Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map
On 2020-07-02 19:52, SK53 wrote: I've also had a quick look, and your hints are quite useful. Very much agreed, thanks Robert. One thing I've noticed is UPRNs which I suspect are for building shells. So there's a house which has recently been converted into student housing with a hair transplant surgery on the ground floor. This has 3 UPRNs. The next property down is a small parade of 4 shops with 3 office units above and this has a total of 10 UPRNs. The next parade of 6 shops has 7 UPRNs. At least one is the shell, or possibly the land parcel on which the property sits. Not sure whether this list accepts images, so I'll use words. Near here is a three-storey building built in the 1970s as a branch of Tesco. It closed and was converted to 5 shops and 20 flats in the mid-1980s. One of the markers shows a contiguous block of 20 UPRNs, plus one with a slightly higher number and another in a completely different range. The flats are leasehold, as might be expected, but the residential part of the building also has an overall leasehold and is managed separately from the retail units. Unfortunately I can't find a way to decode them further - the local planning system doesn't show UPRNs. Post boxes, substations, patches of grass (I presume), and bus stops are things I've spotted.[...] I suppose local practice may vary. Post boxes, yes, bus stop coverage seems patchy around here (Canterbury District Council) but beach huts and individual kiosks on the pier appear along with some statues/art installations. There are a few markers in a car park which may be payment machines - and one is on the beach but doesn't correspond to any known feature - it could be the beach itself has a UPRN! Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Private and restricted access post boxes
So it's March, the sun is shining here and it's time to go back out in pursuit of post boxes and other OSM things. While working through the CT postal area three things have come up which maybe need further thought: - Some boxes are located within MOD or other restricted access sites. To those inside the fence they are normal facilities but perhaps they're not an "amenity" in the sense of being available to the general public. This also tends to inhibit surveying. - Royal Mail data from 2013 in some cases includes "private boxes", one local example is in the reception area of an hotel. There is a mail collection from the building but there's a conventional pillar box within 200 m. These probably aren't an "amenity" in general terms. The RM data treats them inconsistently, they're not all listed. - There are boxes inside some supermarkets. They are also on private property however the public is encouraged to visit the premises. Those in Tesco and Asda, maybe others, tend to be tall GRP boxes of this style (a variation with clear back is used at airports and other places where security might be a concern) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post_box_at_ASDA,_Smithdown_Road.jpg . These are owned and operated by RM in the normal fashion. In the past Sainsbury's had boxes carrying advertising and often labelled MIDI POST or similar, in this style https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post_box_CH49_15_in_Sainsbury,_Upton .jpg I understand these were "private" in RM terms and the third party which managed them went into administration, following which most were removed. However due to RM's inconsistent data some appear in the 2013 FOI release. Is there an appropriate way to handle the first two cases? Should they be in OSM at all, or shown with a tag to indicate restricted access? As for the Sainsbury's boxes it may be the best thing is to treat all of them as requiring a check to confirm whether the facility still exists. Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Features which move...apparently spurious edits: iD bug or "finger trouble"?
If there's a better place, please direct me appropriately... I've been using Robert Whittaker's Post Box tool to help fill gaps and fix anomalies in the CT postal area. I think I've now found a pattern which leads to "ghost" entries in locations where there has never been a post box and leaves the actual post box either unmapped or with a new node. I have three examples where the general scenario seems to have been: 1. Mapper "A" creates a node with amenity=post_box. Other details such as reference and collection time may or may not have been entered at this point. 2. Time passes, possibly with edits to the node, but no change of position. 3. Mapper "B" does something apparently unrelated. In the examples I have seen it involves multiple ways/nodes, though not necessarily vast numbers. 4. The node created at (1) is re-positioned in a fairly random manner as part of the same changeset. 5. [possibly] Mapper "C" spots the missing post box and creates a new node for it. The node from (1) is still "out there", in one case it was 1.3 km from the original (correct) position. Note: it transpires Mapper "A" in the three examples is the same user. Three different "B"s. I suppose the first questions are: - Has anyone seen something similar? Presumably this could happen to nodes generally, there is no reason to think amenity=post_box is a factor. - Is there any way to identify features which have moved by more than whatever distance might be considered "normal" for someone correcting a previously incorrect position? This might be key to further investigation and correction. I can provide the node and changeset numbers if anyone wants to look into the details and perhaps can spot a pattern, The edits are by three different users on widely spaced dates and the iD versions are all different. The most recent example was in September 2018, so it's not likely the mapper would remember anything. Robert's tool shows the distance between OSM node and Royal Mail data, which is how I found one of the examples - but it is "normal" for RM data to have discrepancies, sometimes fairly significant. The other two had relatively minor offsets and were picked up through "local knowledge" - but analysis of old/new position could have highlighted them. Unfortunately post boxes do get moved whilst retaining their RM reference but I'd expect that to be done in OSM by creating a new node and deleting the old. There are some philosophical question here: which features are "allowed" to move and by how much? Natural features probably shouldn't. Man-made ones are probably something new when they do move. Boundaries, however, are subject to revision, roads and footpaths get re-aligned. Also what's an acceptable margin for a correction? Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon pickup lockers - how to represent (if at all)?
Sorry for the long-delayed follow-up. On 2020-01-01 12:43, Philip Barnes wrote: They are certainly not post boxes, I have used amenity=vending_machine, vending=parcel_pickup which is a combination that probably came from asking on #osm. For example my local one https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5978482863 Thank you. I was, finally, about to update along similar lines, and also add a couple in my immediate area, but... https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Pna indicates the taging has a fair amount of useage. Indeed there are several so it would be best to follow the pattern, and I now see this is documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel_lockers_in_the_United_Kingdom On the way to "vending machine" I discovered there's button in iD which fills the tags. Good. I ran a query and found there are also two nodes in the UK with amenity=parcel_pickup. These don't seem to conform to accepted practice but without further information it's probably wrong to amend them. There is also a proposal for amenity=parcel_lockers https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Parcel_lockers_and_parcel_postbox. This has been used twice in the Glasgow area and a few times in Europe, but not as widely as the existing convention. So I've learnt quite a bit from your (and others') response. Many thanks. Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Amazon pickup lockers - how to represent (if at all)?
Please forgive me if this is has been debated previously - I'm new here and having trouble finding a searchable archive for this list. A local mapper has added an Amazon "Hub Locker", tagged as amenity=post_box. This causes it to flag as an anomaly when comparing against Royal Mail data. My view is this is not a "post box" since it forms part of delivery rather than collection arrangements. However I can see there may be some benefit in mapping such facilities, albeit anyone wanting to use it will need to make advance arrangements with Amazon and chose from a list of locations. This is a different situation to Royal Mail where there is no official "post box finder" and one is at liberty to use any convenient box at any time. Searching the OSM Wiki doesn't seem to provide any specific guidance but hints that Amazon might be persuaded to contribute the locations directly, since they are apparently both consumers and contributors to OSM. Arguably parcel drop-off points for Hermes and so forth might be suitable for inclusion, though they're not a stand-alone feature but part of facilities at a premises and again require advance action by the user to select . Is there existing policy/guidance/consensus and if not, what is the best way to proceed? Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
