Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[David Groom]

-- Original Message --
From: "Dave F via Talk-GB" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 14/12/2019 15:54:13
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?


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


Is this "farmland"?

 http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg


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

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

I see no benefit to mapping individual fields as separate polygons 
tagged as farmland if adjacent fields are also farmland. Could you 
explain why you think this is best?


David




Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data

[David Groom]

-- Original Message --
From: "Devonshire" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 12/07/2019 07:44:55
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] UK coastline data



On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, at 10:41 PM, Borbus wrote:


The Dart cuts the coastline off right at the mouth, which doesn't seem 
right...


I think the main reason I did that back in the day is that mapping 
coastline all the way up to Totnes seems extremely non-intuitive. 
Someone standing on Totnes quay (10 miles inland) is not standing on 
the coast in any meaningful way.
I agree, I long ago made the same point regarding the River Thames as it 
passes through London.

David




I don't really care either way but what would be the benefit of 
changing it to coastline (and slavishly copying the OS is not a 
benefit) ?


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

[David Groom]

-- Original Message --
From: "Mike Evans" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Cc: "David Groom" 
Sent: 28/08/2018 19:22:16
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers


On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:09:47 +
"David Groom"  wrote:


There is no consensus.

Personally I'm not in favour of the view that any body of water which 
is

tidal should be bounded by a way tagged as coastline.

Reasons for this

1) Ask any one who lives in say central London "do you live on the
coast" or do you live beside a river", most would I'm sure say beside 
a
river, so surely our data should reflect that. I think this probably 
is

what you mean by "seems more natural"
Well if they're in Central London then it is an estuary at that point 
so they'd be incorrect. Hence the expression "estuary English", and not 
"river English".
Both the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries define as estuary as part of 
a river.




To quote Wikpedia "The district of Teddington a few miles south-west of 
London's centre marks the boundary between the tidal and non-tidal 
parts of the Thames".
The Wikipedia quote to which you refer suggests to  me that this should 
be tagged as a river, since the Thames is a river, parts of which are 
tidal and parts of which are not.  But it's still a river.





Perhaps "A History of the Foreshore and the Law Relating Thereto", 
published 1888 would be a useful reference.

https://archive.org/details/ahistoryforesho00hallgoog




2) In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal
water areas as coastline

Examples?


Baltic , Caspian & Black Seas





3) If knowledge that a body of water is tidal is important it can be
tagged "tidal = yes"
But then the decision has to made as to where to draw the line and tag 
one side as "tidal = yes" and the other side not tagged but assumed to, 
in fact, be tidal. This just introduces an extra arbitrary boundary the 
inner end of which again becomes non-tidal.


The American Submerged Lands Act of 1953 does appear to define the line 
at which the coastline extends into estuaries etc., but this does not 
apply to the UK. That act seems to been precipitated as a result of 
disputes over oil drilling rights.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

[David Groom]

Colin

whilst in theory I'd say yes, in practice I'd say consensus is hard to 
achieve.


David



-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Smale" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 28/08/2018 12:23:33
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

David, do you consider that it would be advantageous to have consensus 
on this matter, and a consistent tagging paradigm in OSM? I am not 
prejudging what that consensus position might be, just sounding out if 
there is any point in having the discussion in the first place.





On 2018-08-28 13:09, David Groom wrote:


There is no consensus.

Personally I'm not in favour of the view that any body of water which 
is tidal should be bounded by a way tagged as coastline.


Reasons for this

1) Ask any one who lives in say central London "do you live on the 
coast" or do you live beside a river", most would I'm sure say beside 
a river, so surely our data should reflect that.  I think this 
probably is what you mean by "seems more natural"


2)  In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal 
water areas as coastline


3) If knowledge that a body of water is tidal is important it can be 
tagged "tidal = yes"



David




-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Smale" 
To: "Talk-GB" 
Sent: 28/08/2018 08:49:01
Subject: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

That old chestnut again...

