changeset comments. Does it help to put it into the discussion on the
chageset?
Moving on to Flintshire next, paying more attention to my comments.
Bogus Zaba
--
Dr Bogumil N Zaba
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https
On 18/01/16 18:56, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> On 18 January 2016 at 16:41, Bogus Zaba <bog...@bogzab.plus.com> wrote:
>> I was however a bit surprised to see that the progress tool referenced
>> here : http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/
>> includ
On 19/01/16 14:58, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 19/01/16 13:17, Bogus Zaba wrote:
>> Is there a way of downloading the whole of the edubase database so that
>> I do not run into the problems of searching on terms that I may not get
>> quite right?
> http://www.
On 19/01/16 15:25, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> On 19 January 2016 at 13:17, Bogus Zaba <bog...@bogzab.plus.com> wrote:
>> At the end of the day however, if Welsh schools are tagged with
>> ref:estyn=* but not with ref:edubase=*, am I right in thinking that they
>
Following the wiki guidelines (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects ) I have been
adding a ref:estyn=* tag to schools which are local to me. I plan to
cover some rather further afield if other mappers in Wales do not seem
to be participating enthusiastically.
I was however a
On 02/01/16 15:24, Dave F. wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 12:51, Brian Prangle wrote:
>> That gives a total of 32,318 schools. Taginfo shows 27,191 schools
>> which is 84.1% coverage in OSM. However 6,348 are represented as
>> nodes only. It would be great to have these as polygons and
>> associated
cal rec., or in association with a sports centre co-located
> with the school. In this case I think it can be left to the
> mapper's discretion as to whether the school polygon includes the
> playing field or not.
>
> Jerry
>
>
> On 3 January 2016 at 13:40,
A seawall was recently re-built in west Rhyl. As a result, and following
two GPS surveys, earlier this week (Tue 20/10) I moved three features on
the coast in West Rhyl. These were : the coastline, the boundary of a
beach and the route of a cycleway which follows the new seawall.
The cycle route
eeks, or months between coastline updates, and not minutely
> updates like all of the other OSM data. So don't worry about it, the
> coastline will update in due course.
>
> Shaun
>
>> On 23 Oct 2015, at 14:02, Bogus Zaba <bog...@bogzab.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>> A s
On 22/09/15 10:34, Tim Waters wrote:
> Hello,
>
> back in June we had a thread announcing that this LIDAR data was due
> to be released. Well some of it has.
>
> https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2015/09/18/laser-surveys-light-up-open-data/
>
> http://environment.data.gov.uk/ds/survey#/
>
> I
On 24/09/15 20:41, malenki wrote:
> Andy Townsend schrieb
> am Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:54:38 +0100:
>
>> First of all - thank you for "properly mapping" this bit of the
>> country.
> You are welcome. But it isn't much fun when I have to look repeatedly
> after "my" data to verify it hasn't vanished.
>
On 04/05/15 02:18, Dave F. wrote:
Hi
I seem to remember there was general consensus that C class roads
shouldn't have their reference number in the ref tag as they aren't
really for public use, such as on signs or maps, but the official use
of local councils etc.
It was suggested,
On 10/02/15 15:56, Brian Prangle wrote:
RobJN has added a bunch of Notes for Rotherham where we already have
had a mapper step forward to try to resolve some of them, and Rob's
tweeted the local Scouts. I've added a bunch of Notes for Liverpool
(feel free to tweet anyone relevant - I'm not a
On 28/07/14 14:07, Dave F. wrote:
Hi
I must be missing something in your question, because what's wrong
with adding the sub tags bicycle/foot = yes/no? Some users have been
adding bicycle=no to UK motorways for this specific reasons.
This would appear to be the right way to do it and my
copyright is being claimed
by CycleCity Guides and FourPoint Mapping. Does this make any sense? Or
am I misunderstanding the last line of the above?
Thanks
Bogus Zaba
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org
On 07/08/2013 01:00 PM, Adam Hoyle wrote:
On 8 Jul 2013, at 11:31, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Adam Hoyle wrote:
This would be awesome information to have in OSM, but as it is historic
information, sometimes with no obvious above ground visualisation, is it
definitely appropriate
of it on the ground. I changed a
number of these ref tags to official_ref in Chester making the
mapnik map much more readable (IMHO).
