Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Post towns may be somewhat arbitrary, but they are at least a verifiable
national scheme which we can use for addressing every location in the
country. That has to have some benefits compared to each individual mapper
deciding where they believe each address falls  - easy for many places,
likely contentious for others. The other consistent scheme we could use is
tagging by local authority but that's likely to annoy just as many people.

I also disagree with the assertion that post towns are no longer used or
only of use to RM. Whilst a street address and postcode should suffice,
there is an expectation that post is fully addressed. By including the full
address, post can still arrive at the correct address despite an obscured,
incorrect or illegible postcode. The advantage of a consistent national
scheme of addressing is as useful to other couriers in this regard as it is
to RM. If you should use parcel labels supplied by the couriers I have
usually found them to follow RM's addressing scheme including the relevant
post town.

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Adam Snape]

highway=steps
ramp:bicycle=yes

Kind regards,

Adam


On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 18:53 Chris Hodges,  wrote:

> NCR45 in Stroud goes down a rather steep flight of steps to cross
> Dudbridge Road. I can confirm that is what the signs say, having been
> there yesterday.  Also the Sustrans/OS map shows it taking the line of
> the steps https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/51.73875,-2.23631,18
>
> There is a narrow ramp, so you can wheel a (conventional) bike up/down.
> It's about as accessible as it sounds, but the north end of the path
> isn't much better.
>
> On OSM the steps are shown (with a note about the bike route)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.73895/-2.23568 but the
> cycle path appears to break
>
> Mapillary shows the sign at the bottom:
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.738716181265865=-2.236989543797598=17=map=true=7X9gKmoDzGaATOILuDGRuA=0.14213485370109913=0.4081370298673949=3
>
>
> It's not unique - I know another example where the Bristol-Bath railway
> path accesses the pub car park in Saltford
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.40521/-2.45026, and I've
> seen similar on canal towpaths - in the latter case in particular it can
> be crucial for route-planning even manually, as the next access can be a
> long way away.
>
> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does
> go down the steps?
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> ___
> 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 across field

[Adam Snape]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 13:18 Dave F via Talk-GB, 
wrote:

FYI Wiltshire Council's Rights of Way Explorer is not the 'definitive map'.
> It usually a misnomer. Paths are described with words in a  definitive
> statement. Their map is a representation of that data. Many authorities add
> a caveat clarifying that it's not the authoritative document.
>
> Dave F
>

Each highway authority is required to maintain a 'definitive map and
statement'. In all cases the map shows the definitive line of the right of
way. The Statement provides any extra information the authority wished to
record, which in some cases may include a full description of the route but
in other cases may contain no additional information at all.

The caveat most councils supply with their electronic mapping is due to the
fact that there may be discrepancies between their digitised versions and
the actual Definitive Maps (and statements) which are still almost
universally paper based.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

[Adam Snape]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020, 15:39 Tony Shield,  wrote:

> 'yes'  is probably wrong as there is no obvious permission and in England
> and Wales Highways Act 1835 s72 'If any person shall wilfully ride upon any
> footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use
> or accommodation of foot passengers;' . . .a penalty. So in the absence of
> any evidence - no bicycles.
>

The key part of this gloriously archaic statute (which predates the
invention of the bicycle*) is "by the side of any road" ie. it concerns
paths which we would now refer to as  or sidewalks. There is no general law
against riding bicycles elsewhere including any other kind of footpaths.

Which is not to say it is not in cases irresponsible or antisocial. It is
also potentially a civil trespass against the landowner to ride a bike
where not permitted. But, on the other hand, as Tony notes, such usage can
be harmless and become customary. If such customary usage is maintained for
long enough it can even become a legal right which is how we have ended up
with rights of way.

Thus, at least in the legal sense the absence of explicitly allowed
(bicycle=yes/designated)  does not mean forbidden (bicycle=no). That might
be a good assumption for routers to make but personally I'd only add
bicycle=no where there was an explicit prohibition.

*original version here
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/LXXII/enacted
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Holes in modern England?

[Adam Snape]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, 18:53 Jez Nicholson,  wrote:

> How many holes in Blackburn, Lancashire?
>

There's Tockholes for one https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/29020280

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

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

[Adam Snape]

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

I generally just use ID and it seems very time consuming to fix one section
at a time using ID, but I'm sure there's an easier way using JOSM or
something! If anybody with a better grasp than me of the tools could
correct this it would be much appreciated.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, 14:49 Richard Fairhurst,  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As some of you may be aware, Sustrans has embarked on a project to review
> and improve the National Cycle Network.
>
> As part of this, sections of routes which Sustrans thinks have no
> realistic prospect of being brought up to a minimum standard in the near
> future are being either removed from the network entirely, or
> "reclassified" - which in practice means that they might still be
> signposted as cycle routes, but not with an NCN number, and probably
> maintained/promoted by local authorities rather than by Sustrans.
> Generally, these are minor roads where the level of traffic is too high.
>
> For example, the Avon and Wiltshire circular cycleways (currently NCN 410
> and 254 respectively) will be reclassified out of the NCN, while the routes
> in Rutland have been pretty much removed entirely.
>
> Sustrans' own website mapping has just been updated to take account of
> this, which you can see at https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn . The
> dashed lines are reclassified, while some sections have been removed
> entirely.
>
> It's not currently released under an open licence so not suitable for
> direct inclusion into OSM. I will see if I can get permission for the data
> to be used.
>
> I believe that "re-signing" will be starting imminently so you may start
> to see route signs removed, or the numbers being patched over, or replaced
> with route logos or names. At which point, of course, it's fair game for
> OSM.
>
> Where a section of route has been removed, it'll be a straightforward case
> of removing it from the relation (or on occasion deleting an entire
> relation). Where one has been reclassified, I suspect the tagging decision
> is less clear. Sometimes we might want to move it to a new relation with
> network=rcn or network=lcn; sometimes I suspect there could be a case for
> keeping it in the existing relation with a 'link' role; sometimes we may
> want to have two partly overlapping relations, one for the now shortened
> NCN route, another for the full named route (e.g. NCN 78 vs the Caledonian
> Way). There may even be cases where a route is removed from the NCN but
> remains as a EuroVelo route.
>
> cheers
> Richard
> [writing in a personal capacity only etc. etc.]
> ___
> 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] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Cheers for clarifying the 'segregated' issue. I hadn't considered the
benefit of having a positive surface tag even where it matches the default,
so I'll start doing that when I map.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 15:20 Martin - CycleStreets, <
list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> > I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does
> > seem garbled at points
>
> Apologies; I think I was very tired when I wrote it. It was mainly
> intended
> as a starting point, to set out the ideal case of having those metadata
> tags present, but things like surface should have been better written.
>
> I've fixed up the points noted, which I agree with. Obviously I hope
> others
> can enhance the section too.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure#Checklist_of_attributes_to_tag_for_good_cycle_routing
>
>
> > Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the
> > physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather
> than
> > the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway?
>
> Sorry, yes, fixed.
>
>
> > Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does
> > marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway...
>
> Have fixed this also. The intention was to ensure that the surface is
> considered when tagging - which is suprisingly still poor data in some
> places. A fair proportion of route feedback we get comes down to cases
> where routing has gone over a 'cycleway' that turns out to be some kind of
> muddy or badly-surfaced track. These are obviously easy to fix in OSM once
> the value is known.
>
> My general feeling on surface is that, while asphalt is of course assumed
> by all routing engines I'm aware of, the amount of stuff in the UK that
> isn't asphalt makes it worthwhile putting the surface in explicitly. This
> demonstrates to future mappers that the value is actually known (rather
> than assumed/unknown/ambiguous).
>
>
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Adam Snape]

I'm not saying it's terrible but as you note it's not exactly an optimum
example of good mapping.

Just as with roads, I tend to view cycleway surface tags as distinctly
optional/low priority where they confirm to the default of being asphalt
and of great importance where they deviate from that default.

The above are just personal niggles, but we really do need to beclear at
this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented  usage of
segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because
I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show
where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a
shared use cycleway. We can't use both.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 20:14 Gareth L,  wrote:

> I do have to say that surface info is very useful. A lot of cycleways have
> gravel sections and that can be no fun on, say, a Brompton bike with 16”
> wheels.
>
> Much like pavements, I’d start my focus on the details which are not what
> you might expect, like where a road doesn’t have a pedestrian walkway at
> all, or only on one side. Ultimately, it’s all useful data.
>
> The embankment example makes some sense to me, although that level of
> Cycle infrastructure (cycle superhighways) is seldom seen outside of the
> capital. Segregated and sidewalk tag seems redundant as the footpath is
> mapped as a separate way, but they were added at version 1 when the other
> data may not have been there?
>
> Gareth
>
> On 14 Jul 2020, at 19:49, Adam Snape  wrote:
>
> 
> Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does
> marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway...
>
> I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does seem
> garbled at points
>
> Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the
> physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather than
> the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway?
>
> The given 'high quality' example of the Embankment cycleway (mapped as a
> separate way, not part of the road) looks a bit odd with foot=no,
> segregated=yes, sidewalk=right.
>
> Kind regards,,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 13:05 Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB, <
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> "Is it one-way? oneway=yes / oneway=no"
>> is it really a good idea to always include oneway=no?
>> I would consider it as kind of pointless to require
>> oneway tag to be always present
>>
>> I added some advertisement for StreetComplete
>> (I implemented for example bicycle_parking quests
>> as part of my plan for collecting bicycle-related data).
>> Feel free to reduce/move/remove them.
>>
>>
>> Jul 13, 2020, 20:25 by o...@live.co.uk:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>
>> The UK quarterly project for Q3 2020 has been selected as Cycle
>> infrastructure.
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure
>>
>>
>>
>> Another topical one with cycling having increased take up as people have
>> avoided public transport or took advantage of the (for a while) quieter
>> roads.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Gareth
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Adam Snape]

Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does marking
the surface on every single asphalt cycleway...

I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does seem
garbled at points

Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the
physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather than
the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway?

The given 'high quality' example of the Embankment cycleway (mapped as a
separate way, not part of the road) looks a bit odd with foot=no,
segregated=yes, sidewalk=right.

Kind regards,,

Adam







On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 13:05 Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB, <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> "Is it one-way? oneway=yes / oneway=no"
> is it really a good idea to always include oneway=no?
> I would consider it as kind of pointless to require
> oneway tag to be always present
>
> I added some advertisement for StreetComplete
> (I implemented for example bicycle_parking quests
> as part of my plan for collecting bicycle-related data).
> Feel free to reduce/move/remove them.
>
>
> Jul 13, 2020, 20:25 by o...@live.co.uk:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> The UK quarterly project for Q3 2020 has been selected as Cycle
> infrastructure.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure
>
>
>
> Another topical one with cycling having increased take up as people have
> avoided public transport or took advantage of the (for a while) quieter
> roads.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Gareth
>
>
> ___
> 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] Great North Trail MTB Route

[Adam Snape]

 On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 at 11:04, Chris Fleming  wrote:

> The third issue is of copyright, which is the one Adam brought up.
> Personally I don't really know about this one. On one hand the route is
> made of of ways already existing on OpenStreetMap; does that move us a step
> outside of copying from whatever data source was used to derive the route?
>
Provided none of those OSM features were added, imported, aligned, or
otherwise with reference to the data source, then those pre-existing
features themselves are not problematic.

>
> We also have copyright of the route itself, Cycling UK do seem to assert
> copyright and therefore we probably do need them to ask them. (It's nice to
> see that the cycling UK website does display the route over a OSM map) but
> they link externally to OS maps.
>

...and they may indeed have drawn up their data using OS mapping making it
OS derived data.

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Old copies of OS Open Map Local Raster?

[Adam Snape]

There was definitely a 2017-04 release. For raster I'm afraid I only
downloaded my local SD grid square.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020, 17:50 Grant Slater, 
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Does anyone have old copies of the OS Open Map Local raster?
> The original filename is: omlras_gtfc_gb.zip
>
> I believe the releases were:
> * 2016-10
> * 2017 ???
> * 2018-04
> * 2018-10
> * 2019-04 (have copy)
> * 2020-04 (have copy)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Grant
>
> ___
> 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] Great North Trail MTB Route

[Adam Snape]

Hit Tony,

It's already tagged as network=ncn and I think there seems pretty much
universal agreement from commenters thus far that is not correct, because
it isn't part of the National Cycle Network (which as you suggest is
Sustrans' responsibility) and it is a mountain bike route.

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

Kind regards,

Adam

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 12:20, Tony OSM  wrote:

> Hi
>
> On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustrans the first line is '*Sustrans*
> is a UK walking and cycling charity and custodian of the National Cycle
> Network <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cycle_Network>.'
> Custodian is the important term.
>
> The Sustrans website
> https://www.sustrans.org.uk/for-professionals/infrastructure/national-cycle-network-design-principles/
> does not make that claim (please correct me) but the whole of the site
> suggests it is the custodian and that they make decisions about the NCN.
>
> As Sustrans is described as the custodian and its website infers/implies
> that it is, then unless a route is on their website or literature it is not
> part of the NCN. OSM does not have the right to make a decision like that
> no matter how good the intentions.
>
> So please do not tag as ncn; but please keep as a route.
>
> As the route is tagged mtb I think that it may not meet the design
> principles as shown on the referred  Sustrans page.
>
> Tony - TonyS999
> On 12/07/2020 11:34, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A mapper has recently added a long mountain bike route to OSM and there
> has been a difference of opinions in the changeset comments
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87757341 .So I thought I'd share
> here to try to achieve some community consensus.
>
> Personally I'm concerned that it appears to be an undiscussed import
> without explicit copyright owner permission, possibly containing OS-derived
> data. It goes against the general principle that we only map what's on the
> ground, potentially opening the floodgates for all kinds of such unmarked
> routes. The route is tagged as ncn despite not being part of the National
> Cycle Network and as a mountain bike route is largely unsuitable for
> general bicycle routing.
>
> Does anybody have any further thoughts? I'll make the original mapper
> aware of this discussion.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
> ___
> 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

[Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

A mapper has recently added a long mountain bike route to OSM and there has
been a difference of opinions in the changeset comments
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87757341 .So I thought I'd share
here to try to achieve some community consensus.

Personally I'm concerned that it appears to be an undiscussed import
without explicit copyright owner permission, possibly containing OS-derived
data. It goes against the general principle that we only map what's on the
ground, potentially opening the floodgates for all kinds of such unmarked
routes. The route is tagged as ncn despite not being part of the National
Cycle Network and as a mountain bike route is largely unsuitable for
general bicycle routing.

Does anybody have any further thoughts? I'll make the original mapper aware
of this discussion.

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Adam Snape]

It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as
an error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might
be the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to
remove it and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is
always preferable to an implied value.

OT, but I've personally always viewed foot=permissive as a caveat for the
end user that a way might be closed. I only add it where a route is
explicitly stated to be permissive on the ground, is actually known or
likely to be shut from time to time, or is clearly an informal path. Many
paths through parks and housing estates etc. are clearly intended for
permanent public use and about as likely to be closed as the nearby
highways.

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

It's worth pointing out that if Wimbledon Common is (as I assume)
registered as common land then there would normally be a legal right of
access on foot under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, so
foot=yes would be correct.

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I'm so glad the information is being used and progress is being made.
However, I do have to agree with Rob about the Council's online map.

Re:OS copyright they are really highly protective about what they perceive
to be derived data. I think it would be difficult to add rights of way
whilst consulting the Council's OS-based map, yet completely avoid using
any geographic information in it at any point to clarify, adjust or update
the routes or surrounding features.

But, in any case, we definitely do not have the Council's permission to use
the data in the online map, which does differ slightly from the dataset
they supplied in response to my foi/ rpsi request in 2018. It may seem
trivial but we need explicit permission when using data for OSM, so I
really do suggest we avoid this source.

Please keep up the good work though,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Adam Snape]

Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by parish name,
type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. Parish
Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and will
continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change
something. The numeric references for districts and parishes exist only in
an internal database of relatively recent creation. If 5 years down the
line the council adopts a new system any numeric references in OSM would
then be meaningless.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Mon, 11 May 2020, 15:50 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists), <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:12, nathan case  wrote:
> > Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC
> have released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy
> to produce.
> >
> > It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an
> unmapped path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s
> map.
>
> Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make
> use of a map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map
> at
> https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
> is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright
> and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's
> likely that it was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an
> Ordnance Survey base map -- in which case it certainly couldn't be
> used for OSM mapping. You might be able to get permission to use the
> overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the base map before
> using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details from the
> OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to
> be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful
> around them.
>
> What we do have permission to use in OSM is the raw GIS files from
> Lancashire. As already noted, these contain both the parish IDs and
> names. It's up to whoever renders them what to show as labels.
> Hopefully we can agree on a prow_ref format here, and then any tool
> authors will follow that in what they display to mappers.
>
> > It is then complicated that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even
> for me, parish IDs are the most straightforward way of adding prow_ref data
> to OSM.)
>
> Both myself (who runs PRoW Comparison tools) and Nick (who runs MapThe
> Paths) intend to ensure our tools show whatever prow_ref format is
> agreed. So that should be two common sources of data for mappers to
> use.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> 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] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Adam Snape]

Sorry, crossposted with Tony there

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:01, Adam Snape  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I can confirm that the parish name data was in the council's original
> disclosure and is contained in the ESRI shapefile I passed to rowmaps. It's
> available under an open licence (OGL v3)
> https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/LA/prows.zip . I think Barry at rowmaps
> then trimmed some of his data for teh maps that display on his own site so
> that each county follows a common format.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 09:08, nathan case  wrote:
>
>> I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).
>>
>>
>>
>> At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in
>> place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is
>> what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they
>> released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic
>> to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially
>> since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert
>> parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable.
>>
>>
>>
>> The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Tony OSM 
>> *Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29
>> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights
>> of Way - legal vs reality)
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the
>> written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order
>> sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency.
>>
>> Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and
>> I have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> TonyS999
>>
>> On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with
>> Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and
>> reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in
>> communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references
>> with any consistency even within its own electronic systems (with the
>> format on the online map being at variance with the underlying dataset). I
>> can confirm that neither the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire
>> use any such references.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I can confirm that the parish name data was in the council's original
disclosure and is contained in the ESRI shapefile I passed to rowmaps. It's
available under an open licence (OGL v3)
https://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/LA/prows.zip . I think Barry at rowmaps
then trimmed some of his data for teh maps that display on his own site so
that each county follows a common format.

