examples.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] accurate GPS

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Oh, is /that/ what he's doing?

On 10/10/2019 17:47, Jez Nicholson wrote:

*Ahem* no offence to Simon, obviouslyhe's just trying to check out a
manufacturer's claims and opening a can of worms in the process.

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:18 PM Dave F via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:


On 09/10/2019 23:12, Warin wrote:

I'd think to get that level of accuracy you 'd need readings over some
considerable time... days?

Otherwise you get bias from, as you hint, the atmospheric conditions,
the satellites in view - their bias, angles ..
Unless you have access to correction data, say from a local fixed GPS.


Indeed.
For Simon to assume he got a single 2cm "accuracy" let alone
consistently is naive. To believe it usurped OS's reading is silly.

DaveF

___
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] Fixmes and Notes

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

I've amended the OP query to return more on topic results:

Restrict it to footways & paths
Find fixme values which include, but aren't solely either 
incomplete,stub, longer than this or continue"

Add 'survey' value.

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/N5N

DaveF


On 13/10/2019 13:57, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi,

We've just started the next quarterly project on fixmes and notes. The wiki
page has some ideas - do you have any other ideas?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2019_Q4_Project:_Fixmes_and_Notes

It strikes me that a large proportion of the fixmes relate to incomplete
paths. So in effect tacking this would be an extension of our previous
quarterly project on paths. Here is an overpass turbo query to show those
fixmes:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/N56

Happy mapping!
*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] Disused or empty apartments

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 19/12/2019 02:09, Warin wrote:

On 19/12/19 13:01, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

On 19/12/2019 01:41, Andy Townsend wrote:
Aside from this particular question, that's actually a problem that 
happens all the time with things like "amenity=pub; tourism=hotel" -


I'd rather the mapper make a clear choice as they know what is there, 
the render makes a 'best guess'.




Not really. pub & hotel are synonymous but building=yes (which 
indicates it's operational) is antonymous to disused:building



Some pubs are not hotels - no accommodation.


I was referring to Andy's example where both tags are on the same object



I have taken to mapping the building as a close way with building=* 
and then adding separate nodes for pub and another for the hotel if it 
has that.

Note I am not consistent in this (but I should be)!


I have done similar, but never felt it an ideal situation. it ends up 
with three detached objects representing one establishment. Where would 
you add the FHRS:ID tag?


I try & do 'the duck test'. I ask 'what is it most known for' If it's a 
pub, which happens to have a few rooms, then amenity=pub, 
accommodation=yes, & alternatively tourism=hotel, bar=yes


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] No Through Road Ahead

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

The advice to tag the tight corner is correct. There's no requirement to 
tag the whole road as any router/sat nav worth their salt should search 
well ahead for any such restrictions.


Are there chevron signs at the corner?

You can always map the actual sign, but personally I don't bother as 
I've yet to see how any routers can make use of it.


Cheers
DaveF


On 19/12/2019 14:06, Martin Wynne wrote:

How to tag this road?

 https://goo.gl/maps/B4kUxoR83ej9JXWQ8

There is no actual barrier, just a very sharp corner.

Thanks.

Martin.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 19/12/2019 01:41, Andy Townsend wrote:
Aside from this particular question, that's actually a problem that 
happens all the time with things like "amenity=pub; tourism=hotel" -


Not really. pub & hotel are synonymous but building=yes (which indicates 
it's operational) is antonymous to disused:building


Cheers
DaveF


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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

198-county-hall-cambridge#.Xjr8Fm52u01>,
built around 1910 and Grade II listed, the S part is a 17th century house

<https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101332167-christs-college-x-staircase-cambridge-market-ward#.Xjr7yG52u00>
(formerly 'X' staircase), also Grade II. The two buildings form a single
unit of student accommodation which presumably reflects the mapping.

Cheers,

Jerry




On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 15:15, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:


On 04/02/2020 14:28, Dan S wrote:

Hi Dave,

I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about
what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from
building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?

That's correct. I'm going to load the 1050 return by this overpass query
into JOSM:
[bbox:{{bbox}}];
nwr[amenity=university][building=university];
out meta geom;

plus another 7 which are still tagged as building=yes.


(Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)

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

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

These are the remaining 117 amenity=university which will need to be
rectified at a later date..