There seems to be an open discussion about how far up a river the 
natural=coastline should go. The wiki suggests the coastline should be 
the high water line going up to the tidal limit (often a lock or a 
wier) but this can be a substantial distance inland. This is AIUI the 
general scientific approach.


There has been some discussion in the past about letting the coastline 
cut across the river at some convenient point, possibly because it 
"looks better" or "seems more natural" or "is less work."


I looked at a few rivers along the south coast to see how they had 
been tagged and it seems most have the coastline up to the tidal 
limit. However the coastline around the mouth of the Dart has recently 
been modified to cut across the mouth, and Salcombe Harbour is also 
mapped this way.


Is there a consensus for a particular definition of "coastline" in 
tidal estuaries? Should we try to keep a consistent paradigm, or 
doesn't it matter?






___
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] Coastline and tidal rivers

[David Groom]

There is no consensus.

Personally I'm not in favour of the view that any body of water which is 
tidal should be bounded by a way tagged as coastline.


Reasons for this

1) Ask any one who lives in say central London "do you live on the 
coast" or do you live beside a river", most would I'm sure say beside a 
river, so surely our data should reflect that.  I think this probably is 
what you mean by "seems more natural"


2)  In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal 
water areas as coastline


3) If knowledge that a body of water is tidal is important it can be 
tagged "tidal = yes"



David




-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Smale" 
To: "Talk-GB" 
Sent: 28/08/2018 08:49:01
Subject: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

That old chestnut again...

There seems to be an open discussion about how far up a river the 
natural=coastline should go. The wiki suggests the coastline should be 
the high water line going up to the tidal limit (often a lock or a wier) 
but this can be a substantial distance inland. This is AIUI the general 
scientific approach.


There has been some discussion in the past about letting the coastline 
cut across the river at some convenient point, possibly because it 
"looks better" or "seems more natural" or "is less work."


I looked at a few rivers along the south coast to see how they had been 
tagged and it seems most have the coastline up to the tidal limit. 
However the coastline around the mouth of the Dart has recently been 
modified to cut across the mouth, and Salcombe Harbour is also mapped 
this way.


Is there a consensus for a particular definition of "coastline" in tidal 
estuaries? Should we try to keep a consistent paradigm, or doesn't it 
matter?



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Select and correct a discovered key duplication of sorts in JOSM

[David Groom]

Alternatively in JOSM:

File > Download from Overpass API

Then put  ref:Chiltern_Society = *  in the text box next to "Build 
query", then click "Build Query".

Next select download area, and then click "Download"

David

-- Original Message --
From: "Bob Hawkins" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 19/08/2017 16:55:03
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Select and correct a discovered key duplication 
of sorts in JOSM


My failing brain disturbs me at times: Edit>Preferences>Remote 
Control>Enable remote control!


Virus-free. 
www.avast.com 
 
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] any cyclists familiar with Calder Aire link

[David Groom]

There seems a lot of duplication in these two route relations:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2171660

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1573805

Both are titled "Calder Aire link"



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering (?) bug at Marble Arch

[David Groom]

Rendering OK now, presumably as a result of 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45519828



-- Original Message --
From: "Edward Catmur" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 26/01/2017 16:00:22
Subject: [Talk-GB] Rendering (?) bug at Marble Arch



http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6809001 
 isn't rendering on the 
Standard layer at any zoom level. It looks to be rendering OK on the 
Cycle and Transport layers, but the Humanitarian layer is failing to 
render not only that way but also a load of others making up the Marble 
Arch gyratory.


Off absolutely no evidence, I'm inclined to suspect that the breakage 
is caused by http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5640188 
 - has anyone seen 
anything like this before?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

[David Groom]

Not quite sure what you had in mind by the tags map_type and map_size, 
but maybe need a tag something along the likes of "sign_type" withn 
values of "bollard | monolith | finger_post | totem" ( see 
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/legible-london-product-range.pdf)


David


-- Original Message --
From: "Robert Skedgell" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 10/01/2017 07:54:41
Subject: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

Does anyone have any suggestions for tagging nodes for the Legible 
London
signs/maps (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legible_London and 
https://

tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs/maps-and-signs )?