Kind regards,

Adam


On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 09:08, nathan case  wrote:

> I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).
>
>
>
> At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in
> place of the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is
> what is used on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they
> released (and thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic
> to expect mappers to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially
> since that data is not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available.
>
>
>
> Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert
> parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable.
>
>
>
> The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.
>
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Tony OSM 
> *Sent:* 10 May 2020 12:29
> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights
> of Way - legal vs reality)
>
>
>
> I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the
> written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order
> sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency.
>
> Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and I
> have used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it.
>
> Regards
>
> TonyS999
>
> On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with
> Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and
> reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in
> communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references
> with any consistency even within its own electronic systems (with the
> format on the online map being at variance with the underlying dataset). I
> can confirm that neither the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire
> use any such references.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Talk-GB mailing list
>
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with
Rob's preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and
reflects how the routes are most commonly actually referred to in
communication. As Rob noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references
with any consistency even within its own electronic systems (with the
format on the online map being at variance with the underlying dataset). I
can confirm that neither the definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire
use any such references.

Kind regards,

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

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

[Adam Snape]

On Tue, 5 May 2020, 13:26 Martin Wynne,  wrote:

> Is a "public right of way" a highway?
>
> I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line.
>
> Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes
> with a physical highway, sometimes not.
>

In English/Welsh law a highway is a right of passage, so a public right of
way is a highway by definition.

For OSM purposes? I don't know, but I've always assumed so. As discussed
for practical reasons I wouldn't tag a completely inaccessible prow as a
highway but I've never considered a physically worn path on the ground a
requirement for being a highway=footway, bridleway etc.

Adam

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

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

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically
blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing
people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive
rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a
mapper mapped on the ground. Eg. I don't think a highway=no tag should be
added to a cross field definitive footpath just because a path round the
field has been mapped.

Kind regards,

Adam


On Tue, 5 May 2020, 12:35 Andy Townsend,  wrote:

> On 05/05/2020 11:53, Adam Snape wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there
> > is a public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to
> > be a somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice.
> > It's certainly being suggested here as a solution to a
> > country-specific issue regarding the mapping of England and Wales'
> > rights of way network.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, we already have "trail_visibility" as a
> useful tag here.  It's well used worldwide
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/trail_visibility#values and in
> the UK https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/trail_visibility#values
> and I (at least) use it to decide whether to render a path or not.
>
> That said, I'd be reluctant to use any other highway tag other than "no"
> when there is a legal right of way but (say) someone's built a house
> there so there is no physical access.  By all means add
> "designation=public_footpath" (with some sort of note) but please not
> "highway=footway" (my apologies if no-one was suggesting this - it
> wasn't 100% clear in the conversation).
>
> Personally I'd tend to just omit the highway tag for cases like this.  I
> wouldn't personally have a problem with people using "highway=no" for
> them but I take Andy Allan's point earlier, and he has far more
> experience dealing with how data consumers misuse OSM tags than I.
>
> On the "country specific" bit England and Wales are pretty unique with
> their "public footpaths" etc.  More civilised countries (like Scotland)
> have something like "allemansrätten" in law. :)
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Adam Snape]

Hi Tom,

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

Perhaps other countries do use highway=no in this manner but it isn't well
documented and I could hardly blame consumers of OSM data from not
interpreting it correctly.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Tue, 5 May 2020, 09:59 Tom Hukins,  wrote:

> On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:08:16PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote:
> > Most data consumers won't be expecting this highly country-specific
> > tagging of highway=no
>
> Why do you consider "highway=no" country-specific?  Taginfo suggests
> it's used across Europe and occasionally elsewhere:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=no#map
>
> Tom
>
> ___
> 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] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I'm a bit cautious about using highway=no for rights of way. I understand
it where a definitive route is utterly impassible on the ground (eg. goes
through a building) but elsewhere it seems to be suggested as a bit of a
fudge to avoid having one right of way represented by two highways in OSM.
I find that problematic for several reasons:

- Most data consumers won't be expecting this highly country-specific
tagging of highway=no so it's likely that end users will be using mapping
products which lead them along informal shortcuts and diversions whilst
completely omitting the actual line of the right of way.

- We're tagging ways based on the presence of an alternative rather than
the qualities of the way itself. For example, if a definitive path has no
physical presence along its whole length but the original mapper has
deviated from the definitive line for a short portion in the middle of the
path's length, the definitive line would go from being tagged as a highway
to being tagged as highway=no and back again despite no change in its
appearance or accessibility, just the existence of an alternative route.

- It means using highway=no to represent the legally-defined route of a
highway which the public have a right to use just seems a little bizarre to
me.

In any case highway=no seems a particularly problematic thing to map
remotely without actually being on the ground. We can't simply assume the
non-existence of one route based upon the existence of an alternative.
That one GPS-carrying osm mapper took one line across a moor which differs
slightly from the definitive route doesn't mean we can say that the
definitive line is any less legitimate. The fact that a mapper mapped a
route round a field or farmyard doesn't mean that others don't follow the
official line though it.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Mon, 4 May 2020, 20:24 Andy Allan,  wrote:

> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 14:13, nathan case  wrote:
> > > Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not
> following the definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two
> paths being rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the
> fixme as Tony suggests.
> >
> > I'd be surprised if any map renders this as a highway.
>
> I've seen maps from a multi-billion-dollar-revenue organisation that
> were rendering anything with a highway tag the same as their most
> minor road style. So I think it was a case of rendering highway=* as a
> small road, and then adding additional rules for specific highway
> values to show them as larger roads.
>
> Very few people would make this mistake since it's a pretty obvious
> problem that will show up quickly, but I do wonder how many people use
> a specific list of road values and then draw everything else as paths.
> In that case, there's a risk of highway=no showing up as a path.
>
> Thanks,
> 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] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

[Adam Snape]

Hi Tony,

Anybody interested in the scans are welcome to view, use or host them
(subject to the OGL) or suggest somewhere I can upload them. Beware that
the Statements are often brief, outdated or otherwise less useful than
might be imagined. The Survey cards date from circa 1950 and were working
documents and not part of the final definitive legal record.

The links below are the versions of the data I have backed up online. They
do differ very slightly from the original versions supplied by the council
in that I've retitled some of the folders so that they state the name of
the area covered rather than just a number. I could upload the versions
exactly as received from the council if requested.

Statements:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XgJHkDeSrsUnLsVNrGSwmwBqUZ1y8fvd
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government
Licence v3.0

Original Parish Survey Cards:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1l0JxeByzWZSMdboGjCuWCzcg6HtTZiRk
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government
Licence v3.0

Kind regards,

Adam

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 23:44, Tony OSM  wrote:

> Adam, thank you
>
> Anderton and Adlington parishes are next to each other on the ground - a
> good example of read across error which needs to be avoided.
>
> Euxton Parish Council have published a recent LCC notice on their website
> - http://www.euxtoncouncil.org.uk/news.php?id=83
>
> which refers to PUBLIC FOOTPATHS EUXTON 37 & 38, CHORLEY BOROUGH .
>
> Separately on Chorley Borough Council website, a modification order
> https://democracy.chorley.gov.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD2280=2280=6590173
> refers
>
> Add to the Definitive Statement for Croston the following:
>
> Restricted Byway 26 from a junction with Back Drinkhouse Lane at SD 4853
> 1838 running in an approximately easterly direction along an enclosed track
> to pass through bollards at SD 4854 1838 and continuing to terminate at SD
> 4859 1838 at a junction with Drinkhouse Road between properties 17 and 19 
> Drinkhouse
> Road.
> It seems clear that LCC have no formal nomenclature reference rules, so
> the method described by you and your reasoning is that which we in
> Lancashire should adopt.
>
> I'd  like to see the data supplied to you made more widely available - as
> that public availability was part of my original question. I shall send to
> Rob the data I extracted from the data supplied.
>
> Regards
> Tony
>
> On 26/11/2019 21:12, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Firstly, Tony, I think 9-4 is Anderton and 9-1 is Adlington.
>
> As part of the original FOI/EIR/Re-use request for the GIS dataset, I also
> requested (and was supplied) the council's scanned copies of the Definitive
> Statements along with permission to use them under the OGL. They appear to
> be complete as of when they were scanned (Early 2000s) but don't include
> any subsequent modification orders (like many councils Lancs don't
> frequently update the Map/Statement themselves, the documents have to be
> read in conjunction with any relevant modification orders)..  If Tony or
> anyone else is interested in the Statements I can send a download link. If
> anybody knows anywhere where they could be hosted to be publicly accessible
> in the long term then that would be great. With the statements the Council
> also supplied and OGL licensed scans of the county's surviving original
> parish survey cards which were used as part of the process for drawing up
> the draft definitive maps/statements. The same applies to these (though
> beware that these only cover a fraction of the County (the Rural Districts
> of Lancaster, Fylde, Wigan, West Lancs and Chorley).
>
> The paper Definitive Maps and Statements for Lancashire don't go as far as
> naming the paths or supplying a definitive reference and as Robert
> suspected I've not seen any pre-digitisation records which use anything
> like 9-4-5. Parishes are not numbered on either the map or Statement. Paths
> are numbered individually and colour coded by status on the maps. The
> format varied over time but most of the statements are tabulated by (named)
> parish with column headings 'path number', 'kind of path', 'position',
> 'length', 'any other particulars', there is no section for path name or
> reference, though where the statement for one path it refers to another
> path it is usually in the form of parish, path type, path number.
>
> Whilst there is a pretty much de facto standard when discussing rights of
> way to use the format parish, path type (often abbreviated), path no., I'm
> really not sure we need to be overly bothered about the (perceived)
> formatting preference of each county (I've never heard of a coucnil
> actually having a preference on path referencing format). In this context
>

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

[Adam Snape]

Hi,


Firstly, Tony, I think 9-4 is Anderton and 9-1 is Adlington.

As part of the original FOI/EIR/Re-use request for the GIS dataset, I also
requested (and was supplied) the council's scanned copies of the Definitive
Statements along with permission to use them under the OGL. They appear to
be complete as of when they were scanned (Early 2000s) but don't include
any subsequent modification orders (like many councils Lancs don't
frequently update the Map/Statement themselves, the documents have to be
read in conjunction with any relevant modification orders)..  If Tony or
anyone else is interested in the Statements I can send a download link. If
anybody knows anywhere where they could be hosted to be publicly accessible
in the long term then that would be great. With the statements the Council
also supplied and OGL licensed scans of the county's surviving original
parish survey cards which were used as part of the process for drawing up
the draft definitive maps/statements. The same applies to these (though
beware that these only cover a fraction of the County (the Rural Districts
of Lancaster, Fylde, Wigan, West Lancs and Chorley).

The paper Definitive Maps and Statements for Lancashire don't go as far as
naming the paths or supplying a definitive reference and as Robert
suspected I've not seen any pre-digitisation records which use anything
like 9-4-5. Parishes are not numbered on either the map or Statement. Paths
are numbered individually and colour coded by status on the maps. The
format varied over time but most of the statements are tabulated by (named)
parish with column headings 'path number', 'kind of path', 'position',
'length', 'any other particulars', there is no section for path name or
reference, though where the statement for one path it refers to another
path it is usually in the form of parish, path type, path number.

Whilst there is a pretty much de facto standard when discussing rights of
way to use the format parish, path type (often abbreviated), path no., I'm
really not sure we need to be overly bothered about the (perceived)
formatting preference of each county (I've never heard of a coucnil
actually having a preference on path referencing format). In this context
differences in formatting don't change the meaning 'Rivington FP3' is
synonymous with 'Rivington Footpath 3', is synonymous with 'Public Footpath
Number 3 in the Parish of Rivington'. It is much more meaningful to have
national consistency than to slavishly following what we imagine to be the
formatting preference of each individual authority.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, 16:04 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists), <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 14:32, Dave F via Talk-GB
>  wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> My reading of the original post is that Tony is saying that the
> Council themselves are inconsistent in how they refer to their PRoWs.
> In which case, I think we should use the format that is most prevalent
> on the underlying legal documents (i.e. the Definitive Map and
> Statement) rather than any electronic working datasets that are
> produced from these. The onilne map at
>
> https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
> uses the "9-5-FP 23" style numbers, but probably doesn't have any
> legal force. I can't find any actual Definitive Statements online for
> Lancashire, but there are what seem to be some Definitive Map extracts
> in their DMMO register at
> http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/dmmoview/ . These mostly look
> to just use the "FP 34", "BW 45" numbers, without an explicit parish.
> My guess would be that the parishes are named in the Definitive Map
> and Statement, rather than using reference numbers (which are probably
> an artefact of digitisation). So unless the council has officially
> adopted the electronic version with the "9-5-FP 23" style numbers as
> it's legal Definitive Map, we should be looking at accepting parish
> names in the official reference numbers. The question then is how does
> the council itself refer to the Rights of Way when using named
> parishes rather than IDs. What is *their* preferred format?
>
> If we can agree on the appropriate prow_ref format to use in OSM, then
> I can load the GIS data into my tool at
> https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ and have it display the refs in
> the agreed format. Tony, if you've got a CSV file that converts
> between the ID numbers and named districts/parishes that you could
> send me, that would be really helpful, whichever format we end up
> agreeing to use in OSM. It will also automatically produce a table
> like https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/essex/parishes with the
> parish 

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

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I'm in agreement with Rob re:licensing. The good news is that lhe OS is now
fine with the OSM-compliant Open Government Licence (version 3), so if you
ask the council for an updated dataset they will be able to release the
data under the appropriate licence. [I was actually in the process of doing
this systematically for all the local authorities but haven't had much time
to continue that for a while (maybe over the winter...).]

Regarding the thornier issue of whether to import rights of way I think it
does add useful information and (providing the source is tagged) I don't
see that it hinders others efforts to map the physically existing route.
What, of course, we absolutely must avoid is overzealous contributors
'correcting' others' ground surveyed information by aligning routes to the
definitive line or changing access tags to match the dataset.

Kind regards,

Adam


On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, 23:06 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] Road/Rail Bridge near Preston Park

[Adam Snape]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019, 18:15 Jez Nicholson,  wrote:

> Known locally as "Pigeon Shit Bridge".
>

So who's going to add the loc_name tag ;)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Broken Style Sheet Issues?

[Adam Snape]

You do see this kind of thing periodically. It usually is caused by an
editor breaking the coastline and it's usually fixed pretty quickly but
tiles take a while to update. It's now only showing on the one layer so
will probably disappear completely when those tiles are re-rendered.

Kind regards

Adam

On Thu, 2 May 2019 at 22:23, Guy Collins via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I'm not sure if anyone can explain the apparent abundance of water in this
> area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/50.7678/-3.5708. Is this a
> style sheet issue? Has there been a mistaken edit? I cannot see any
> evidence of a bad edit through the find features tool on the main web site
>
> Please assist explaining the apparent flood. It may have been raining but
> only a few showers and not enough to flood over the hills.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Guy
> ___
> 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?

[Adam Snape]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, 12:54 Devonshire,  wrote:

> I have personally deprecated highway=bridleway|byway etc. as the
> combination of highway=footway|track|service and
> designation=public_footpath etc. contains more useful information both for
> map rendering and for active map users. Whether you wan't to do the same is
> up to you.
>
> Kevin
>

Byway is universally depreciated these days.

It seems somewhat odd to reject bridleway whilst using footway which shares
the same arguable 'flaw' of tagging both physical appearance and implied
access in one tag. For those unhappy with these tags, as Dave mentions, the
highway=path tag was designed to physically describe a physical path and be
used in combination with access tags.

Now, I can understand using either the 'classic' (highway=footway or
highway=bridleway) or 'alternate' (highway=path + access tags) tagging
schemes but I'd think that a hybrid resulting in combinations like
highway=footway horse=designated is best avoided .

Kind regards

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

Re: [Talk-GB] DoBIH Update - Permission Received

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Quite! You'll notice the Geograph link to the OS API explicitly states that
the OS claims both copyright and database rights.

There also seems to be some confusion about OS licensing. Being included in
the OS OpenSpace API (a free - as in beer - mapping API)  does not mean
that a map is open licenced. For example the1:50K 'Landranger' scale maps
are included despite definitely not being Open Data, so I'm reasonabley
sure that this dataset contains some unquantifiable degree of data derived
from a non-OSM compatible source.

Most of the heights should be derivable from OS Open Data mapping layers,
either the general purpose raster maps at various scales or the specialist
OS Terrain 50. Now I guess it could be argued that this means that the OS
would be unlikely to care too much about this information, but as OSMs
approach to is to be beyond reproach regarding such issues why don't we
just use the OpenData datasets that are available to us?

Kind regards,

Adam



On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 19:08, David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 23/02/2019 16:05, Silent Spike wrote:
> > but I have always understood that heights and grid references are
> > scientific fact and as such are not copyrightable.
>
> There is explicit legislation in the UK that establishes database rights
> and it is actually those, rather than copyrights, that are the main
> issue for open mapping.
>
> 
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging one way at certain times of day

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I think you're right in your reading of those tags - they don;t indicate
what you'd like.