Cheers
DaveF

Op di 4 feb. 2020 om 14:15 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
:

Hi
There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html

Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes
A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance
with the wiki.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767
This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.

The user who created his disparate tagging schema has had plenty of time
to rectify.  I think this should be performed now.

___
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] railway=halt

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 01/02/2020 10:39, Gareth L wrote:

Just to throw in some awkward cases, there are stations which are request stops 
in one direction only. E.g. Llanwrda is request stop southbound but always 
stops northbound.

Basing use of this tag on service pattern, which changes every 6 months seems 
not so easy to maintain.


Hi
Your first point is true, but it's still classed as a request stop. 
Basic variations in when trains don't stop can be dealt with in other 
secondary tags if really required.


I'm unsure twice a year is frequent enough to consider updating as 
difficult.


DaveF.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 01/02/2020 12:40, Tony OSM wrote:

Hi

Great to see your station work.


Thanks



I agree they should all be station.

If DfT classifies stations as A-F or whatever then a tag to indicate 
that would be useful. These DfT classifications seem to be used by the 
rail industry to indicate roughly importance by passenger numbers, 
from which they base some decisions/discussions as to whether they 
should be staffed or unstaffed or the hours of staffing. There was a 
recent discussion about Chorley which from the publicly reported 
discussion I believe to be class C.


This would be a useful addition. The last publication date was 2009, 
however & missing about of the 50 newest stations.


Are you aware of a later issue? Has another organization squired 
responsibility?


DaveF

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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

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

On 31/01/2020 11:13, ael wrote:


OK. I agree that parking=layby is much better.


Thanks for the comments.

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



But that's not a parking spot. Because a  vehicle just happens to be 
there, it doesn't make it one. By your logic we should be tagging 
pavements as such, because lazy drivers think they're entitled to break 
the law.


DaveF


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

[Talk-GB] railway=halt

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi
Over the past few months I've been sorting & adding detail to the UK's 
National Rail railway stations so that OSM has the correct amount.


I'm unsure of the benefits of tagging some of them as 'halts'. I'm 
proposing they should all be 'station'.


All 2567 NR Stations with 96 halts in blue: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qik

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dhalt
Determining based on size, as the wiki suggests, is too subjective IMO.  
How is 'size' determined? The number of platforms? Tracks? Passenger 
usage (which fluctuates)? Note, OSM doesn't have an equivalent tag to 
distinguish really big stations..


Another factor is if they're request stops. This is a much more 
appropriate criteria. I've now added them with the more explicit tag 
'request_stop=yes'.


All 137 Request Stops in blue: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qil
65 of these are already tagged a stations.

British Rail remove all references to halts (1974?)
There are only two which have since been renamed to include halt. It 
appears to be for purely cosmetic reasons. (The locals probably think 
it'll increase property values).


I've contacted Thunderforest and OpenRailMap. Neither make a distinction 
between halts & stations in their renders.
Carto label them the same but display halts at a higher zoom level, 
which personally, I find irritating.


Opinions/Suggestions?

Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 01/02/2020 00:05, Martin Wynne wrote:

The traditional distinction was that Halts were unstaffed.


These are now classed as DfT F, which is also worth adding.

DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 31/01/2020 23:49, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Hi
Over the past few months I've been sorting & adding detail to the UK's 
National Rail railway stations so that OSM has the correct amount.


As it's been a week, with no objections, I'm proceeding with the 
amendments. I'm keeping a copy of the stations.so they can be reverted 
in the unlikely event they require reverting.


DaveF

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

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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 06/02/2020 15:48, Brian Prangle wrote:

"OSM is not beholden to data consumers.
They take the data 'as is'. That includes any amendments

My planned amendment can always be reversed if there is a valid reason.
Upsetting CU isn't one"

  Not a great way to build a community when the data user in question put in
a lot of resource in order to create the OSM data in the firstplac
e


CU wanted a new site map. They paid someone to provide it for them. 
Which is fine, but please don't suggest they're contributions are 
superior to those of any anybody else. Especially when they decided to 
knowingly go against accepted tagging procedures. Many of us "put in a 
lot of resource".


They should expect their incorrect data to be rectified just as any of 
contributor should. I'm mildly irritated that these corrections have to 
be done by those who didn't create the errors in the first place.


DaveF

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