Bogus Zaba
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On 03/23/2013 05:28 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
I had already suggested boundary=planning to SemanticTourist.
Boundary=civil is rather ambiguous. In my eyes the boundary tag serves
to differentiate which hierarchy the area belongs to. For example
boundary=police might serve for police force
these IDs to the database, an appropriate tag would
be local:ref=UX60?
[1] Guidance on Road Classification and the Primary Route Network. Dept
for Transport. Jan 2012.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-road-classification-and-the-primary-route-network
Bogus Zaba
of
mapping can just get in the way of useful everyday find-your-way-around
maps.
Anybody know where should this be reported as a rendering bug?
Thanks
Bogus Zaba
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
On 10/09/2012 04:48 PM, Brian Prangle wrote:
Hi everyone
At our previous pub meeting for mappa-mercia on October 4 we had a
great discussion about how we'd like SOTM2013 to come to Birmingham -
so we got a group of volunteers (well everyone at the meeting) and
have come up with an outline
somebody
else's practice and I could see that his way of doing it resulted in
nice rendering on the Cycle Map which can be accessed from the main map
page.
Bogus Zaba
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
On 29/03/12 14:24, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Just spotted, for the first time, one with correct attribution! Brand new
poster at Burton-on-Trent station. Will post a pic when I'm, um, not on the
train. :)
cheers
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing list
On 04/02/12 20:00, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
---
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#JOSM_presets_now_available
Comments on these presets and how they might be improved are welcome!
I may have not been reading this list thoroughly but I did not realise
On 27/01/12 20:30, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
Beta presets for path-like rights of way in England and Wales are now
available in JOSM. They have pretty icons and everything! You can get
them at
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Presets/EnglandWalesRightsOfWay
or via Edit - Preferences - Map
On 01/02/12 18:27, Graham Jones wrote:
Looks useful - could you add Cadw and Historic Scotland to the
highlighted operators? (EG
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/117407496 )
Done! http://maps3.org.uk/EH_NTMap
Now does CADW, Historic Scotland and Scottish Heritage. I ran
On 20/01/12 15:58, woll wrote:
I don't really have any LEGAL opinion/knowledge to answer your question with,
but here is my experience:
When I first started remapping, I took your option 1 (delete the feature and
re-create it) because I felt that that option would ensure that no non-odbl
.
Bogus Zaba
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
either or both of these approaches, but
(2) is obviously less time-consuming and preserves much more of other
people's hard work.
Bogus Zaba
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Nice idea. Not sure about a spree but I just tagged three
close-to-motorway pubs known to me
in the Wirral/Chester area with the requisite food=yes tag.
Bogus Zaba
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http
could do. I would not feel
comfortable importing features from OS Vector data which I would never
be able to get around to seeing on the ground.
Bogus Zaba
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
Bogus Zaba wrote:
I have had confirmation from the Local Government Boundary
Commission for Wales who agree with the view below from Chris Hill.
They say :
...in general the seaward extent of a local authority is the low
water mark as defined by Ordnance Survey. The exception
(which you find yourself tracing) which are nice dotted lines in the
postcode application and faded grey lines in the josm/patlatch layers.
Can the clearer (newer?) tiles be made available in the osm editing
environments ?
Thanks
Bogus Zaba
___
Talk-GB
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Hello Godfrey,
Sorry I should have made another point:
If it's a path which you know is a right of way via an Ordnance Survey
map, but cannot verify that on the ground, again you must use
foot=permissive even if that's not true. This is because you can't verify
the
I have been working on these two relations. Wrexham is finished and the
entries on the WikiProject Wales are complete, because somebody already
put them there - I just fixed the relation (137981) and some of its
members.
With Denbighshire however I made a new relation (192442) and am slowly
for a relevant
relation followed by links marked b a r and j - how should I
interpret these code letters. btw the r and j links seem to not work
for me anyway.
Thanks
Bogus Zaba
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
Peter Miller wrote:
On 27 Jul 2009, at 17:25, Bogus Zaba wrote:
Sorry if this contains some really stupid questions, but i have poked
around the mailing list and the wiki and not been able to answer them
for myself.
1. Given that we are not allowed to use official OS data (many threads
37 matches
Mail list logo