Assuming the restrictions aply to all traffic (other than psv) then a
general oneway:conditional=yes @ (09:00-18:00) would seem the most simple.
Your oneway:psv=no overides that restriction.
Personally though I have a preference for setting the tagging  so that
routers don't default to sending people down restrcited streets at all
times because they don't recognise the tagging, so I would have it as
oneway=yes and oneway:conditional=no @ (18:00-09:00). Again the specific
psv tagging should override the restrictions.

Please remember to add oneway:bicycle=no tags if there's also a cycle
exemption

Kind regards,

Adam



On Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 14:03, Stuart Reynolds <
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> My attention has been drawn (by a local authority colleague) to a street
> in Tunbridge Wells, Grosvenor Road (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35929327). This is a bi-directional
> road that has timed restrictions heading north between 9am and 8pm, with
> buses allowed to head north up it at all times. Traffic can head south at
> all times.
>
> The tagging on it is currently:
>
> abutters=retail,
> highway=tertiary
> maxspeed=20 mph
> motor_vehicle:conditional=no @ (09:00-18:00)
> name=Grosvenor Road
> oneway=yes
> psv=yes
> source=sign
>
> to which I have just added oneway:psv=no because “psv=yes” doesn’t
> override the oneway tag, only the access tag.
>
> But the question is, is this correct tagging for the road? I don’t think
> that it is, because I take the combination of access, oneway, and
> conditional to mean that this is a oneway street, always, but that motor
> vehicles are prevented from using it IN EITHER DIRECTION between the hours
> of 9am and 6pm.
>
> Assuming that I’m right, how SHOULD this be tagged, to achieve the desired
> aim? Or am I wrong?
>
> Regards,
> Stuart
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Postcodes

[Adam Snape]

Hi

To clarify the question I was asking earlier, this is what the OS say:

"Code-Point Open is created by taking the average of the coordinates of all
the individual addresses in a postcode (provided we have any of sufficient
quality), then snapping to the nearest of those addresses. Code-Point Open
then delivers the coordinates of that address, as representative of the
whole postcode, to a resolution of 1 metre.

The accuracy of a Code-Point Open record could be expressed as, that the
coordinated position will always be within the notional geographical extent
of the postcode."

They do also note that centroids for new postcodes where the buildings
themselves have yet to be surveyed will be given a temporary approximate
position which should be noted as such in the metadata.

My conclusion from this is that we can safely map postcodes to the building
where their centroids are placed, perhaps avoiding doing so (or adding
FIXMEs) on brand new developments.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018, 14:45 SK53  I'm pretty sure that the "centroid" is allocated to the nearest delivery
> point in the postcode which places it over a building. See my (now rather)
> old blog post
> <http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2013/12/british-postcodes-on-openstreetmap.html>
> from 2013, and the note by Jenni Tennison. A caveat is, of course, that the
> Land Registry Prices Paid data proved to be an open data mirage.
>
> Please remember that Nominatim has a table (not recently updated) of all
> postcode centroid which are used for searches. These usually show as AB10
> 2## or similar and are at a lowish zoom level.
>
> Judging by taginfo stats we now have around 8-10% of all postcodes mapped,
> and Robert Whittaker's site suggests
> <https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/pc-stats/> over 10%, so better than in
> 2013, but nowhere near the level we could get if we adopted a sustained
> campaign to use what information we have.
>
> Personally, I add addr:postcode to streets when: a) it is clear that all
> properties share a postcode, but individual properties have not been
> mapped; and b) when the local authority includes the full postcode on the
> streetname sign (e.g., Gedling & Rushcliffe). In the former case this
> should be regarded as an iterative step towards the desired position of
> individually mapped addresses; in the latter it reflects an on-the-ground
> rule.
>
> The available sets of open data which can be used to resolve postcodes
> are: Food Hygiene (the best, easiest to resolve, coverage of the whole UK -
> even Rutland); Companies House Open Data (surprisingly useful even in areas
> of social housing); the National Register of Social Housing (NROSH, not
> updated since 2011, but still very useful); CQC (medical practices, care
> homes etc). I haven't looked to see how many postcodes are covered by these
> in total, but it should be a reasonable proportion of the total. If you
> aren't aware Will Phillips OSM-Nottingham site does allow searching of
> various open data sets across the UK (I would recommend searching only in
> the viewport, so you need to zoom out and in to the target area). The
> quickest way to ensure at least one address is mapped for a given postcode
> is using Greg's FHRS tools.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 13:44, Adam Snape  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I ask because the 'centroids' do not appear to be centroids in a pure
>> mathematical sense, they always appear to be placed on a building, never in
>> open space. Now, if this were merely been done by attributing the centroid
>> to the nearest building regardless of whether it actually belongs to the
>> postcode or not, it would serve no purpose. It seems far more likely that
>> it would be attributed to the nearest building belonging to that postcode.
>> If this is the case then it gives us a way of tying these centroids to an
>> actual building within each postcode area and that gives us something
>> tangible to map. Can anybody suggest whether I'm onto something here?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 13:27, David Woolley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If centroid has the plain (mathematical) meaning of the word, it will
>>> only fall exactly on the building centre if there is only one building
>>> in the postcode area.
>>>
>>> In practice the building nearest the centroid might have its own
>>> postcode, so you can't rely on the nearest building to the centroid
>>> having that postcode.
>>>
>>> There are, at least theoretically (e.g. a C shaped postcode) where the
>>> centroid is in an adjoining postcode.  I imagine you would get this if
>>> there was a c

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I'm not on about extrapolating postcodes for other buildings on a street,
but we should be able to map the postcode of building on which the centroid
is placed, shouldn't we? Zooming in should allow us to see which building a
centroid is on.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 13:44, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Fri, 2018-11-09 at 13:26 +, David Woolley wrote:
> > If centroid has the plain (mathematical) meaning of the word, it
> > will
> > only fall exactly on the building centre if there is only one
> > building
> > in the postcode area.
> >
> > In practice the building nearest the centroid might have its own
> > postcode, so you can't rely on the nearest building to the centroid
> > having that postcode.
> >
> > There are, at least theoretically (e.g. a C shaped postcode) where
> > the
> > centroid is in an adjoining postcode.  I imagine you would get this
> > if
> > there was a cul-de-sac projecting into a crescent that was small
> > enough
> > to have one post code.
> >
> I live in such a road, it is big enough to have different postcodes for
> odd and even numbers. The two centoids are very close together and it
> would not be possible to determine which is which without local
> knowledge.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
> ___
> 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] Postcodes

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I ask because the 'centroids' do not appear to be centroids in a pure
mathematical sense, they always appear to be placed on a building, never in
open space. Now, if this were merely been done by attributing the centroid
to the nearest building regardless of whether it actually belongs to the
postcode or not, it would serve no purpose. It seems far more likely that
it would be attributed to the nearest building belonging to that postcode.
If this is the case then it gives us a way of tying these centroids to an
actual building within each postcode area and that gives us something
tangible to map. Can anybody suggest whether I'm onto something here?

Kind regards,

Adam

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 13:27, David Woolley 
wrote:

> If centroid has the plain (mathematical) meaning of the word, it will
> only fall exactly on the building centre if there is only one building
> in the postcode area.
>
> In practice the building nearest the centroid might have its own
> postcode, so you can't rely on the nearest building to the centroid
> having that postcode.
>
> There are, at least theoretically (e.g. a C shaped postcode) where the
> centroid is in an adjoining postcode.  I imagine you would get this if
> there was a cul-de-sac projecting into a crescent that was small enough
> to have one post code.
>
> On 09/11/18 13:12, Adam Snape wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I agree with not mapping the centroids but...
> >
> > Is it the case that the centroids are always placed on a building which
> > falls under that postcode? If so, wouldn't it be okay to tag the
> > building with the appropriate postcode?
> >
> > Another idea: Given that postcodes (with few exceptrions) apply to only
> > one street, would it be acceptable to add the postcode tag to the street
> > where there is only one centroid on the street?
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 12:26, Tom Hughes  > <mailto:t...@compton.nu>> wrote:
> >
> > On 09/11/2018 11:44, David Woolley wrote:
> >  > On 09/11/18 11:34, David Woolley wrote:
> >  >> if you are only dealing with centroids, I think many have been
> > mapped
> >  >> already,
> >  >
> >  > <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=uk_postcode_centroid>
> >  > indicates that at least 2500 have been mapped.
> >
> > Yes, but it's a stupid idea, so please don't...
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > --
> > Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu <mailto:t...@compton.nu>)
> > http://compton.nu/
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I agree with not mapping the centroids but...

Is it the case that the centroids are always placed on a building which
falls under that postcode? If so, wouldn't it be okay to tag the building
with the appropriate postcode?

Another idea: Given that postcodes (with few exceptrions) apply to only one
street, would it be acceptable to add the postcode tag to the street where
there is only one centroid on the street?

Kind regards,

Adam

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 12:26, Tom Hughes  wrote:

> On 09/11/2018 11:44, David Woolley wrote:
> > On 09/11/18 11:34, David Woolley wrote:
> >> if you are only dealing with centroids, I think many have been mapped
> >> already,
> >
> > 
> > indicates that at least 2500 have been mapped.
>
> Yes, but it's a stupid idea, so please don't...
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
>
> ___
> 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] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

If these boundaries were purely of historical interest I doubt that you'd
find many experienced contributors arguing for their inclusion in OSM. The
argument is that these areas retain a continued cultural geographic
relevance. People with no particularinterest in history can and do still
consider themselves as living in (for eg.) Wigan, Lancashire or Dentdale,
Yorkshire (administratively in the Yorkshire Dales but not Yorkshire - how
ridiculous!).

To me the best comparison is with loc_name and old_name, tags in which we
appreciate the significance of older or alternate names for areas where
they retain some current significance.

Btw, I'm surprised that we've got this far without mention (unless I've
missed it) the Government's position on this issue, namely that despite
ceasing to have administrative function, the traditional counties continue
to exist and form an important part of of local identities:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eric-pickles-celebrate-st-george-and-englands-traditional-counties

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 1947 Boundaries

[Adam Snape]

Hi Rob,

Sorry, it was late. The 1 inch maps don't explicitly show rural district
boundaries (though they do show the individual parishes) nor do they name
the areas, so might be of limited use to you. The nearest in date 6 or 25
inch map should be your best bet (the boundaries didn't change much in the
30s-50s). Again, many of these can be found scanned on the NLS website.
Available under a non-commercial use CC licence so might be an issue for
your non-osm purpose. (osm has explicit permission).

Small scale overview maps of administrative divisions can be on a
county-by-county basis under the 'boundary maps' tab on
http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/ (licence is cc-by-sa 4.0).

Adam


On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 23:51 Adam Snape,  wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> Contemporary OS maps showed the borough and district boundaries. The 1"
> New Popular Series dates from around that time. The 6" and 25" maps are
> more detailed but many didn't receive a post-war revision until the 50s. A
> good selection of OS maps is on the National Library of Scotland website.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 1947 Boundaries

[Adam Snape]

Hi Rob,

Contemporary OS maps showed the borough and district boundaries. The 1" New
Popular Series dates from around that time. The 6" and 25" maps are more
detailed but many didn't receive a post-war revision until the 50s. A good
selection of OS maps is on the National Library of Scotland website.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 23:34 Rob Nickerson,  wrote:

> Like Brian, I am interested if OSM UK can do anything here. I liked his
> suggestion of a vote with a minimum number of people (with work done in
> advance by volunteers on both sides).
>
> In a semi-related note: Does anyone have the admin boundaries (including
> low level such as Borough and District) from 1947? I ask because the
> electricity regions were established in the Electricity Act 1947 and I
> believe they may still be the same (or largely the same). BTW I want these
> for something else - not OSM. But you could argue that if we have public
> transport fare zones in OSM then maybe Electricity Regions make sense too.
>
> 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] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I think this needs discussing on its own merits, because the argument being
made here is different to the usual argument for adding historical
features. The OP and others have made clear that the motivation lies not in
recording now-disappeared historical features, but in mapping traditional
geographic boundaries that retain some cultural (and in some cases such as
the Royal Duchies - administrative and ceremonial) importance.

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Adam Snape]

His,

I think I said earlier in the thread but I've never viewed OSM as a strict
majority rule, more a do-ocracy or rule by consensus. Certainly, I think
anybody proposing the deletion of others' mapping ought to be sure of clear
community consensus, not just a mere majority opinion. Future mappers
should not be bound by the views of 7/12 mappers participating in a Loomio
vote in 2018.

Kind regards,

Adam


On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 09:11 Dan S,  wrote:

> Though I've no particular expertise to add, this thread has tipped me
> in favour of being happy with these boundaries. Colin very rightly
> emphasised process - how do we come to some decision rather than
> simply expressing our views and then sitting back waiting for it to
> erupt again in 18 months? I'm not a big one for voting eg on tagging
> but this seems to be a great case for a Loomio vote or a wiki vote, as
> has already been suggested. Can someone perhaps set one up? Maybe a
> Loomio vote, and we'd probably want to paste its outcome into the wiki
> after to make sure it wasn't lost?
>
> Dan
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Adam Snape]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, 22:26 Martin Wynne,  wrote:

>
> > Even in these days of Brexit, I don't think there's any movement for
> > Northern Ireland to leave GB.  You've been misinformed!
>
> Hi Toby,
>
> Northern Ireland is part of the UK but it's not part of GB.
>
> GB is England, Scotland and Wales.
>
> The official title of this country is "The United Kingdom of Great
> Britain and Northern Ireland".
>
> regards,
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



Referring to Great Britain that's entirely correct. However as a country
code, GB is often used to refer to the whole UK, egs. Car plates, Team GB,
and, of course this very list Talk-GB which very definitely does include NI.

Fwiw, I don't think it's unreasonable to request that the discussion of NI
specific issues is done separately from the discussion of a non-NI
changeset. Nor does the fact that someone took umbrage at that request
necessarily mean that the request itself was insensitive.

Regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[Adam Snape]

Hi Tony,

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

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

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

Kind regards

Adam



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Both Colin and Dave have repeated the implication that the traditional
counties don't exist. It's very much arguable I guess, certainly successive
governments have made clear that they recognised the continued existence of
the traditional counties, and that administrative changes neither legally
abolished nor altered these counties.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 22:01 Colin Smale,  wrote:

> Except that the "ceremonial counties" actually do exist, and serve a
> function. They are formally called "Lieutenancy Areas" and represent the
> jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant as direct representative of the
> monarchy. Their boundaries are maintained by a different legal process to
> the admin areas, and on occasions can diverge for a limited period until
> they catch up with changes to admin boundaries. And then there is the
> Stockton-on-Tees anomaly...the borough is divided between the ceremonial
> counties of Durham and North Yorkshire.
>

Thanks Colin,

Yes, I was aware of how the ceremonial counties are defined. I think if
we're truly honest with ourselves we don't really map them because lord
lieutenancies (as wonderfully arcane and obscure as they are) are of any
real importance, but because they provide a vaguely sensible and
recognisable set of geographic areas that we can call counties. Certainly
if administrative importance were genuinely to be our criteria for mapping
we would be mapping all kinds of things prior to lord lieutenancies.

In practical terms lords lieutenant are historic, honorary crown
appointments and little more. If we actually believed this was
justification for mapping we could use the same arguments for mapping the
areas over which the royal duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall perform
various honorary and historic functions (such as appointing the
ever-so-important-in-the-present-day lords lieutenant) and exercise special
rights. Incidentally their legally-defined and extant boundaries are the
historic/traditional boundaries of the counties of Lancashire and Cornwall
:)

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Adam Snape]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 21:20 Mark Goodge,  wrote:

>
> I think it's slightly unfortunate that OSM uses the tag 'historic' for
> something that's different to what we are discussing here. As well as
> being potentially ambiguous, it may also encourage people to add
> boundaries that are "historic" in the sense used used by proponents of
> the traditional English counties.
>
> Mark
>

I quite agree. Much of the most strident opposition seems to be to adding
an historical (ie. now obsolete) feature. Where proponents are using the
term 'historic' they mean 'of long-standing importance'.

I feel I should stress at this point that we do map a fairly similar set of
boundaries, the so-called 'ceremonial counties'. These are basically a
modern attempt at providing a set of geographic county areas which don't
strictly follow county council administrative areas eg. the ceremonial
county of Nottinghamshire actually contains Nottingham!

If our mapping of boundary relations should only extend to administrative
functions we probably ought to reconsider our inclusion of ceremonial
counties. If we can see the value to the database of a county as a
geographic concept divorced from administration there might well be a case
for including our traditional counties.

Adam

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to
demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those
seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear
consensus in favour of deletion.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 16:38 Andrew Black, 
wrote:

> Before we can decide whether to delete or document it we need to decide
> whether it is wanted.
> Might a Loomio vote be a way forwards.
>
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 15:42, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
>> I wanted to talk about the process, not the outcome. It is obvious there
>> is not an overwhelming consensus one way or the other, and as usual the
>> debate just fizzles out with no conclusion. If we do nothing, the data
>> stays in the database because nobody has the balls to delete it, but it
>> can't be documented for fear of legitimising it.
>>
>> Is this the best we can do?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black <
>> andrewdbl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with Dave F " It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM. They
>>> are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant.
>>> They add no quality to the database.They should be removed."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:58, Colin Smale  wrote:
>>>
 I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We have some options...

 1) remove them all

 2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them

 3) leave them in the database and document them, even though they are
 controversial, to say the least

 Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we prefer things that are in OSM
 to be documented in some way, e.g. in the wiki

 Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM otherwise espouses,
 maybe we can go for option 3?


 Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be removed, but then
 I think it should be the responsibility of the DWG to make that
 determination, communicate the decision, and do the reverts.

 On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:

 No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant
 to OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change"
 is irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be removed.

 DaveF

 On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote:

 It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
 steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to these
 historic county boundaries being in OSM.

 I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki.

 Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?


 ___
 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

>>> ___
>> 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] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Adam Snape]

I think there's certainly an argument for including the traditional
boundaries. There's certainly enough people arguing the pros for us to say
that there's no clear consensus against it. As you say, there is a certain
culture of tolerance within OSM that would be at odds with removal.

I do, however, take some issue with the source chosen. The OS's dataset is
based upon the administrative counties formed after the local government
act 1888. Whilst no doubt very useful for genealogistst or those with an
interest in 1888-1974 administrative history, the LGA really marked the
first significant divergence between counties as administrative entities
and their traditional boundaries.

As the aim of the exercise would appear to be mapping the traditional
boundaries rather than mapping obsolete administrative boundaries, I echo
the earlier suggestion that the Historic Counties Trust's dataset would be
a more appropriate source.

Kind regards,

Adam



On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 11:47 Colin Smale,  wrote:

> It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been making
> steady progress across England. I take it that means acquiescence to these
> historic county boundaries being in OSM.
>
> I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki.
>
> Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?
> ___
> 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] Closed Footpaths

[Adam Snape]

Yep,

I should have said add access=no and remove any conflicting access tags.
The foot=designated access tag could be added back in once pedestrian
access was once again allowed.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, 16:58 Adam Snape,  wrote:

> My personal convention for temporary closures is to add access=no. Using
> access tags for these temporary orders is consistent with how we map
> permanent tros.
>
> If the line is altered upon reopening or the path is formally extinguished
> then the appropriate changes can be made as and when they occur but we
> can't just assume that they will be made (many developments just factor the
> line of the path into the design and don't seem a diversion). Wherever
> possible it is preferable to retain the object history by amending the way
> rather than deleting and adding anew.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, 16:32 Dan S,  wrote:
>
>> In the past I've simply modified the ways concerned by changing
>> highway=footway to higway=construction & construction=footway, leaving
>> all the other info intact
>>
>> As mentioned in the preamble here:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:construction
>>
>> Cheers
>> Dan
>>
>> 2018-07-31 16:22 GMT+01:00 Ian Caldwell > >:
>> >
>> > Some footpaths, some of which are rights of way, have been closed as
>> part of
>> > building a new residential estate
>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/339576698.  The closure notice says
>> they
>> > will be closed until March 2019 and I suspect they will have new routes
>> > when/if they are reopened.
>> >
>> > How should this be tagged or should I just delete them? I do not think
>> they
>> > exist on the ground anymore.
>> >
>> > Ian Caldwell
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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] Closed Footpaths

[Adam Snape]

My personal convention for temporary closures is to add access=no. Using
access tags for these temporary orders is consistent with how we map
permanent tros.

If the line is altered upon reopening or the path is formally extinguished
then the appropriate changes can be made as and when they occur but we
can't just assume that they will be made (many developments just factor the
line of the path into the design and don't seem a diversion). Wherever
possible it is preferable to retain the object history by amending the way
rather than deleting and adding anew.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, 16:32 Dan S,  wrote:

> In the past I've simply modified the ways concerned by changing
> highway=footway to higway=construction & construction=footway, leaving
> all the other info intact
>
> As mentioned in the preamble here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:construction
>
> Cheers
> Dan
>
> 2018-07-31 16:22 GMT+01:00 Ian Caldwell :
> >
> > Some footpaths, some of which are rights of way, have been closed as
> part of
> > building a new residential estate
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/339576698.  The closure notice says
> they
> > will be closed until March 2019 and I suspect they will have new routes
> > when/if they are reopened.
> >
> > How should this be tagged or should I just delete them? I do not think
> they
> > exist on the ground anymore.
> >
> > Ian Caldwell
> >
> > ___
> > 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] MapThePaths - updates

[Adam Snape]

Sorry,

I mean to say we need a way to tag this 'name format' (official_name
perhaps? Or prow_name...)

Kind regards,

Adam

On 3 July 2018 at 09:09, Adam Snape  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Very. very few Defiunitive statements include arcane numeric references
> like that. They almost always use the parish name and path number eg.
> Newton Footpath 1. I think we really this 'name' format as it is something
> we could consistently do nationally.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
> On 2 July 2018 at 23:44, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2 July 2018 at 11:17, Roger Calvert  wrote:
>> > I have found a difference in the references given in Map The Paths my
>> area
>> > from that on the local authority maps, and I suspect it is universal.
>> >
>> > The paths are given with a 3 figure reference, but on the maps issued
>> by the
>> > Lake District National Park Authority to volunteer footpath surveyors,
>> they
>> > have a 6 figure reference, the first three referring to the Civil
>> Parish in
>> > which they lie. (The LDNPA maintains footpaths in the National Park
>> under
>> > contract with Cumbria County Council.)
>>
>> On rowmaps, there's a standardised format whereby the parish
>> name/number goes in one field and the path number goes in another. The
>> display then joins them back together again with a space. Different
>> counties use different formats for combining the numbers, possibly
>> using a slash of dash between them, or possibly including the parish
>> name rather than a parish number. It's also possible that the format
>> used in the GIS data is not the actual legal format used in the
>> Definitive Map and Statement, i.e. the parish numbers might just be an
>> internal convenience. The interpretation of the rowmaps data therefore
>> needs a bit of care.
>>
>> In the case of Cumbria, I've just made an FOI/EIR request for a list
>> of the parish names corresponding to the numbers, and asked whether
>> the numbers are used in the Definitive Statement. See
>> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_5
>>
>> Robert.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Whittaker
>>
>> ___
>> 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] MapThePaths - updates

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Very. very few Defiunitive statements include arcane numeric references
like that. They almost always use the parish name and path number eg.
Newton Footpath 1. I think we really this 'name' format as it is something
we could consistently do nationally.

Kind regards,

Adam

On 2 July 2018 at 23:44, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2 July 2018 at 11:17, Roger Calvert  wrote:
> > I have found a difference in the references given in Map The Paths my
> area
> > from that on the local authority maps, and I suspect it is universal.
> >
> > The paths are given with a 3 figure reference, but on the maps issued by
> the
> > Lake District National Park Authority to volunteer footpath surveyors,
> they
> > have a 6 figure reference, the first three referring to the Civil Parish
> in
> > which they lie. (The LDNPA maintains footpaths in the National Park under
> > contract with Cumbria County Council.)
>
> On rowmaps, there's a standardised format whereby the parish
> name/number goes in one field and the path number goes in another. The
> display then joins them back together again with a space. Different
> counties use different formats for combining the numbers, possibly
> using a slash of dash between them, or possibly including the parish
> name rather than a parish number. It's also possible that the format
> used in the GIS data is not the actual legal format used in the
> Definitive Map and Statement, i.e. the parish numbers might just be an
> internal convenience. The interpretation of the rowmaps data therefore
> needs a bit of care.
>
> In the case of Cumbria, I've just made an FOI/EIR request for a list
> of the parish names corresponding to the numbers, and asked whether
> the numbers are used in the Definitive Statement. See
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_5
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> 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] Q3 2018: Paths and rights of way

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Whilst I'd be honoured to be responsible for a resource as good as
MapThePaths, it is Nick Whitelegg's work. I've changed the Wiki accordingly.

Kind regards,

Adam

On 28 June 2018 at 23:01, Martyn Evans  wrote:

> Great project, especially now we have the excellent MapThePaths tool.  One
> lesson from viewing that is to stress the importance of the designation tag
> (mea culpa, I've omitted that sometimes in the past ...)
> Also, can the MapThePaths view have a way of visualising permissive paths
> - I don't know of another map which could bring them all together.   They
> are often 'signed' with poorly printed A4 paper documents tacked to posts
> which rapidly deteriorate, leaving no certain record if visited a while
> after they are established.
> The wiki stub should link to the UK PROW pages
>
> let's get walking,
> cheers, Martyn (sobbomapper)
>
>
>
> On 28/06/18 21:35, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> With summer aligning with recent interest in footpaths, let's spend the
> next 3 months project focusing on paths and rights of way.
>
> I have created a wiki page (stub). Please add to it:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2018_Q3_Project:_Path
> s_and_rights_of_way
>
> We can also do with a blog post for OSM UK and twitter. Any volunteers to
> write this?
>
> Cheers,
> *Rob*
>
>
> ___
> 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] Council Footpath data

[Adam Snape]

Hi All,

As the quarterly project has just been announced I thought I'd provide an
update on my progress with systematically contacting councils regarding
PRoW data.  I'm trying to get as many as possible released, up-to-date,
under a clear unambiguous OGL3 licence and pro-actively published by the
councils (thus removing the need to repeat the process a couple of years
down the line.

As you can imagine it's a large task, so the time taken to do it and the
speed of local government action means that in many cases results won't be
useable until after the quarterly project. That said, progress so far is
encouraging,  I've checked or contacted all the county councils and I've
started working my way through the Metropolitan Boroughs/Unitary
Authorities. The responses I've had back have mostly been fairly
encouraging (a minority less than encouraging!), I've had quite a few
updated or new datasets, OGL licences and Open Data releases, some of which
I have already sent to Barry at Rowmaps, I have a few more which I'll send
in the coming days. Perhaps most encouragingly a surprisingly high
proportion (albeit probably still a minority) have committed to proactively
publish their data in the coming months.

Finally, In the coming days  I'll update Rob Whittaker with my progress so
that his PRoW OpenData table ( http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/open-data/
) so that it can be updated.

Kind regards,

Adam Snape

On 1 June 2018 at 09:10, Nick Whitelegg  wrote:

>
> Hello Adam,
>
> That's great - that will be very useful.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> ------
> *From:* Adam Snape 
> *Sent:* 31 May 2018 19:07:05
> *To:* Nick Whitelegg
> *Cc:* Robert Whittaker (OSM lists); Talk GB
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> Yes Hampshire's data is unambiguously available for use under OGL3.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Adam
>
> On Thu, 31 May 2018, 09:52 Nick Whitelegg, 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> (Adam - apologies for not quoting, but this email client performs the
> annoying habit of top-posting and haven't figured out a way to get it to do
> standard quotes).
>
>
> So, just to clarify, taking my local authority (Hampshire) as an example,
> does this page _definitely_ confirm that their RoW data is available under
> OGL?
>
>
> https://www.hants.gov.uk/aboutthecouncil/informationandstats/opendata/
> opendatasearch/publicrightsofway
>
>
> Reason being that I'm now in a position where I may be able to do
> something with this data and I'd like to use Hampshire as it's my local
> county.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Adam Snape 
> *Sent:* 30 May 2018 11:37:47
> *To:* Nick Whitelegg
> *Cc:* Robert Whittaker (OSM lists); talk-gb
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data
>
> Hi,
>
> Just a word of warning to double check the licensing terms before use.
> Many councils' licensing is ambiguous in that they'll refer to the OGL then
> state or link to the incompatible OS Open Data attribution terms.
>
> Whilst it's a wonderful resource and I think Barry has done a great job,
> the rowmaps site doesn't help with licensing clarity. There are quite a few
> references to unverifiable private email communications where the licence
> terms differ from the publicly available terms. Any mention of the OGL is
> taken at face value even if when checked the licence is actually the OS
> modified OGL ie. the incompatible OS Open Data licence! Perhaps most
> seriously, rowmaps also relies on a misinterpretation of communication with
> OS to suggest that OS Open Data licensed material is now automatically OGL3
> licenced material.
>
> All of this matters very little to most users of rowmaps but for OSM
> purposes as we require ODBL compatibility we need greater clarity.
>
> Over the coming months I'm hoping to individually clarify licensing with
> all of the authorities which haven't explicitly, unambiguously and publicly
> licensed their RoW data under OGL3 (and, yes, I know that's most of them).
> I'll also try and get new or updated data where not currently available or
> several years old. Ideally I'll get the authorities to include a clear
> unambiguous licence on their websites but, failing that, I'll publish the
> relevant communication online so that it is verifiable and we do at least
> have certainty about the data currently available to us.
>
> In the slightly longer term I think our aim needs to be to persuade all
> authorities to proactively publish new versions of their data as open data,
> rather than individuals having to individually badger authorities to update
> their data. Under their Publication Schemes they should start doing this
> automatically o

Re: [Talk-GB] Local names of bits of trunk roads

[Adam Snape]

And, to actually deal with your question, I'd do a ground survey to see
where the name changes. Failing that, the OS Open Map Local roads vector
layer will show where the OS thinks the road name changes.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, 17:01 Adam Snape,  wrote:

> Hi Stuart,
>
> Sorry, to clarify I meant the Great North Road relation.
>
> It is entirely right that the verifiable current names are mapped.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, 16:41 Stuart Reynolds, <
> stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> What do you mean by the “this” that is to be mapped? Do you mean “Great
>> North Road” or High Road / London Road, etc. The latter are not historic -
>> they are current (as you can verify on e.g. Postcode Finder looking for 11
>> High Road, Beeston, Sandy)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stuart
>>
>> ----
>> Stuart Reynolds
>> for traveline south east & anglia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25 Jun 2018, at 16:38, Adam Snape  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> If this is to be mapped  shouldn't it be as a historic feature rather
>> than a (current) road route?
>>
>> By the way I tend to use loc_name for a colloquial name regardless of
>> whether it is just used by local people.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25 June 2018 at 15:59, Paul Berry  wrote:
>>
>>> Someone's had a brave go at defining that very relation:
>>> http://osm.org/relation/2776562
>>>
>>> Feel free to extend it, bearing in mind the Great North Road != A1 (M or
>>> otherwise).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> *Paul*
>>>
>>> On 25 June 2018 at 14:44, David Woolley 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 25/06/18 14:13, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So how should I tag this? I want to have the correct name for the
>>>>> sections of A1, yet I don’t know how far these extend (my data lists the
>>>>> street names at points, not over lengths), and equally I don’t want to 
>>>>> lose
>>>>> the Great North Road tag - just to demote it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I would say that the name should be that which is locally sign posted,
>>>> for which you will need an on the ground survey.
>>>>
>>>> I think I would agree with the discussion that suggests "Great North
>>>> Road" for the entirety, should be a [route] relation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> 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] Local names of bits of trunk roads

[Adam Snape]

Hi Stuart,

Sorry, to clarify I meant the Great North Road relation.

It is entirely right that the verifiable current names are mapped.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, 16:41 Stuart Reynolds, <
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:

> What do you mean by the “this” that is to be mapped? Do you mean “Great
> North Road” or High Road / London Road, etc. The latter are not historic -
> they are current (as you can verify on e.g. Postcode Finder looking for 11
> High Road, Beeston, Sandy)
>
> Regards,
> Stuart
>
> 
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
>
> On 25 Jun 2018, at 16:38, Adam Snape  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> If this is to be mapped  shouldn't it be as a historic feature rather than
> a (current) road route?
>
> By the way I tend to use loc_name for a colloquial name regardless of
> whether it is just used by local people.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On 25 June 2018 at 15:59, Paul Berry  wrote:
>
>> Someone's had a brave go at defining that very relation:
>> http://osm.org/relation/2776562
>>
>> Feel free to extend it, bearing in mind the Great North Road != A1 (M or
>> otherwise).
>>
>> Regards,
>> *Paul*
>>
>> On 25 June 2018 at 14:44, David Woolley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/06/18 14:13, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
>>>
>>>> So how should I tag this? I want to have the correct name for the
>>>> sections of A1, yet I don’t know how far these extend (my data lists the
>>>> street names at points, not over lengths), and equally I don’t want to lose
>>>> the Great North Road tag - just to demote it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would say that the name should be that which is locally sign posted,
>>> for which you will need an on the ground survey.
>>>
>>> I think I would agree with the discussion that suggests "Great North
>>> Road" for the entirety, should be a [route] relation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Local names of bits of trunk roads

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

If this is to be mapped  shouldn't it be as a historic feature rather than
a (current) road route?

By the way I tend to use loc_name for a colloquial name regardless of
whether it is just used by local people.

Kind regards,

Adam



On 25 June 2018 at 15:59, Paul Berry  wrote:

> Someone's had a brave go at defining that very relation:
> http://osm.org/relation/2776562
>
> Feel free to extend it, bearing in mind the Great North Road != A1 (M or
> otherwise).
>
> Regards,
> *Paul*
>
> On 25 June 2018 at 14:44, David Woolley 
> wrote:
>
>> On 25/06/18 14:13, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
>>
>>> So how should I tag this? I want to have the correct name for the
>>> sections of A1, yet I don’t know how far these extend (my data lists the
>>> street names at points, not over lengths), and equally I don’t want to lose
>>> the Great North Road tag - just to demote it.
>>>
>>>
>> I would say that the name should be that which is locally sign posted,
>> for which you will need an on the ground survey.
>>
>> I think I would agree with the discussion that suggests "Great North
>> Road" for the entirety, should be a [route] relation.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] MapThePaths - new site focusing on OSM UK footpath mapping

[Adam Snape]

HI Nick,

Great job. It will be a really useful tool :)

I echo Rob's request for a higher level of zoom if that is at all possible.
I'd also suggest looking at some of the excluded 'urban' areas. Some of the
unitary authorities and Metropolitan Boroughs (particularly in Pennine
England) are more rural than you might imagine. For example Blackburn with
Darwen covers much of the popular walking area of the West Pennine Moors,
whilst the windswept moors of Wuthering Heights fall into the
urban-sounding Metropolitan Borough of Bradford!