Perhaps:
 tourism=information
 information=map
 map_type=street
 map_size=site
 name=*
 ref=legible_london

--
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)

___
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] beetroot or beet

[David Groom]

Although "beet" could also refer to "sugar beet"

I think the wiki pages may be confused

The wiki page for crop in Japanese 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Key:crop does seem to have crop = 
beet translating as sugar beet


Whereas the Polish page I think has crop = beet translating a beetroot

There probably needs to be an addition to the English crop page to have 
crop = beet and make this clear it is sugar beet.


Tag info shows 579 ways tagged with crop = beet, of these 572 are in 
northern Italy added by 3 users, so its probably quite easy to ask what 
exactly they meant by "beet" , and retag these existing ways if they 
actually should be beetroot.


David

-- Original Message --
From: "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com>
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 10/01/2017 00:01:24
Subject: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet


Hi again,

another UK English question.


I use beetroot .. but beet has been used on the wiki.

I think beet comes from American English.


___
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] tag prow_ref

[David Groom]

The prow:ref tag emerged from a discussion I started on this list about 
the problem of using the ref tag to refer to PROW references.  The 
specific problem was that some highways were also designated footpaths / 
bridleways, and so if the ref tag was used to tag a rights of way 
reference it was given the same rendering priority on these ways as a 
road reference.  There was also no way to distinguish between a ref tag 
which was for a road reference, and a ref tag which was for a prow 
reference on that road.  Thus the prow:ref tag was suggested.


At a later stage I noted the prow_ref tag started to be used.  I did not 
follow the discussion / reasoning behind that, but I find it hard to 
believe that we need both a prow_ref  tag and a prow:ref tag.  So I 
assume the prow_ref tag supoerceeded the prow:ref tag, but for the 
reasoning outlined in the first paragraph I would not think it helpful 
to simple use the plain "ref" tag on the Isle of Wight.


I cant follow the logic of  "Visibly signed things go into 'ref'", since 
that would seem to mean we don't need lcn_ref tags as these are visible 
signed.


David




-- Original Message --
From: "Robert Norris" <rw_nor...@hotmail.com>
To: "Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>; "David 
Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>

Sent: 10/01/2017 00:36:41
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the 
reference is taken from the  Council ROW information documents that are 
compatible with OSM.

'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground.
Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to use the 'ref' 
field since I believe most if not all ROW on the IOW have the reference 
on the sign posts.
Whereas for most of the rest of England and Wales, only rarely are the 
ROW references put on sign posts (I don't know of anywhere else that 
does it consistently compared to the IOW). The only times I normally 
see ROW references are on permissive notices or temporary route 
diversion notices.
Thus similar to the recommendation for 'C' road references vs A/B 
Roads. Visibly signed things go into 'ref' so used for A/B roads. 
'official_ref' or similar should be used for C roads.


--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.


From: David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
Sent: 09 January 2017 23:56:51
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the 
prow_ref on rendering / routing


I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was 
adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was 
recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag.  
He's now amended his entries to prow_ref but is a little disappointed 
it doesn't show up on the main map, OsmAnd, or Maps.me.


I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not 
maps, so not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be 
nice if I could point him in the direction of where it is being used,  
other than my own web site and custom OsmAnd file.


Thanks

David







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

[Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

[David Groom]

Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the 
prow_ref on rendering / routing


I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was 
adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was 
recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag.  
He's now amended his entries to prow_ref but is a little disappointed it 
doesn't show up on the main map, OsmAnd, or Maps.me.


I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not 
maps, so not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be nice 
if I could point him in the direction of where it is being used,  other 
than my own web site and custom OsmAnd file.


Thanks

David

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

Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath

[David Groom]

I have came across a similar issue where areas of mainly grass, but with 
some gorse bushes, on chalk downland had been changed to natural=heath, 
when I contacted the mapper about it he said something along the lines 
of, "well I've seen it done like that elsewhere"


David



-- Original Message --
From: "SK53" 
To: "Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" 
Sent: 09/01/2017 11:53:51
Subject: [Talk-GB] natural=heath

Somehow I have been oblivious to the fact that large numbers of 
polygons tagged natural=heath have been added over the past few months 
to OSM.