It's great that we have this resource to add designation tags but just one
warning based upon something I saw a new mapper near me do a couple of
years ago. Please do not add negative access tags or delete existing access
tags based on the recorded status of these paths. The recording on the
definitive map of a public footpath means foot=designated, it explicitly
does not mean bicycle=no, horse=no etc. There may be unrecorded  rights,
locals may customarily use the routes on horse or bike, there may be
explicit permissive access, or a formal Cycle Track Order may have been
made. We are not able to judge any of this from the PRoW datasets.

Kind regards,

Adam

On 9 June 2018 at 14:46, Rob Nickerson  wrote:

> Hi Nick,
>
> I like this. Spent some time last night adding designations to existing
> OSM paths using one of the OGL datasets.
>
> A couple of questions:
>
>1. Do you have a combined ROW dataset (bringing all the rowmaps files
>together)? If so could you host this somewhere.
>2. Is it possible to allow one more zoom in on the map. For some very
>short ROWs it would be good to zoom in and have a closer look.
>3. Could you add the GB1900 data as an additional source (the so
>called 2026 missing paths)?
>
> Finally, did you spot my email from Chris that I posted to talk-gb? There
> is a launch event in London early July if you can make it.
>
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

[Adam Snape]

A very interesting dataset,

Just a belated comment regarding the footpaths on the c.1900 maps. We do
need to be careful not to infer too much about public rights. It is only
modern (1960s onwards) OS maps which have shown definitive rights of way
(in OSM terms designation=public_footpath). Older OS maps made no attempt
to distinguish rights, merely mapping physical features that the surveyor
saw on the ground (highway=footway or highway=path). Since the late 19th
Century OS Maps have always carried the disclaimer that the depiction of a
path or track on the map is no evidence of a right of way.

In truth there is some evidence that public use was often considered by the
OS and so depiction as a FP may provide some limited supporting evidence of
highway status, So it's certainly worth investigating paths marked on old
maps for potential public rights but I'd avoid simply assuming that 1900
paths marked as FP on OS maps are unrecorded public footpaths.

I've been doing a lot of research into unrecorded rights of way in my area
over the last few years, I'm happy to help if anybody needs any assistance
with their research or DMMO application.

Kind regards,

Adam

On 9 June 2018 at 14:06, Rob Nickerson  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I received an email yesterday from Chris at National Library of Scotland /
> GB1900 project. All public domain links so reposting it here:
>
> 1.I was curious myself to see how the distribution of footpaths
> looked a century ago based on the GB1900 abbreviations so I mapped the data
> I sent you at http://geo.nls.uk/maps/gb1900footpath/
>
> 2.On 9 July in London there will be an official launch event of the
> cleaned and edited GB1900 dataset: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/
> gb1900-historical-gazetteer-a-celebration-and-launch-tickets-46224059406
> You or your colleagues would be welcome to attend, but no worries if you
> can’t, and I’ll keep you posted with the revised/cleaned dataset next
> month. It would be good to keep possible OSM projects involving this
> dataset in mind for the future.
>
>
>
> If anyone is in London and would like to attend this (or can travel in to
> attend this) please let me know.
> Best regards,
> *Rob*
>
>
> On Wed, 9 May 2018 at 21:13, Rob Nickerson 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Just posted a "challenge" to Loomio for anyone who is interested. It's a
>> bit beyond me so thought I'd post it here.
>>
>> Basically we have point data of historic footpaths (some 300k points) and
>> I think it would be amazing to compare this to OSM to see if we can find
>> more footpaths to map. Obviously some will be long gone due to 100 years of
>> urban sprawl, but I'm hopeful we can still find some missing paths.
>>
>> https://www.loomio.org/d/pviAOkGR/challenge-footpaths
>>
>> 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] Council Footpath data

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Just a word of warning to double check the licensing terms before use. Many
councils' licensing is ambiguous in that they'll refer to the OGL then
state or link to the incompatible OS Open Data attribution terms.

Whilst it's a wonderful resource and I think Barry has done a great job,
the rowmaps site doesn't help with licensing clarity. There are quite a few
references to unverifiable private email communications where the licence
terms differ from the publicly available terms. Any mention of the OGL is
taken at face value even if when checked the licence is actually the OS
modified OGL ie. the incompatible OS Open Data licence! Perhaps most
seriously, rowmaps also relies on a misinterpretation of communication with
OS to suggest that OS Open Data licensed material is now automatically OGL3
licenced material.

All of this matters very little to most users of rowmaps but for OSM
purposes as we require ODBL compatibility we need greater clarity.

Over the coming months I'm hoping to individually clarify licensing with
all of the authorities which haven't explicitly, unambiguously and publicly
licensed their RoW data under OGL3 (and, yes, I know that's most of them).
I'll also try and get new or updated data where not currently available or
several years old. Ideally I'll get the authorities to include a clear
unambiguous licence on their websites but, failing that, I'll publish the
relevant communication online so that it is verifiable and we do at least
have certainty about the data currently available to us.

In the slightly longer term I think our aim needs to be to persuade all
authorities to proactively publish new versions of their data as open data,
rather than individuals having to individually badger authorities to update
their data. Under their Publication Schemes they should start doing this
automatically once information is supplied the first time, but it seems
that only a minority of authorities who have released data currently
publish it proactively.

Kind regards,

Adam


On 27 May 2018 at 11:21, Nick Whitelegg  wrote:

>
> Thanks for that - looks like a few councils are OGL which means we should
> theoretically be able to add designation tags from the council data.
>
>
> Agree about not copying the data verbatim from council data - am more
> interested in giving people a way to easily identify council paths unmapped
> on OSM.
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[Adam Snape]

As long as we're dealing with advisory signs erected by an official body
rather than a vigilante neighborhood busybody, I think the
maxspeed:advisory= tag would be appropriate.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[Adam Snape]

Restricted Road is the correct formal term for roads where the default
30mph limit applies. That said, it is not a term that most people will
recognise (unlike single/dual carriageway).

Adam

On Wed, 2 May 2018, 12:36 Tobias Zwick,  wrote:

> Also,
>
> 6. Did you come up with the term "restricted" or is the term actually
> used within the same context as single / dual carriageway in the UK
> legislation? Because, that term is usually used for quite another thing
> in OSM context (restricted access roads). But, as long as the nsl_*
> taggings in themselves are consistent (in that they use the terms from
> the UK legislation), that's fine, I guess. Otherwise, we should perhaps
> look for a more fitting name before I cast it into code.
>
> Tobias
>
> On 01/05/2018 20:19, Jason Cunningham wrote:
> > I had a bit of an interest in tagging speed limits a few years back.
> > It's way more complicated than it should be in the UK. Researching led
> > me down a bit of a rabbit hole of legislation & case law.
> >
> > I made the following personal notes about UK limits and how to recognise
> > them, which I think is mostly correct.
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu/UK_Speed_Limits
> >
> > I personally tagged restricted roads as  maxspeed:type=UK:nsl_restricted
> >
> > All a bit of a mess though.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[Adam Snape]

A 20 mph zone is a 20mph speed limit area. 20 mph repeater signs are judged
not to be necessary because the traffic calming measures physically limit
the speed of traffic.

A 20 mph limit simply imposed on an existing road without traffic calming
is deemed to require repeaters to differentiate it from a 30mph road.

On Wed, 2 May 2018, 11:54 Jez Nicholson, <jez.nichol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh, this is fun. So, correct me if i'm wrong: a "20 mph zone" doesn't
> have/need repeaters because it is not actually the legal speed limit. It is
> advisory to travel at that speed because traffic calming makes it hard not
> to.
>
> On Wed, 2 May 2018 at 11:36 Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The school lights I'm aware of which refer to a maximum speed are
>> advisory rather than mandatory. The actual legal speed limit remains the
>> same.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Wed, 2 May 2018, 11:17 Brian Prangle, <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just to further complicate matters there can also be conditional 20 mph
>>> speed limits on roads passing schools, so they're default 30mph unless the
>>> condition is met when they're 20 mph  - condition is usually flashing
>>> lights during school opening and closing times
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>> On 1 May 2018 at 20:11, Tobias Zwick <o...@westnordost.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wow, this now is really helpful information! So good that you are on
>>>> this list, this is exactly the kind of thing I was seeking when posting
>>>> to here!
>>>> Some replies and notes:
>>>>
>>>> 1.
>>>> > It even more common to believe that Restricted Roads are not NSL
>>>> > roads. NSL Restricted Roads are a type of NSL road.
>>>>
>>>> How does it matter though? What does the keyword "NSL" imply?
>>>>
>>>> 2. Also, what about dual carriageways (nsl_dual) that are lit? Will they
>>>> then also default to 30 mph if there is no explicit sign that indeed one
>>>> can go faster than that?
>>>>
>>>> 3. So, from the document, I understand an "LSL for individual roads"
>>>> would be "maxspeed:type=sign" translated to OSM while "LSL for zones"
>>>> would be "maxspeed:type=GB:zoneXX" translated to OSM.
>>>> I see in "OSM speak", we drop the "LSL" for these, but do not for the
>>>> "NSL" stuff. General question, not directed specifically to you: Isn't
>>>> that inconsistent?
>>>>
>>>> 4. I see you use "UK:something". I think to use "GB:something" has
>>>> somewhat established itself over UK by now, looking at taginfo. (Also,
>>>> the ISO-3166 of United Kingdom is GB)
>>>>
>>>> 5. I see you use "UK:zone_XX" instead of "UK:zoneXX". Also looking at
>>>> taginfo, I think that the latter somewhat established itself over the
>>>> former now: About 100,000 usages of XX:zoneYY, about 34,000 usages of
>>>> XX:zone:YY and about 0 usages of XX:zone_YY
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> By the way, offtopic this:
>>>> Do not assume though that the UK is the only country with unnecesary
>>>> complex maxspeed legislation. Look at this flow-chart created by Minh
>>>> Nguyễn after researching this for Ohio, US: :-D
>>>>
>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ohio/Map_features#Speed_limits
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Tobias
>>>>
>>>> On 01/05/2018 20:19, Jason Cunningham wrote:
>>>> > I had a bit of an interest in tagging speed limits a few years back.
>>>> > It's way more complicated than it should be in the UK. Researching led
>>>> > me down a bit of a rabbit hole of legislation & case law.
>>>> >
>>>> > I made the following personal notes about UK limits and how to
>>>> recognise
>>>> > them, which I think is mostly correct.
>>>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu/UK_Speed_Limits
>>>> >
>>>> > I personally tagged restricted roads as
>>>> maxspeed:type=UK:nsl_restricted
>>>> >
>>>> > All a bit of a mess though.
>>>> >
>>>> > Jason
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ___
>>>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>>>> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[Adam Snape]

On Wed, 2 May 2018, 11:47 John Aldridge,  wrote:

> I believe it's DoT policy not to allow 30mph repeaters (at least,
> someone told me that
>

This is correct on street lit where the 30mph limit would apply by default.
30mph repeaters can (and should) be used if a 30mph limit applies elsewhere.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[Adam Snape]

The school lights I'm aware of which refer to a maximum speed are advisory
rather than mandatory. The actual legal speed limit remains the same.

Adam

On Wed, 2 May 2018, 11:17 Brian Prangle,  wrote:

> Just to further complicate matters there can also be conditional 20 mph
> speed limits on roads passing schools, so they're default 30mph unless the
> condition is met when they're 20 mph  - condition is usually flashing
> lights during school opening and closing times
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
> On 1 May 2018 at 20:11, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
>
>> Wow, this now is really helpful information! So good that you are on
>> this list, this is exactly the kind of thing I was seeking when posting
>> to here!
>> Some replies and notes:
>>
>> 1.
>> > It even more common to believe that Restricted Roads are not NSL
>> > roads. NSL Restricted Roads are a type of NSL road.
>>
>> How does it matter though? What does the keyword "NSL" imply?
>>
>> 2. Also, what about dual carriageways (nsl_dual) that are lit? Will they
>> then also default to 30 mph if there is no explicit sign that indeed one
>> can go faster than that?
>>
>> 3. So, from the document, I understand an "LSL for individual roads"
>> would be "maxspeed:type=sign" translated to OSM while "LSL for zones"
>> would be "maxspeed:type=GB:zoneXX" translated to OSM.
>> I see in "OSM speak", we drop the "LSL" for these, but do not for the
>> "NSL" stuff. General question, not directed specifically to you: Isn't
>> that inconsistent?
>>
>> 4. I see you use "UK:something". I think to use "GB:something" has
>> somewhat established itself over UK by now, looking at taginfo. (Also,
>> the ISO-3166 of United Kingdom is GB)
>>
>> 5. I see you use "UK:zone_XX" instead of "UK:zoneXX". Also looking at
>> taginfo, I think that the latter somewhat established itself over the
>> former now: About 100,000 usages of XX:zoneYY, about 34,000 usages of
>> XX:zone:YY and about 0 usages of XX:zone_YY
>>
>> ---
>>
>> By the way, offtopic this:
>> Do not assume though that the UK is the only country with unnecesary
>> complex maxspeed legislation. Look at this flow-chart created by Minh
>> Nguyễn after researching this for Ohio, US: :-D
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ohio/Map_features#Speed_limits
>>
>> Cheers
>> Tobias
>>
>> On 01/05/2018 20:19, Jason Cunningham wrote:
>> > I had a bit of an interest in tagging speed limits a few years back.
>> > It's way more complicated than it should be in the UK. Researching led
>> > me down a bit of a rabbit hole of legislation & case law.
>> >
>> > I made the following personal notes about UK limits and how to recognise
>> > them, which I think is mostly correct.
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu/UK_Speed_Limits
>> >
>> > I personally tagged restricted roads as  maxspeed:type=UK:nsl_restricted
>> >
>> > All a bit of a mess though.
>> >
>> > Jason
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[Adam Snape]

Also, I don't think we need a special tagging scheme just because each
individual road is not signed. We don't do so for analogous restrictions
such weight, width or access restrictions which are generally only signed
when entering or leaving the zone where the restriction applies.

Adam

On 30 April 2018 at 20:31, Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure I'd call any of the national speed limits implicit. All are
> explicit in that they are (or should be) physically signed at least where
> the limit changes, so they are verifiable rather than merely implied. The
> only practical difference is whether small repeater signs are required to
> remind drivers of the speed limit and (as Phil says) in these days zonal
> 20mph limits can sometimes be implemented without repeater signs.
>
> Adam
>
> On 30 April 2018 at 20:05, Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> For practical purposes the only non-implicitly signed speed limits are
>> national speed limits, (start indicated by black diagonal on white) and
>> motorways indicated by the international chop sticks sign.
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>
>> On 30 April 2018 19:54:37 BST, Tobias Zwick <o...@westnordost.de> wrote:
>>
>>> I apologize for the misunderstanding, this is about implicit speed
>>> limits when there is *no sign* that ordains another speed limit, of course.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Tobias
>>>
>>> On 30/04/2018 20:50, Brian Prangle wrote:
>>>
>>>>  You can't make that assumption of an implicit 30mph limit. Major roads
>>>>  in in built up areas can be 40 mph and increasingly speed limits are
>>>>  being reduced to 20mph in built up areas
>>>>
>>>>  Regards
>>>>
>>>>  Brian
>>>>
>>>>  On 30 April 2018 at 18:41, Tobias Zwick <o...@westnordost.de
>>>>  <mailto:o...@westnordost.de>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Hi there
>>>>
>>>>  On tagging implicit speed limits in the United Kingdom, the wiki lists
>>>>  the following values [1] for "maxspeed:type":
>>>>
>>>>  GB:nsl_single (=60 mph), GB:nsl_dual (=70 mph) and GB:motorway (=70 
>>>> mph)
>>>>
>>>>  I understand that the current legislation defines a road with
>>>>  road-lighting as a built-up area in which a lower implicit speed limit
>>>>  of 30 mph applies. There is no mention of it in the wiki, no GB:urban,
>>>>  GB:lit, GB:zone30 or anything like that, so something should be 
>>>> defined
>>>>  and documented by (you,) the British OSM community.
>>>>
>>>>  My question:
>>>>  How to tag roads in which such an implicit speed limit for built-up
>>>>  areas applies?
>>>>
>>>>  The question is motivated by an issue report for StreetComplete [2]
>>>>
>>>>  Cheers
>>>>  Tobias
>>>>
>>>>  [1]
>>>>  
>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Speed_limits#Country_code.2Fcategory_conversion_table
>>>>  
>>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Speed_limits#Country_code.2Fcategory_conversion_table>
>>>>
>>>>  [2] https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/1037
>>>>  <https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/1037>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>  Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>  Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
>>>>  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>  <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[Adam Snape]

I'm not sure I'd call any of the national speed limits implicit. All are
explicit in that they are (or should be) physically signed at least where
the limit changes, so they are verifiable rather than merely implied. The
only practical difference is whether small repeater signs are required to
remind drivers of the speed limit and (as Phil says) in these days zonal
20mph limits can sometimes be implemented without repeater signs.