I only noticed these when looking at old traces on the new GPX trace 
overlay. Specifically I noticed them on the Snowdon range extending 
beyond Moel Eilio.


I have now reviewed my photographs taken in 2010 for the countryside 
extending N of Moel Eilio to the pass between Foel Goch and Moel 
Cynghorion. As it was a beautiful day the photos also provide valuable 
interpretive evidence not only for the rest of the Snowdon range, but 
for the Northern Glyders, Mynydd Mawr and the Nantlle Ridge.


Both in detail and in long view the vast bulk of this countryside is 
unimproved grassland, which is why it is used for sheep farming and not 
grouse moors. There appears to be a small patch of heather moorland 
beyond the forestry to the N of Moel Eiio, and possibly a patch in one 
of the valleys to the E.


In addition to reviewing my own photos I have also checked the same 
areas against the Phase 1 habitat survey carried out by the Countryside 
Commission of Wales roughly between 1980-1995. This also shows the vast 
bulk of the area as being acid grassland, albeit with some small areas 
of mosaic grassland and heath. Unfortunately I cannot show this 
analysis because I obtained the data under an distinctly non-open 
licence and need explicit permission from Natural Resources Wales to 
publish the data.


This is not to say that the use of tag natural=heath is wrong. Many of 
the areas which have recently been mapped as natural=heath can also be 
described as moorland or rough grazing depending on context (upland or 
coastal).


The more usual use of heath, certainly within communities of 
naturalists, conservationists and ecologists, is for habitats dominated 
by ericaceous (members of the heather family) shrubs & sub-shrubs: 
i.e., heather, bell heather, heaths, bilberry, crowberry etc.


The phase 1 habitat manual (phase 1 is the basic ecological survey 
technique developed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, JNCC) 
states:


"Heathland includes vegetation dominated by ericoids or dwarf gorse 
species, as well as 'heaths' dominated by lichens and bryophytes, dwarf 
forbs, Carex bigelowii or Juncus trifidus." (p. 41, 2010 revision)"


Personally, I would prefer that we stick to a definition similar to 
this one. There is not likely to an entirely straightforward 
correspondence with Phase 1 as some upland heather moorland may get 
mapped in Phase 1 onto other habitats, particularly if underlain by 
large quantities of peat.


The reasons for this are:
Habitats are different. Habitats as different as these should be tagged 
differently. Upland and coastal unimproved grasslands are very 
different habitats to heather moorland and very very different from 
rare lowland heaths. Just the range of birds one encounters will be 
different. On the former I expect to see Meadow Pipits, Wheatears and 
no Red Grouse. Lowland heaths in Southern England are habitats for 
quite rare birds: Nightjars, Woodlarks, Dartford Warblers.
Terrain underfoot is different. There is a massive difference between 
walking though knee-deep heather in places like the Rhinogs or the Mull 
of Kintyre, the lovely turf on the ridges N of Snowdon, or tussocky 
coastal grassland. We should be capturing such things.
Visual differences. The image of the country is different. Most 
apparent when heather is in bloom.Landuse differences. Most obviously 
sheep grazing versus grouse moor, although sheep may still be 
encountered on the latter.
Obscuring rare natural areas. Genuine lowland heath is a rare 
phenomenon in Britain and requires great conservation effort. Extension 
of the natural=heath tag to cover other things means that identifying 
these special areas using OSM will not be possible.
I reviewing the extent of current use of natural=heath I may already be 
too late in preventing an extension of its meaning to cover more or 
less all non-intensively farmed areas which aren't wooded. 
Notwithstanding this I would like to canvas views from other mappers. 
If the current usage of the tag is deemed to be the suitable one then 
we need to develop additional tags which allow the recognition of all 
the features I mention above.


Regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS

[David Groom]

Colin

I was more talking about the actual shape of the MHW rather than its 
position; if that makes sense.


some examples of problems in the Isle of Wight

1)  There's a section here  
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.66636/-1.48566, where the Bing 
imagery seems reasonably aligned to the gps tracks of the main road, but 
the gpx file for MHW seems to be too far to the north on the cliff area, 
and too far to the south on the area to the east.  this beach shelves 
relatively steeply so there is unlikely to be much difference between 
MHWS & MHWN


2) Even clearer is an area 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/50.69439/-1.09414, OSM is much more 
accurate here than the OS Boundary Line


3)  The car park and ice rink here 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.73237/-1.15736  were built 
sometime around 1990, but Boundary line  MHW would show these as flooded


4)  More inaccuracies here   
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.76650/-1.30029


David



-- Original Message --
From: "Colin Smale" <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 11/12/2016 22:17:44
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS


Hi David,

Looking at the spot you indicate on Bing imagery does indeed look like 
MHW should be above the salt-marsh areas. Looking at Google[1] it is 
however possible that the grass doesn't quite get submerged, even at 
the highest tides, so it might also be possible that it is strictly 
correct.


The Bing imagery is of course just a snapshot, and we don't know the 
state of the tide at the moment the photo was taken, so it can also be 
misleading. Even a personal visit is not really enough as MHW is 
apparently calculated over a 19-year cycle (not sure if OS use this 
though) and things could change a lot in that time. As MHW is an 
average, many tides will of course be higher.


The OS data looks a definite improvement for steeper coastlines, where 
combining OS admin boundaries with PGS coastlines produces many 
anomalies (admin boundary=MLW inland of coastline=MHW). I would 
definitely suggest applying the OS MHW data to address this kind of 
issue. But I agree, use of the OS data would need case-by-case 
judgements. However I still think the OS data is probably a better base 
to work from than (unimproved) PGS for reasons I mentioned earlier.


Could you give a couple of examples of problems you saw in the IoW?

//colin


[1] 
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5386032,0.6292606,3a,24.7y,277.12h,84.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMl8cwBlLLuOVtPES_DfkOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


On 2016-12-11 22:30, David Groom wrote:

I suspect that even though much of the coastline is tagged 
"source=PGS" is has been amended by reference to Yahoo and after that 
Bing imagery, but the subsequent editors did not remove the 
"source=PGS" tag.


Certainly comparing your gpx file for the Isle of Wight with the 
coastline currently in OSM there appear a number of places where the 
gpx file does not accurately represent MHW.


I certainly would not want to see a wholesale replacement of what is 
in currently in OSM with OD Boundary Line data.


Looking here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53546/0.60580 an 
area near Southend, unless the Bing imagery is outdated, the Boundary 
Line data seems to be an odd representation of the coastline.


David
On 11/12/2016 10:43, Colin Smale wrote:


Hi,

Most of the coastline is currently tagged as "source=PGS". As part of 
the Boundary-Line open data set OS provide MHW lines which look to be 
significantly better than the PGS data:


  * Much newer - updated twice a year, although I am not sure how old
the actual underlying survey data is (PGS coastlines seem to be
from 2006)
  * Better resolution - more nodes, smoother curves
  * Consistent with admin boundary data, so MLW never appears above
MHW (often a problem on rocky coastlines like Wales and Cornwall)

There are a couple of caveats when working with the OS data:

  * Where MHW=MLW, i.e. the MHW is colinear with the admin boundary 
at

MLW, there is a gap in the MHW data
  * The MHW data goes miles inland in tidal estuaries, which is
correct from the MHW standpoint, but for coastlines I think we
need to cut across the estuaries at the right point to form the
correct baseline
  * The MHW data is organised by area - down to constituency level.
Every time the line crosses the area boundary, it simply stops 
and

you need to load the adjacent area to continue the line

I have uploaded GPX versions of the October 2016 OS MHW data to 
http://csmale.dev.openstreetmap.org/os_boundaryline/mhw/ with a file 
per county / unitary area (I have not produced the files for the 
higher-level regions or the lower-level constituency areas).