Adam

On 30 April 2018 at 20:05, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> For practical purposes the only non-implicitly signed speed limits are
> national speed limits, (start indicated by black diagonal on white) and
> motorways indicated by the international chop sticks sign.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On 30 April 2018 19:54:37 BST, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
>
>> I apologize for the misunderstanding, this is about implicit speed
>> limits when there is *no sign* that ordains another speed limit, of course.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Tobias
>>
>> On 30/04/2018 20:50, Brian Prangle wrote:
>>
>>>  You can't make that assumption of an implicit 30mph limit. Major roads
>>>  in in built up areas can be 40 mph and increasingly speed limits are
>>>  being reduced to 20mph in built up areas
>>>
>>>  Regards
>>>
>>>  Brian
>>>
>>>  On 30 April 2018 at 18:41, Tobias Zwick >>  > wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi there
>>>
>>>  On tagging implicit speed limits in the United Kingdom, the wiki lists
>>>  the following values [1] for "maxspeed:type":
>>>
>>>  GB:nsl_single (=60 mph), GB:nsl_dual (=70 mph) and GB:motorway (=70 
>>> mph)
>>>
>>>  I understand that the current legislation defines a road with
>>>  road-lighting as a built-up area in which a lower implicit speed limit
>>>  of 30 mph applies. There is no mention of it in the wiki, no GB:urban,
>>>  GB:lit, GB:zone30 or anything like that, so something should be defined
>>>  and documented by (you,) the British OSM community.
>>>
>>>  My question:
>>>  How to tag roads in which such an implicit speed limit for built-up
>>>  areas applies?
>>>
>>>  The question is motivated by an issue report for StreetComplete [2]
>>>
>>>  Cheers
>>>  Tobias
>>>
>>>  [1]
>>>  
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Speed_limits#Country_code.2Fcategory_conversion_table
>>>  
>>> 
>>>
>>>  [2] https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/1037
>>>  
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>  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
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> ___
> 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 AGM and notification

[Adam Snape]

Hi Tony,

Firstly, welcome to OSM. I'm an active mapper based in Preston and tend to
concentrate on mapping in the Preston and South Ribble areas (I don't
really get down as far as Chorley very often) . I'm more than happy to help
in any way I can. Feel free to drop me an email if there's anything you'd
like to discuss. Maybe if we get a couple more local mappers we can sort
out our own regular local meets :)

By the way, I do try and keep an eye on local edits by new contributors so
I did have a brief look over some of your first edits at the time. Rest
assured that all seemed fine. Keep up the good work!

Kind regards,

Adam Snape (ACS1986)

On 14 April 2018 at 13:51, Tony Shield <tony.shield...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All
>
> Starting to get into OSM mapping and things OSM - so I've found this
> talk-gb mail system, I've just found the website OSM UK and seen the
> weeklyOSM 403 global newsletter.
>
> I can't see the AGM details on the OSM UK website, nor details on the AGM
> in the list of events carried in the weeklyOSM letter. Should the AGM be
> added to these places?
>
> I hope to attend the AGM  - Manchester is close to me as I live in
> Lancashire - so I hope to be able to meet you guys and check what I am
> doing is correct.
>
> To help identification will people be wearing name cards with their OSM
> handle, name and location e.g. . . .
>
> TonyS999
>
> Tony Shield
>
> Chorley, Lancashire
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Post offices that have closed

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

One of my local ones is currently closed with an uncertain future
("temporarily closed" according to the POL data). I've changed it to
disused:amenity=post_office and opening_hours=closed with a note. Ideally
the tools ought to be able to understand the disused: lifecycle prefix on
post offices. I'm not sure what I'd do for a post office which had been
replaced with something else.

Regards,

Adam

On 6 April 2018 at 17:15, Andrew Hain  wrote:

> What is a suitable way to identify post offices no longer in use such as
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/branch/19408 to the maintenance
> tools?
>
> --
> Andrew
>
> ___
> 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] Bottle Kilns

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

How about disused as a lifecycle prefix rather than a simple tag eg.
disused:man_made=kiln
tourism=museum

Alternatively, how about using the historic tag to differentiate old kilns
from modern ones eg.
historic=kiln
tourism=museum

Kind regards,

Adam


On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 16:00 Paul Berry,  wrote:

> > Do we have precedence for handling such cases, in other types of
> specialist buildings?
>
> Not sure, but I'm now thinking about other kiln-like structures close to
> my neck of the woods. Feel free to update the tagging on these accordingly:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catcliffe_Glass_Cone
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/155737916
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cementation_furnace,_Sheffield
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/107004890
>
> Regards,
> *Paul*
>
> On 5 April 2018 at 15:45, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
>> On 5 April 2018 at 13:18, Russ Phillips 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm intending to map the bottle kilns in Stoke on Trent.
>>
>> Don't forget that there are some in Stourbridge, too.
>>
>> > Based on feedback from a few people, I'm planning to use the following
>> tags,
>> > although I'm still open to suggestions.
>>
>> the rest look OK, but Ilm not sure about:
>>
>> > * disused=yes
>>
>> Since, though disused as kilns, they tend to be used for something
>> else (shop, museum, etc.).
>>
>> Do we have precedence for handling such cases, in other types of
>> specialist buildings?
>>
>> --
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>
>> ___
>> 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] YHA (England & Wales), Youth Hostel

[Adam Snape]

Of course, if they happen to have suitable GIS data for their locations and
were willing to allow us to reuse these and the details on their website
under the ODBL, then it would be a very helpful dataset. We could use it to
keep track of the frequent closur ahem... changes to the YHA network.

Regards,

Adam

On 4 April 2018 at 13:26, Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> Permission to add something to a map is certainly not the same as
> permission to release information under the ODBL, we need that explicitly
> stated.
>
> Also, how are you going to locate the hostels? I'm assuming you're
> armchair mapping, so how can you tell whether (or which) hostel mapped in
> OSM is the relevant YHA one? Any information derived from the Google maps
> on the YHA site is strictly unuseable, even with YHA's permission.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam Snape
>
> On 4 April 2018 at 13:08, Dan S <danstowell+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> "YHA (England & Wales)" would go in the "operator" field, not appended
>> to the "name". (I'm not sure which you were suggesting.)
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that the loose permission (that you quote) is not
>> technically enough to safely use the YHA's own list as a source of
>> data for OSM, though it seems they're likely to be brodly in favour.
>> With a bit more chat with them, and some reassurance that we're not
>> intending to infringe on their copyrights, you can probably get
>> something like an explicit permission to add the data to OSM under
>> ODBL.
>>
>> Best
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> 2018-04-04 12:39 GMT+01:00 David Vere <dakv...@gmail.com>:
>> > I've made an enquiry to YHA England & Wales and have been told that
>> while
>> >
>> > "names of the individual hostels and YHA (England & Wales) as well as
>> Youth
>> > Hostel are all copyrighted”
>> >
>> > they are
>> >
>> > "happy for you to use the names on a map"
>> >
>> > and will even supply a current list.
>> >
>> > Is there any objection to my attaching the YHA hostel name and "YHA
>> (England
>> > & Wales)" to the hostels that are on openstreetmap.
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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] YHA (England & Wales), Youth Hostel

[Adam Snape]

+1

Permission to add something to a map is certainly not the same as
permission to release information under the ODBL, we need that explicitly
stated.

Also, how are you going to locate the hostels? I'm assuming you're armchair
mapping, so how can you tell whether (or which) hostel mapped in OSM is the
relevant YHA one? Any information derived from the Google maps on the YHA
site is strictly unuseable, even with YHA's permission.

Kind regards,

Adam Snape

On 4 April 2018 at 13:08, Dan S <danstowell+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> "YHA (England & Wales)" would go in the "operator" field, not appended
> to the "name". (I'm not sure which you were suggesting.)
>
> I'm pretty sure that the loose permission (that you quote) is not
> technically enough to safely use the YHA's own list as a source of
> data for OSM, though it seems they're likely to be brodly in favour.
> With a bit more chat with them, and some reassurance that we're not
> intending to infringe on their copyrights, you can probably get
> something like an explicit permission to add the data to OSM under
> ODBL.
>
> Best
> Dan
>
>
> 2018-04-04 12:39 GMT+01:00 David Vere <dakv...@gmail.com>:
> > I've made an enquiry to YHA England & Wales and have been told that while
> >
> > "names of the individual hostels and YHA (England & Wales) as well as
> Youth
> > Hostel are all copyrighted”
> >
> > they are
> >
> > "happy for you to use the names on a map"
> >
> > and will even supply a current list.
> >
> > Is there any objection to my attaching the YHA hostel name and "YHA
> (England
> > & Wales)" to the hostels that are on openstreetmap.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Edits in Wales

[Adam Snape]

I'm not sure about other countries, but one thing I did notice when living
in Wales is that there did seem in many (most) cases to be a consistently
preferred name. For this reason there is a problem automatically adding
name:en for an English variant of a name where most English speakers would
use the Welsh name. Someone wishing to render a map for English speakers
would end up rendering legitimate but antiquated or seldom used English
names rather than the Welsh name that most English speakers would actually
use. Thus, I would caution against a separate name:en tag where the name
tag already carries the name preferred by English speakers.I would suggest
alt_name:en or old_name:en respectively for less common variants.

The same argument applies to the (somewhat rarer) places where the English
names are preferred by Welsh speakers. Over enthusiasm amongst some
councils in recent decades has sometimes resulted in places signed with
ancient or newly-contrived Welsh translations of names. IIRC the Welsh
Language Board was somewhat critical of this behaviour. If the names have
no currency amongst Welsh speakers, I would advise against a name:cy tag,
preferring alt_name:cy, old_name:cy or official_name:cy.

Regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] BT phoneboxes

[Adam Snape]

On 4 January 2018 at 17:26, Andrew Black 
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I don't think we would delete a postcode found in other Open Data just on
the basis of it not being in Codepoint Open; the error could lie in
Codepoint Open itself. I suggest that a FIXME would be appropriate where
two sources appear to contradict each other.

Of course in this case we know the correct answer (assuming it is accurate)
but that is only through the PAF. Speaking generally, I don't think it's
good practice to be using non-free resources like this to research
information which is not clear from open data, even if we don't use the
information directly. The problems are twofold, namely that such an
approach is using a unusable sources to validate open data and there is a
risk that mistakes or Easter eggs on the source could lead to the deletion
of valid data.

Kind regards,

Adam

On 28 Dec 2017 8:29 p.m., "Mark Goodge"  wrote:

>
>
> On 28/12/2017 19:31, Lester Caine wrote:
>
>> Get the return address right ...
>>
>> On 28/12/17 16:12, Colin Spiller wrote:
>>
>>> I've been adding postcodes in the Bradford BD area using Robert & gregrs
>>> useful tools. I've just noticed that the Shell station at the Rooley
>>> Lane / Rooley Avenue junction BD5 8JR is now reported as having an
>>> incorrect postal unit (the final two letters of the postcode). This
>>> postcode appears widely on the internet for this site, but the RM
>>> postcode finder thinks it should be Rooley Avenue, BD6 1DA.
>>>
>>
>> PAF file has ...
>> Shell Filling Station
>> Rooley Avenue
>> BRADFORD
>> BD6 1DA
>>
>> and BD5 8JR is not listed having been deleted in 2009
>> http://checkmypostcode.uk/bd58jr so the real problem is does one leave
>> the faulty postcode in place because we can't use the PAF data or do we
>> validate postcodes against the codepoint database and remove those that
>> are not listed
>>
>
> It's an interesting conundrum, on several levels. We can certainly
> validate against Codepoint Open or the ONSPD, as these are open data. So if
> they say the postcode is impossible (because it's defunct), then we can
> definitely delete it if we want to.
>
> Replacing it with the correct postcode, though, is harder. We'd need a
> source that isn't derived from PAF. But Googling for this particular
> station, all the sources have the old, incorrect postcode - even Google
> itself! (I would expect they're all using the Shell data, of course).
>
> So that leaves us with three options, at least initially:
>
> 1. Leave it as is. We know it's wrong, but it's consistent with every
> other source, and it's from the only canonical source.
>
> 2. Replace it with the right one. More useful, but potentially risky from
> a licensing perspective.
>
> 3. Delete it and leave the entry with no postcode. Probably the best we
> can do as far as accuracy is concerned (in line with the general principle
> that data is better missing than wrong, if it can't be right), and avoids
> any licence conflict. But this is the least useful for users of the data
> (since, in this case, even the wrong postcode will identify the location in
> practice - for obvious reasons, Royal Mail will deliver to defunct
> postcodes long after they have been deleted, and many sat-navs will work
> with defunct postcodes too).
>
> Maybe the best solution is to leave it alone for now, and see if we can
> persuade Shell to fix it. Deleting the postcode risks it being re-added by
> someone else who spots its absence and decides to be helpful, without
> realising that if they use the RM postcode finder to validate it that isn't
> compatible with OSM's licence.
>
> Mark
>
> ___
> 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 Shell fuel stations

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Most of that 'strawman' suggestion seems sensible and entirely the right
kind of way for the community to help companies add useful data to the map.
I do however, disagree with the penultimate point. I do not belive that we
should be automatically importing this kind of data. An omission is much
more easily noticed and solved than incorrect imported data.

To add another angle to this discussion. If we are to use these kinds of
datasets in the future  I believe we need to be very clear about the
licencing. All we have is Ilya's word (and I don't dispute it but it is
hardly verifiable) that Shell has instructed a third party to map its
petrol stations on various platforms using a dataset it supplied. Going
forward I believe that we ought to have explicit written permission or
confirmation of an open licence from the copyright holder before
considering importing datasets. Openstreetmap is different to many online
mapping platforms companies might add information to because it involves
the perpetual free public release of all information entered. Has Shell
explicitly consented to this information being released under the ODBL or
compatible licence? I also wonder how Shell obtained its co-ordinate
information and whether we can be reasonably confident that no other
organisation could claim copyright in this information as a derived work.

Adam



On 15 November 2017 at 18:38, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> Like most discussions we get a useful survey of opinion and some
> elucidation of the nature of the problem, with lots of suggestions, but no
> actual decision on how we are going to proceed, except maintain the status
> quo.  As one of the core objectives of the UK OSM Chapter is to "promote
> and facilitate the release by organisations in the United Kingdom of  data
> that is suitable for use in OpenStreetMap" I'd like to suggest we focus on
> how we can achieve that objective and use this dataset as  a template for a
> methodology we can adopt for future datasets. I might be wrong but I think
> this is the first UK- wide release of data from a commercial body rather
> than a public one and we need to encourage others.
>
> Here's a strawman to start the discussion:
>
> Use Harry Wood's improved visualisation as a progress checker, with a
> colour change for  missing filling stations to red
> Get active mappers to add/amend data around their localities or journeys
> Change marker colour for filling stations that are "complete" with Shell
> data where it is correct to green
> Watch the map turn green as we make progress
> We can get going on this straight away whilst we decide on POI checker or
> Map Roulette as a better tool
> Review progress- see if we need a Qarterly Project
> After   say 3 months, we should see how much the active mapping community
> can achieve, and maybe  import the remainder with a "Review=yes/no" tag
> Ask Shell to release their data on the rollout of ev charging points once
> we've made some progress (ev charging points is another story but as we
> move away from fossil fuels OSM can demonstrate its utility in keeping up
> to date for vehile navigation)
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
> .
>
> On 11 November 2017 at 17:36, Rory McCann  wrote:
>
>> On 06/11/17 16:45, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> > Some years ago, we had a data donation, here in the United Kingdom, of
>> > data on cycle shops. These were imported into a tool which (if memory
>> > serves) enabled users to compare them to existing entries, and import
>> > the data to them if useful, or add new objects if necessary. I recall
>> > that it didn't take long for the UK community to process them.
>> >
>> > Can that tool not be repurposed, and thereby avoid the friction that
>> > imports like this seem sadly to cause?
>>
>> I have come across this tool which is designed for "merging" in 3rd
>> party data into OSM in a semi-manual manner. But it's a bit rough around
>> the edges, with no way to add new datasets (I think)
>>
>>  http://poichecker.com/en
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

[Adam Snape]

Interesting, but if your interpretation of the law regarding red/green
distinctions is correct, why do the majority of road road atlases on sale
and most maps (both open and proprietary) supplied by Ordnance Survey
maintain the red/green colouring?

Incidentally, my father is red/green colour blind and can tell the
difference between the two shadesused in road atlases. He does however
sometimes struggle with the picking out  the green dashed rights of way on
the OS 1:25K Explorer mapping.

Adam

On 15 November 2017 at 11:33, David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 15/11/17 01:53, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>> Can we please have blue motorways and green A-roads?:-)  Or do people
>> not like green A-roads because so many other things are green?
>>
>
> Whilst the OSM map renderings probably fall in a grey area, between public
> services and private hobby, for any map rendering provided as a service to
> the general public, especially in a part of the world with a high
> prevalence of red-green colour blindness, using just a red-green
> distinction would be illegal under anti-discrimination law.
>
> I'm not colour blind, but I rather suspect that most OSM cartographers
> have not considered people with vision defects in their decisions.
>
> The other accessibility issue that is likely to arise is low colour
> contrasts.  Web sites will fail accessibility guidelines, if, when you
> reduce them to black and white with the same luminance components, there is
> insufficient contrast.
>
> The UK philosophy on law is to have laws which say things will be safe,
> accessible, etc., and then use non-legislative standards (building
> regulations approved documents, W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines,
> etc), to try and judge whether the law is being obeyed).  As such, you will
> not find a law that explicitly states you can't rely on just a red-green
> distinction.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

[Adam Snape]

Most map users don't understand the distinction between primary (green) and
non-primary (red) A-roads so I understand why not all maps use it. Since
OSM makes this distinction anyway it makes sense to use the standard uk
green/red colour scheme in the UK map.

Adam

On 15 Nov 2017 1:54 a.m., "Gervase Markham"  wrote:

> On 30/10/17 01:58, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> > Would also be good to see a few suggestions for features.
>
> Can we please have blue motorways and green A-roads? :-) Or do people
> not like green A-roads because so many other things are green?
>
> Gerv
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Prow_ref format

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I agree with what Robert has said and think he has clarified many points
admirably. I think we need to be clear that in many cases what we will be
recording under prow_ref is a working reference used in the council's GIS
system, not part of the definitive official record of rights of way.