In the Thames estuary around Southend and on the north Kent coast I 
have replaced the PGS data with the new OS data and to me it looks 
much better (in Potlatch) although the changes 

Re: [Talk-GB] GB Coastline - PGS vs OS

[David Groom]

I suspect that even though much of the coastline is tagged "source=PGS" 
is has been amended by reference to Yahoo and after that Bing imagery, 
but the subsequent editors did not remove the "source=PGS" tag.


Certainly comparing your gpx file for the Isle of Wight with the 
coastline currently in OSM there appear a number of places where the gpx 
file does not accurately represent MHW.


I certainly would not want to see a wholesale replacement of what is in 
currently in OSM with OD Boundary Line data.


Looking here http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.53546/0.60580 an 
area near Southend, unless the Bing imagery is outdated, the Boundary 
Line data seems to be an odd representation of the coastline.


David
On 11/12/2016 10:43, Colin Smale wrote:


Hi,

Most of the coastline is currently tagged as "source=PGS". As part of 
the Boundary-Line open data set OS provide MHW lines which look to be 
significantly better than the PGS data:


  * Much newer - updated twice a year, although I am not sure how old
the actual underlying survey data is (PGS coastlines seem to be
from 2006)
  * Better resolution - more nodes, smoother curves
  * Consistent with admin boundary data, so MLW never appears above
MHW (often a problem on rocky coastlines like Wales and Cornwall)

There are a couple of caveats when working with the OS data:

  * Where MHW=MLW, i.e. the MHW is colinear with the admin boundary at
MLW, there is a gap in the MHW data
  * The MHW data goes miles inland in tidal estuaries, which is
correct from the MHW standpoint, but for coastlines I think we
need to cut across the estuaries at the right point to form the
correct baseline
  * The MHW data is organised by area - down to constituency level.
Every time the line crosses the area boundary, it simply stops and
you need to load the adjacent area to continue the line

I have uploaded GPX versions of the October 2016 OS MHW data to 
http://csmale.dev.openstreetmap.org/os_boundaryline/mhw/ with a file 
per county / unitary area (I have not produced the files for the 
higher-level regions or the lower-level constituency areas).


In the Thames estuary around Southend and on the north Kent coast I 
have replaced the PGS data with the new OS data and to me it looks 
much better (in Potlatch) although the changes are not yet showing 
through on "the map". I think coastline changes are processed less 
frequently.


Any comments?

//colin





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com

To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=



Arg! We were converging on prow_ref when I last looked at tag info a few
months back. Perhaps I should have checked before changing the wiki!!

Seeing that I have now updated the wiki (and it really doesn't make a 
shred

of difference) does anyone have an issue if I change the existing
prow:ref s to prow_ref whilst we are still at low numbers of these 
tags?



Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few 
hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref, 
I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have 
been the better option.


David


Rob








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





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

[Talk-GB] Potential Vandalism - AGAIN

[David Groom]

islandmonkey seems to have been at it again

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12772095

which just seems to consist of mass deletions, including deleted coastline, and 
no meaningful changeset comment

I also note 4 other changesets by him / her today

Can we get this reverted and block his account




David


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

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com

To: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road



On 19 June 2012 14:07, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:


David Groom wrote:
 However at the north end there is a (newly erected) public footpath
 sign showing a footpath ref of B64, pointing straight down this road,
 and the definitive map shows this as a footpath.

I use admin:ref for refs that are predominantly intended for
administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage.


Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer.

The problem in the stated case, is that there is potentially a footpath 
ref

and a road ref.
I would want to suggest something like footpath:ref=B64 or prow:ref=B64,
but I don't think either is used or documented anywhere.



Thanks everyone for the comments

I like the idea of prow:ref. I think footpath:ref a bit too specific, we'd 
then need bridleway:ref, not to mention boat:ref (for byways open to all 
traffic) which could be just TOO confusing!