Colin asked about unparished areas. Where people refer to 'parishes' when
talking about the definitive maps they're usually talking about whatever
area was used to group the paths when the definitive maps were first drawn
up and paths numbered. In (then) parished areas this was usually the
parish, indeed parishes were individually responsible for drawing up the
draft maps and submitting them to the County Council. Paths in (then)
unparished areas were usually grouped by the relevant Urban District or
County Borough. With some exceptions these groupings usually remain to this
day. Even new paths added to the map  are usually grouped with these old
boundaries for consistency. Thus, the path recorded as Wiggington Bridleway
No. 7 might not fall in the current civil parish or unparished area of
Wiggington.

Regards,

Adam



On 4 Nov 2017 5:49 p.m., "Dave F"  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority.
> I've been using the format as decided by them.
>
> I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format by
> Barry Cornelius at rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn't be used as it's
> Barry's own concoction.
>
> As the LA is the organisation someone would most likely converse with
> about PROWs, it seemed sensible to use the format issued by them. It makes
> verification of any updates *much* easier.
>
> To check I looked at the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org
> /wiki/Key:prow_ref
>
> I wasn't really surprised to find another format recommended. A couple
> things appear wrong with this:
> * including the parish name in any format other than as issued by the LA
> will lead to confusion if their boundaries are amended
> * path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are already
> defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation)
>
> Having a 'standard' within OSM seems counter productive as it would make
> it non-standard with the vast majority of LAs.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> DaveF
>
> ---
> 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] Prow_ref format

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely to
result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally happy
with using the LA's version. Some thoughts:

1.  We definitely shouldn't attempt to amend the definitive map 'parish' to
correspond to modern civil parish boundaries. That could cause problems.

2. A standardized format could make it easier for data consumers to utilise
the tagged information.

3. There often isn't consistency of formatting in official usage. What
might appear on the definitive statement as 'Wiggington Bridleway No.7',
might appear in orders as 'Bridleway number 7 in the Parish of Wiggington'
and on the open data GIS files as 'Wiggington BW 7'

4. A minority of authorities number different categories of RoW separately,
so a parish may contain both a footpath 1 and a bridleway 1. If we do
standardize a format, including the category seems a good way of ensuring
we don't end up with duplicate prow_refs in such parishes.

5. It would be preferable to use the established acronym BOAT for Byway
Open to All Traffic, rather than BY as suggested in the Wiki

Regards,

Adam


On 4 Nov 2017 5:49 p.m., "Dave F"  wrote:

Hi

I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority. I've
been using the format as decided by them.

I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format by
Barry Cornelius at rowmaps.com. I think this shouldn't be used as it's
Barry's own concoction.

As the LA is the organisation someone would most likely converse with about
PROWs, it seemed sensible to use the format issued by them. It makes
verification of any updates *much* easier.

To check I looked at the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org
/wiki/Key:prow_ref

I wasn't really surprised to find another format recommended. A couple
things appear wrong with this:
* including the parish name in any format other than as issued by the LA
will lead to confusion if their boundaries are amended
* path abbreviations are unnecessary as their classifications are already
defined in other OSM tags (highway & designation)

Having a 'standard' within OSM seems counter productive as it would make it
non-standard with the vast majority of LAs.

Your thoughts?

DaveF

---
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] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

[Adam Snape]

"Are you saying that anything with a postcode beginning with SW should be
tagged addr:city=London and anything beginning with TW9 or TW10 should be
tagged addr:city=Richmond?"

I'm not saying others *should*, I am just saying how I *do *map. If others
want to document how they map I'm happy to how I tag for the sake of
consistency.
If we accept (which I thought we had) that addr: tags are for postal
addresses rather than general geographic location then, yes, SW has London
in its postal address and TW9 doesn't. It is not ideal to use 'city' to
mean 'post town' but city is the most widely used tag for this purpose.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

[Adam Snape]

Hi,
Yes, I was talking about in OSM, so was reluctant to go looking up the RM
version. When I used to sell stuff I did check with the RM website before
sending stuff out.  In my local area I know which postcodes are for which
post town so I can correct without referring to the RM.
For delivery, yes, only the postcode and house number are strictly needed
(with a few exceptions where there is both a main and subsidiary street).
The remainder is basically a backup. I don't really see that that ought to
prevent us mapping full address data in OSM.
Adam

On 19 October 2017 at 13:32, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote:

> On 19/10/17 13:15, Adam Snape wrote:
> > But Ebbsfleet is not a Post Town. The address will include Swanscombe. I
> > should have said before that my experience (as an eBay seller) is lots
> > of  people are unaware of their correct postal address. Each postcode
> > section eg. DA1, DA2, DA3... will have a particular post town, so I
> > correct this which I know to be wrong for the postcode. Because several
> > of the editors don't include a box for suburb or hamlet it is aslo
> > common to see names of villages or suburbs in the tagged as addr:city.
>
> From a postal point of view, the result of a lookup on the Royal Mail
> website is the best way of checking a postcode and the return from DA10
> 1AZ is longer than some results and is what Steve listed originally. If
> we can actually use that view of the data is a little grey, but one can
> at least check where one is shipping something is correct. I'm sure
> manually top level sorting post, the post person will be looking at the
> postal town rather than the postcode, but on automated machines then
> only the name and postcode are relevant.
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
> ___
> 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] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

[Adam Snape]

Haha, fair enough, it must depend where you live and the purposes for
needing an address. I apologise for the digression.

On 19 October 2017 at 14:02, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/10/2017 13:15, Adam Snape wrote:
>
>> To my mind Nominatim should use postal addresses where tagged in OSM
>> rather than trying to interpolate a address from admin boundaries. As a
>> backup it is better than nothing but it prodcues some bizarre results.
>> Somebody might live in Blackburn or Darwen, but they don't live in
>> Blackburn with Darwen
>>
>
> I'd much rather that Nominatim tried to guess where I actually live rather
> than the "legal fictions" that the Post Office (or whoever they've been
> sold to now) seem to rely on.
>
> Regards,
>
> 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] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

[Adam Snape]

But Ebbsfleet is not a Post Town. The address will include Swanscombe. I
should have said before that my experience (as an eBay seller) is lots of
people are unaware of their correct postal address. Each postcode section
eg. DA1, DA2, DA3... will have a particular post town, so I correct this
which I know to be wrong for the postcode. Because several of the editors
don't include a box for suburb or hamlet it is aslo common to see names of
villages or suburbs in the tagged as addr:city.

Colin made a couple of great points. A postcode so far as it exists is
really just an attribute applied to various delivery points. Despite
postcode polygons sometimes being used, they are really just automatically
calculated from the delivery points to which the postcode applies.

Colin was also right to draw a distinction between postal addresses and
administrative areas in the UK.  To my mind Nominatim should use postal
addresses where tagged in OSM rather than trying to interpolate a address
from admin boundaries. As a backup it is better than nothing but it
prodcues some bizarre results. Somebody might live in Blackburn or Darwen,
but they don't live in Blackburn with Darwen

Adam

On 19 October 2017 at 12:42, Dave F  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Occasionally, especially with businesses, extra 'bits' get added to make
> their establishment appear posher than it actually is.
> Looking at it's location you can see why. 'Next to the interchange' won't
> entice many customers.
>
> Where did you get that address? Their website shows it as:
>
> Spring River,
> Talbot Lane,
> Ebbsfleet,
> DA10 1AZ
>
> Which bit is Talbot Lane; it's not tagged.
>
> DaveF
>
>
> On 18/10/2017 23:48, Steve Doerr wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2017 19:07, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>>
>>> It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet, but this quarter's UK
>>> mapping project is to improve addresses and postcodes:
>>> https://osmuk.org/uncategorized/jump-in-to-our-quarterly-map
>>> ping-project/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It would be useful to have some guidance on tagging for UK addresses. For
>> instance, how would you tag the different elements of the following address
>> for a pub/carvery that opened recently near me:
>>
>> The Spring River
>> Talbot Lane
>> Weldon
>> Ebbsfleet Valley
>> SWANSCOMBE
>> DA10 1AZ
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steve
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>
> ---
> 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] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

[Adam Snape]

Doesn't its location within the UK make an explicit UK tag unnecessary? The
postcode, where present does usually indicate the other address details
(though very occasionally postcodes can include more than one street).
However we have no way of tagging attributes to a postcode rather than an
OSM object. Using associated street relations
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet might be an
option but seems a bit overly complicated.

On 19 October 2017 at 11:04, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote:

> On 19/10/17 09:35, Adam Snape wrote:
> > So I'd tag Steve's example: name=The Spring River, addr:street=Talbot
> > Lane, addr:hamlet=Weldon, addr:suburb=Ebbsfleet Valley,
> > addr:city=Swanscombe, addr:postcode=DA10 1AZ
>
> One of those itches to be scratched that have been discussed elsewhere ...
> Do we really need to add 'addr:street=Talbot Lane, addr:hamlet=Weldon,
> addr:suburb=Ebbsfleet Valley, addr:city=Swanscombe,' to every object on
> the street? addr:postcode=DA10 1AZ provides that data and more besides
> and only needs augmenting with a house name/number for an address. With
> all the other data manipulation tools being discussed, one which
> provides common data for an object is long overdue.
>
> Looking at the long format, should it not also include
> addr:country=United Kingdom so that one knows just how to validate the
> postcode anyway ... although I am tending towards addr:postcode:UK=DA10
> 1AZ so that one can pick up the correct secondary data easily ...
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
> ___
> 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] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

[Adam Snape]

I'm convinced that many such addresses are unnecessarily long (are there
really multiple Weldons in the Swanscome postal area?). Nevertheless we
should have a way of mapping them if they are the official address. I agree
that more general guidance would aid consistency. My address mapping
practice is as follows. I would welcome correction if others feel I am
doing something incorrectly::


   - The post town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post_towns_in_the_
   United_Kingdom is tagged as addr:city (whether or not it is a city or
   indeed whether an otherwise more important place is nearer). Though this
   should all be in upper case when used I add the tag in lower case with an
   initial capital letter as it would normally be written in a sentence.


   - For sub divisions of this area the wiki has documented tags
   addr:suburb and addr:hamlet. I tend to default to suburb everywhere except
   when dealing with an actual isolated hamlet. Where there are two
   subdivisions as in Steve's example, I'd use hamlet for the smaller one  and
   suburb for the larger one.


   - The wiki suggests to avoid addr:street and addr:place together but I
   use them for things like named retail/business parks where there is also a
   street address eg. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/527520264


   - I do not tag the name of the property separately if it is the same as
   the main name=* tag


   - Counties have not been formally part of postal addresses for many
   years. Royal Mail permits people to optionally add the name of the old
   Postal County, modern administrative or ceremonial county, or traditional
   county to their address according to their personal preference, but this
   plays no role in delivery. So I do not tag a county in the address.


So I'd tag Steve's example: name=The Spring River, addr:street=Talbot Lane,
addr:hamlet=Weldon, addr:suburb=Ebbsfleet Valley, addr:city=Swanscombe,
addr:postcode=DA10 1AZ

I hope that helps

Adam


On 18 Oct 2017 11:49 p.m., "Steve Doerr"  wrote:

On 10/10/2017 19:07, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

> It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet, but this quarter's UK
> mapping project is to improve addresses and postcodes:
> https://osmuk.org/uncategorized/jump-in-to-our-quarterly-mapping-project/
>
>
>
It would be useful to have some guidance on tagging for UK addresses. For
instance, how would you tag the different elements of the following address
for a pub/carvery that opened recently near me:

The Spring River
Talbot Lane
Weldon
Ebbsfleet Valley
SWANSCOMBE
DA10 1AZ

Regards,
Steve


___
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] National Cycle Network Route 55

[Adam Snape]

Hi all,

I noticed when plotting a route on cycle.travel that the relation for NCN
55 http://osm.org/relation/37734 was deleted, presumably by mistake, in
this changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52118445. Is there a
way to reinstate it without manually re-adding all the contituent parts.

Thanks

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Adam Snape]

Okay, To summarise the discussion so far. Most respondents thought that
highway=living_street was not the correct tag for shared use. Nobody
explicitly supported this usage. Most seemed to think that there should be
a specific tag for shared use to be used in addition to established tags
such as access, surface etc.
shared_use=yes, traffic_calming=shared_use and highway=shared_use were
suggested as tags, with no-one so far objecting to the simple tag
shared_use=yes initially suggested by Colin Smale.

Does anyone have any further suggestions or object to the use of
shared_use=yes? If it is acceptable I propose to change the roads in
Preston back to their prior highway classification (unclassified and
tertiary) and add the shared_use=yes tag.

Kind regards,

Adam

On 4 October 2017 at 09:32, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> Matt Ellery wrote:
> > I agree with the idea that living_street isn't appropriate for the
> > town centre roads identified here. I did notice that New Road
> > in Brighton (mentioned in the shared space Wikipedia article)
> > has also been changed to living_street by Pete Owens, although
> > he has added access tags as well.
>
> Frideswide Square in Oxford too. I've not changed it back until we're sure
> how we'd tag shared space, but agree it should remain highway=primary
> rather
> than =living_street.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

"So I'd be OK with any of highway=* plus access tags; shared_space=yes;
traffic_calming=shared_space; or maybe even go for duck tagging them as
highway=shared_space?"

I'm not sure highway=shared_space is any more duck tagging than
highway=unclassified etc.  To me the primary characteristic we consider for
highway classification in OSM has always been official classification
(motorway, trunk, primary etc.). A UK primary road can vary wildly in
character  from an NSL dual carriageway, to a 20mph city street, to a
single track road, Do the A5149 and A523 really cease to be primary and
trunk roads respectively because they meet in the centre of Poynton's
shared space scheme ( http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2935971 ) ? I
believe this example shows shared space should be considered to be a
feature of a highway, not the determining factor in its classification.

East Street in Horsham is another (sort of) example of a shared space and
has been tagged with the pedestrian/access tags method by lakedistrict. In
fact, the OSM wiki example of highway=pedestrian with access tags gets
pretty close to what I think of as a shared space, although there are some
differences in the priorities that are implied.

As promised, I did contact lakedistrict when I started this thread because
he first raised the living_streets issue in Preston. In his response he
said that he believed that living_streets should be restricted to signed
Home Zones and highway=pedestrian should be restricted to  signed
pedestrian streets, so I suspect teh Horsham example is probably signed as
a pedestrian street.

That '(sort of) example of shared use' raises another question about
hanging our highway classification on shared use, namely verfiiability. In
the UK shared use consists of an assortment of experimental road schemes,
signage is inconsistent and non-standard. Is it enough for some elements of
the design to be influenced by shared use, or should it be explicitly
signed? A minority of the streets tagged by Pete in Preston are explicitly
signed, with the rest being fairly quiet streets in the city centre with no
special signage on the ground.  It may be that there's a council document
somewhere labelling these as part of the scheme, but of course we can't use
that kind of document.

Kind regards,

Adam



On 2 October 2017 at 22:39, Matt Ellery <matt.ell...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with the idea that living_street isn't appropriate for the town
> centre roads identified here. I did notice that New Road in Brighton
> (mentioned in the shared space Wikipedia article) has also been changed to
> living_street by Pete Owens, although he has added access tags as well.
>
> East Street in Horsham is another (sort of) example of a shared space and
> has been tagged with the pedestrian/access tags method by lakedistrict. In
> fact, the OSM wiki example of highway=pedestrian with access tags gets
> pretty close to what I think of as a shared space, although there are some
> differences in the priorities that are implied.
>
> So I'd be OK with any of highway=* plus access tags; shared_space=yes;
> traffic_calming=shared_space; or maybe even go for duck tagging them as
> highway=shared_space?
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>
> On 2 October 2017 at 12:35, Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The photo of Exhibition Rd on Wikipedia makes it look deserted. I guess
>> it is sensible to photograph a new road layout at a quiet time.  I actually
>> walked along it not so long ago when visiting a museum and it certainly
>> seemed to still be used by quite a lot of motor traffic. Not that I think
>> traffic volume should necessarily determine tagging, but examples such as
>> this, the primary roads in Poynton, anda couple of thoroughfares in
>> Preston, do rather weaken the comparison to Home Zones or woonerven. There
>> traffic would typically be very light, very slow and almost entirely for
>> access. The more I look at the above examples, the more I am convinced that
>> the presence of shared use design doesn't make these thoroughfares
>> comparable to living_streets
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On 2 October 2017 at 08:56, Paul Berry <pmberry2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One of the most significant shared space street schemes in the country
>>> (at least, the one that got the most publicity) is Exhibition Road. Here's
>>> part of it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34401602 and it's mapped
>>> as living street even though it is not residential.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibition_Road
>>>
>>> Should it be changed also?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> *Paul*
>>>
>>> On 1 October 2017 at 23:17, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>
>&g

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Adam Snape]

The photo of Exhibition Rd on Wikipedia makes it look deserted. I guess it
is sensible to photograph a new road layout at a quiet time.  I actually
walked along it not so long ago when visiting a museum and it certainly
seemed to still be used by quite a lot of motor traffic. Not that I think
traffic volume should necessarily determine tagging, but examples such as
this, the primary roads in Poynton, anda couple of thoroughfares in
Preston, do rather weaken the comparison to Home Zones or woonerven. There
traffic would typically be very light, very slow and almost entirely for
access. The more I look at the above examples, the more I am convinced that
the presence of shared use design doesn't make these thoroughfares
comparable to living_streets

Adam

On 2 October 2017 at 08:56, Paul Berry  wrote:

> One of the most significant shared space street schemes in the country (at
> least, the one that got the most publicity) is Exhibition Road. Here's part
> of it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34401602 and it's mapped as
> living street even though it is not residential.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibition_Road
>
> Should it be changed also?
>
> Regards,
> *Paul*
>
> On 1 October 2017 at 23:17, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
>> And here's a road that wants to be a shared space but isn't there yet...
>>
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/NHnieuws/videos/1627424217288914/
>>
>> The goal of reducing the traffic speed has been achieved, apparently.
>>
>>
>> On 2017-10-01 20:16, Richard Mann wrote:
>>
>> The classic shared space scheme in Haren:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.17312/6.60310
>>
>> has no tags that I can see.
>>
>> I'd go for something like shared_space=yes for the moment. It's a
>> "special" type of traffic calming.
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Colin Smale 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just like in the UK, the councils here make it up as they go along; a
>>> "shared space" has no special legal status, unlike a "woonerf".
>>>
>>> A general principle which has proved its worth is that to make things
>>> safer, you remove the safety features. Like white lines and kerbs. Everyone
>>> moans a bit, but in the mean time you slow down and watch out just that
>>> little bit more... Hence shared spaces, an apparent free-for-all that works
>>> well.
>>>
>>> On 2017-10-01 18:57, Andy Townsend wrote:
>>>
>>> Not an answer, but a suggestion where there might be a bit more info...
>>>
>>> The Netherlands forum https://forum.openstreetmap.or
>>> g/viewforum.php?id=12 might be worth a read, since the shared space
>>> concept was pioneered there; https://forum.openstreetmap.or
>>> g/viewtopic.php?id=54843 is directly about "shared_space" but a search
>>> for "woonerf" (aka "home zone") gets a whole bunch more hits.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Adam Snape]

My original solution when I changed the living streets back to normal roads
a few months back was to just add extra tags to highlight the features of
the scheme: access, traffic calming, surface, maxspeed:practical etc. I
have just received a message from contributor 'lakedistrict' who raised the
issue back then, supporting the way I tagged the roads.

Andy, this scheme does have its own signs
https://designnotes.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2014/07/Screen-Shot-2014-07-07-at-12.15.04.png
but it doesn't seem to be an official designation in the same way as Home
Zones/Quiet Lanes so maybe if it needs a specific tag, 'designation' isn't
entirely appropriate. Is it better considered a form of traffic calming?
How about traffic_calming=shared_space?

Michael, thanks for the Poynton example. To me that clearly shows why it
shouldn't be a separate category of highway. It looks like two A roads and
a tertiary road cease to exist upon entering the town centre. There is a
tertiary road similarly affected in Preston

Adam



On 1 October 2017 at 16:58, Michael Booth <boot...@gmail.com> wrote:

> One of the first edits I did in OSM was to change my local high street to
> a tertiary road from a living_street. I think I noticed it because it's
> rendered different by osm-carto and some routers wouldn't use the road for
> directions.
>
> It's a 20mph two lane road, except with three traffic calming tables (one
> of which is a pelican crossing), and some larger pavements after
> improvement works reclaimed some parking spaces - so not somewhere like a
> "home zone".
>
> I read about the "shared space" scheme in Poynton, which seemed to be
> about narrowing/redesigning the roads to reduce speeds, and allowing
> pedestrians to cross almost anyway. However I think it's marked wrongly as
> a living_street in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19753268/history
> - funnily enough also by Pete Owens...
>
>
> On 01/10/2017 14:12, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Over the past couple of years Fishergate, the high street in Preston, and
> some surrounding streets have been redeveloped and these highways are now
> designated as 'shared space' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
>
> Following redeveleopment these were mapped as "highway=living_street".
> Earlier this year fellow mapper 'lakedistrict' left a note saying that this
> seemed incorrect as this wasn't a residential scheme, I agreed and changed
> the roads to unclassified highways (+ 1 tertiary), adding traffic calming,
> surface and access tags as appropriate. These roads have recently been
> changed back to highway-=living_street by another mapper 'Pete Owens'
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52072635
>
> To move things forward I would like others' opinions about how we should
> map such shared space schemes Are we happy to broaden the definition of
> living_street to include them or are they better mapped as ordinary streets
> with additional tags? Another potential option which I toyed with was
> mapping them as highway=pedestrian, adding access tags (bicycles are
> permitted, motor vehicle access varies across the area from 24/7
> thoroughfares, to time conditional/destination/psv only access).
>
> I'll draw lakedistrict and Pete Owens' attentions to this email so that
> they can contribute to the discussion.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam (ACS1986)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Adam Snape]

Hi Colin,

I agree entirely (though note that the two share many of those features so
I can see where the argument comes from).

If a shared space is not a living street how should it be tagged?

Adam


On 1 October 2017 at 14:29, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> It depends if you want to have a uniform basis for "living_street" across
> the world (well, Europe at least). The concept is well known and understood
> in continental Europe, and basically implies driving at walking pace, no
> separate pavements, no parking except in marked spaces, and all road users
> (including pedestrians!) have equal priority. Such streets are always
> residential in character.
>
> The UK implementation of this concept is known as a Home Zone [1].
>
> Shared space schemes (see [2]) are something different, aimed at town
> centre environments more than housing estates.
>
> So please DO NOT consider expanding living_street to include these shared
> spaces.
>
> //colin
>
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_zone
>
> [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shared-space
>
>
> On 2017-10-01 15:12, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Over the past couple of years Fishergate, the high street in Preston, and
> some surrounding streets have been redeveloped and these highways are now
> designated as 'shared space' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space
>
> Following redeveleopment these were mapped as "highway=living_street".
> Earlier this year fellow mapper 'lakedistrict' left a note saying that this
> seemed incorrect as this wasn't a residential scheme, I agreed and changed
> the roads to unclassified highways (+ 1 tertiary), adding traffic calming,
> surface and access tags as appropriate. These roads have recently been
> changed back to highway-=living_street by another mapper 'Pete Owens'
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52072635
>
> To move things forward I would like others' opinions about how we should
> map such shared space schemes Are we happy to broaden the definition of
> living_street to include them or are they better mapped as ordinary streets
> with additional tags? Another potential option which I toyed with was
> mapping them as highway=pedestrian, adding access tags (bicycles are
> permitted, motor vehicle access varies across the area from 24/7
> thoroughfares, to time conditional/destination/psv only access).
>
> I'll draw lakedistrict and Pete Owens' attentions to this email so that
> they can contribute to the discussion.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam (ACS1986)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Over the past couple of years Fishergate, the high street in Preston, and
some surrounding streets have been redeveloped and these highways are now
designated as 'shared space' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

Following redeveleopment these were mapped as "highway=living_street".
Earlier this year fellow mapper 'lakedistrict' left a note saying that this
seemed incorrect as this wasn't a residential scheme, I agreed and changed
the roads to unclassified highways (+ 1 tertiary), adding traffic calming,
surface and access tags as appropriate. These roads have recently been
changed back to highway-=living_street by another mapper 'Pete Owens'
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52072635

To move things forward I would like others' opinions about how we should
map such shared space schemes Are we happy to broaden the definition of
living_street to include them or are they better mapped as ordinary streets
with additional tags? Another potential option which I toyed with was
mapping them as highway=pedestrian, adding access tags (bicycles are
permitted, motor vehicle access varies across the area from 24/7
thoroughfares, to time conditional/destination/psv only access).

I'll draw lakedistrict and Pete Owens' attentions to this email so that
they can contribute to the discussion.

Kind regards,

Adam (ACS1986)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Ordnance Survey 1st series 1:10, 560 - a complete mid 19th century map of Britain

[Adam Snape]

Of interest, but - for osm purposes - don't we already have permission to
use all of the National Library of Scotland's Ordnance Survey scans (which
I think already include all editions of the 6-inch County Series)?

Adam

On 13 Sep 2017 7:33 p.m., "Andy Mabbett"  wrote:

> FYI,
>
> 
> From: Fæ 
> Date: 13 September 2017 at 14:09
> Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Ordnance Survey 1st series 1:10, 560 - a
> complete mid 19th century map of Britain
> To: UK Wikimedia mailing list 
>
>
> Category link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Category:Ordnance_Survey_1st_series_1:10560
>
> A full set of high resolution OS map scans is being gradually uploaded
> to Wikimedia Commons and indexed by historic county. These are very
> large files, 10,000 pixels wide, so are both in TIFF and jpeg format
> to make reuse easier.
>
> These are of 'specialized' interest, but I would think could be of use
> to both Wiki Loves Monuments projects and readers of this email list
> interested in early maps and geo-related experiments. The maps show
> plenty of fine detail, including inns/pubs, churches, bridges etc.
> Those that still exist will be likely to be listed and protected, and
> those that are not, may still be great photography subjects. Note that
> to view the maps, Commons' in-built ZoomViewer is useful but it
> appears to be broken today, so you may have to settle for examining
> the full size jpeg in-browser.
>
> As I write this, the uploads are working through "B", so the projects
> is going to take several weeks to complete. If there are ideas for how
> better to categorize or template these maps, feel free to drop a note
> on my Commons talk page. It is always possible to do some post-upload
> housekeeping or adjusting the way the uploads are currently getting
> formatted.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
>
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] Edits in Wales

[Adam Snape]

The 'best mapping method' is somewhat subjective. If it were the sole
criteria, then we would instantly create documentation to replace lots of
the less than ideal tags which have developed and explicitly depreciate
either the classic (highway=footway/bridleway/cycleway) or 'alternative'
(highway= path, access=*) tagging schemes. We don't because there is no
consensus and existing use counts for a lot.

If there is genuine consensus upon a better way then perhaps this should be
documented. In the absence of such consensus, documenting how we actually
currently map is preferable (because it is already prevalent and
verifiable) to not documentating or documenting one school of thought on
how we ought to map (but don't yet).

Adam

On 16 August 2017 at 11:20, Dave F  wrote:

>
> On 16/08/2017 00:22, Warin wrote:
>
>> On 16-Aug-17 05:27 AM, Philip Barnes wrote:
>>
>>>   The wiki is after all intended to document how people map not dictate
>>> how they should map.
>>>
>>
>> I would think that the wiki should guide to the best mapping method, not
>> what people have done in the past (as found using taginfo for example!).
>>
>
> +1
>
> 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] Edits in Wales

[Adam Snape]

I'm not sure of Wiki-editing etiquette but I support the views expressed by
Richard. The name tag should contain the primary name of an object, not
multiple names. Swansea-Abertawe is no more the name of a place than Duddon
Valley - Dunnerdale is. In the absence of knowledge of local usage, using
the primary name on signage does seem the best option and is entirely
consistent with how we map other names in the UK.

I sense a desire to give Welsh names equal billing with English ones
wherever both exist. Others have mentioned how odd this would be in some
areas where the Welsh name is rarely used by anybody. There are other areas
where the Welsh name is the main name and the English (often merely
Anglicised) name is now archaic. For example, Conwy is infinitely more
common amongst English speakers than Conway. name=Conwy - Conway would be
ridiculous. Similarly, to appropriate Miguel's earlier example, Ceredigion
is preferred by speakers of both languages.

Regards,

Adam


On 15 Aug 2017 12:27 a.m., "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 14-Aug-17 11:49 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> On 14/08/2017 14:47, Miguel Sevilla-Callejo wrote:
>
>> I do not agree your change of the Wiki. You should ask before to do it.
>>
>
Ask who?? Don't think there is a formal process to change the wiki, and I
have made a few changes without comment.


> I'm documenting the existing practice in Wales.
>
> If you want to change existing practice, the onus is on you to justify
> your changes and get agreement.
>

Agreement with who?

If I disagree with with wiki .. I make comment on the talk page .. and then
hope someone who disagrees, cares, notices and makes a reply.
Where the wiki page does not have much information .. I'll go ahead and add
to it.

 If it is a tagging issue I'll raise it with the tagging group/list.


___
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] An old chestnut - looking for clarity for road names beginning "St ..."

[Adam Snape]

Ideally nominatim etc. would recognise that St Mary's Road = St. Mary's
Road =  Saint Mary's Road but I do tag both if there is a difference in
road signs.

Church names are more problematic because they and their dedications are
signed very inconsistently. I tend to use the form St Somebody's Church as
the main name tag as this is almost always the form the name takes in
actual usage.

Regards,

Adam

On 18 Jul 2017 9:51 a.m., "Colin Smale"  wrote:

> Andy, that sounds reasonable from the perspective of your mapping
> activities, but it doesn't address the question of the contents of the map.
> If someone else was at the other end of the street and saw a sign subtly
> different to yours, we would end up with an inconsistency in the map data
> and no arbitration rule to resolve it.
> //colin
>
>
> On 18 July 2017 10:15:38 CEST, Andy Robinson  wrote:
>>
>> I came up with a simple solution for road sign differences very early on
>> in my mapping. I only map the name I see first J . Generally I ignore
>> the sign at the other end of a street unless there has been a complete name
>> change.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Colin Smale [mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl]
>> *Sent:* 17 July 2017 18:32
>> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] An old chestnut - looking for clarity for road
>> names beginning "St ..."
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed, however I don't think we should be fussy about minor typographic
>> differences like apostrophes or full stops. There are often variations at
>> this level from sign to sign. If one bit is signed "St." and another bit of
>> the same road is signed "St" I think we should use a single style for the
>> whole road, taking it from the longest length. We can never determine where
>> the transition should go, and it is the same road after all, so consistency
>> is good.
>> //colin
>>
>> On 17 July 2017 18:35:07 CEST, Andy Robinson  wrote:
>>
>> We should be applying the on the ground rule of verification. As in, if
>> looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then there is a better than
>> average chance it is a duck. So if the road sign, church sign or whatever
>> says Saint or St. etc then best to stick to that so as not to offend just
>> as many people as those who agree it’s wrong!
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>> PS Other deities are available
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Stuart Reynolds [mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk
>> ]
>> *Sent:* 17 July 2017 13:45
>> *To:* Talk GB
>> *Subject:* [Talk-GB] An old chestnut - looking for clarity for road
>> names beginning "St ..."
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have read and re-read all of the guidance and local rules relating to
>> the use of abbreviations where it would be wrong to expand “St” into
>> “Saint”. It is quite clear that, for the UK, “Saint Ives” is wrong, whereas
>> “St Ives” is correct. There is also one page where I have found “St Mary’s
>> Church” is correct, but “Saint Mary’s Church” is wrong. All of this I agree
>> with.
>>
>>
>>
>> The question I want to clarify is the use of “Saint” in street names. I
>> think that is similarly clear that e.g. “St Nicholas Road” (with the full
>> expansion of “road”!) is correct, and “Saint Nicholas Road” isn’t. But
>> since the small handful that I initially came across in Great Yarmouth were
>> last edited by an experienced OSMer (Rob Whittaker), I thought that it was
>> better to check with the community than just change it.
>>
>>
>>
>> A not-so-quick Overpass query (using a map which contained the whole of
>> the UK, and hence Ireland and a bit of Belgium) tells me that there are
>> 10,324 ways which are named “Saint *” which potentially need changing if we
>> agree that “St *” is correct.
>>
>>
>>
>> By contrast there are 26,559 ways that are named “St *”, and a further
>> 7,252 that are named “St. *”.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Stuart Reynolds
>>
>> for traveline south east & anglia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ___
> 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] Shared Public Rights of Way

[Adam Snape]

PS. Adding the parish boundary (if it hasn't been mapped already) and  a
map note would help somebody understand that the two values prow_ref values
were not an error

On 4 July 2017 at 12:27, Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form part of the
> parish boundary, with half falling in one parish and half in another. As
> long as we map highways as lines rather than areas, adding two values to
> the prow_ref tag as suggested seems the best solution where both halves are
> given separate reference nos.
>
> Adam
>
> On 4 July 2017 at 12:05, Bob Hawkins <bobhawk...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>
>> Ed
>> I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident
>> with the borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each parish,
>> not  a way crossing parish boundaries.
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>>  Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>> <#m_641440796741299938_m_-4769683743138351438_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

[Adam Snape]

It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form part of the
parish boundary, with half falling in one parish and half in another. As
long as we map highways as lines rather than areas, adding two values to
the prow_ref tag as suggested seems the best solution where both halves are
given separate reference nos.

Adam

On 4 July 2017 at 12:05, Bob Hawkins  wrote:

> Ed
> I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident with
> the borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each parish, not  a
> way crossing parish boundaries.
> Bob
>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_-4769683743138351438_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

Yes, it's what I did regarding the original topic of this conversation.
That's all sorted now.
I think Warin refers to Matt Ellery's additional query from yesterday
regarding a different mapper who has been adding descriptions/details in
brackets as part of the name tag.

Adam

On 5 June 2017 at 11:34, Dave F  wrote:

>
> On 04/06/2017 23:07, Warin wrote:
>
>> Why are people so reluctant to contact another mapper?
>>
>
> It was a question about tagging techniques. Asking on forums with a larger
> user base than one seems appropriate.
>
>
>> Where I am not certain as to a 'best' method of doing something .. then I
>> contact the list as that gets more ideas from a number of people.
>>
>
> Which is what he's done.
>
> 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] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

[Adam Snape]

There probably are some uncooperative mappers out there who perceive any
comment as  criticism and insist upon doing things their own way in
defiance of convention. But, surely the starting assumption should be that
people are cooperative and just unaware of the conventions?

I did contact the mapper regarding the motorway example that started this
conversation via changeset comment (and got a positive response and a thank
you for trying to establish the best way of tagging).

Adam



On 4 Jun 2017 11:51 p.m., "David Woolley" 
wrote:

On 04/06/17 23:07, Warin wrote:

> Why are people so reluctant to contact another mapper?
>

I think that is because they expect a "mind your own business" response, in
which case there is no casting vote available.


___
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