I've also found one instance of  where the problem mentioned by Andy, of a 
way needing both a road ref and a prow ref, see 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28919456 which currently is tagged 
ref = A49;Cuddington FP 24


Certainly here on the Isle of Wight, I think the use of the reference number 
has gone beyond just administrative purposes.  A large majority of the 
footpath/bridleway signs have the ref on them (and I think all the more 
recent ones do).  Walking guides and trail leaflets commonly refer to paths 
by using their reference number.


In the UK at present there seem to be 7,004 ways tagged with designation =* 
and ref = *, of which 941 are on the Isle of Wight. I'd be quite confident 
about changing the relevant Isle Of Wight ways to prow:ref , but would not 
want to mass change all the UK ones.


It would be good to hear comments from user mikh43, and Robert Whittaker, as 
the three of us account for 80% of the users who last edited those 7004 ways


Regards

David



Gregory
o...@livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com








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





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

[Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road

[David Groom]

Longwood Lane  when driving a car along it looks pretty much like a normal 
highway, although it is rather narrow.  It has an asphalt surface, and when 
turning in from the north, or south there is nothing to show there is 
anything special about this road at all from a vehicles point of view.


However at the north end there is a (newly erected) public footpath sign 
showing a footpath ref of B64, pointing straight down this road, and the 
definitive map shows this as a footpath.


Currently I've tagged this way as follows:

highway = unclassified
designation = public_footpath
ref = B64
name =  Longwood Lane

The problem is that the map now displays the ref, as if it were a road 
ref, whilst no other footpath refs get shown


http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.664715lon=-1.168427zoom=15layers=M 
. (see laso B33a and NC45a to the WNW of B64)


Is this:

a) Not a problem at all;
b) simply a problem for the rendering, and no change to the tagging is 
required;

c) a possible problem with the tagging?


David 




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk

To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS 
OpenData licence




On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 13:29 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

Hence, unfortunately, I don't think we can use the Hampshire data
(going forward under ODbL) unless we get explicit permission from the
copyright holders. For the maps, this would presumably mean both the
council and OS. It's a real pain that OS felt it necessary to fork the
Open Government License. :-(

Any other opinions on this or is this definite? The guy I've been in 
contact with at Hants CC was giving the impression it was OK, I could ask 
him explicitly if that's any help.


Nick

I have to admit that as soon as I read your  first email, I had excatly the 
same concerns as Robert Whittaker.





While HCC could theoretically include any odd request they like in their
licence (all members of your organisation must dance the fandango every
Friday?) I can't see that they'd want us to enforce attribution of a
third party for any other reason than to satisfy licence conditions
imposed on them. Since the OS has already given us the green light to
include OS OpenData in ODbL then I don't see this as a problem.


However OS OpenData specifically excludes Rights Of Way  information.  So it 
would be difficult to draw any inference from the prior agreement between OS 
 OSM as to how that might apply to ROW data from HCC.


In effect you seem to be saying that since we have an agreement to use some 
specific OS data under the terms agreed between OS  OSM, then we have 
permission to use any OS data under that agreement.



David



If the
terms stated that we had to enforce attribution of HCC too I'd be more
concerned.

Cheers,

Andy


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





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OSOpenData licence

[David Groom]

I've had some additional thoughts on this, but will now be discussing these 
on legal talk rather than here


David 




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Have you contacted a UK local authority in regards to Rights of Way?

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk

To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Have you contacted a UK local authority in regards to 
Rights of Way?




On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 16:22 +, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:

The second of a few emails from me today (apologies)!

As part of the Public Rights of Way work I have added a table of all the
English surveying authorities responsible for maintaining the 
Definitive

Map and Statement, to the wiki:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils

Please use this table to add details on council map services (free or
otherwise - there are clear copyright warnings on this wiki page), and 
also

email here if you have previously contacted a council in regards to
releasing the Def Statement under the OGL licence. I will then work 
through

all remaining councils over the coming months.


I contacted Hampshire County Council last week but haven't had a
response yet.


Is there a standard letter we are using to ask for this information?

David



Cheers,

Andy


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





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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to tag marine lights on posts

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk

To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 3:48 PM
Subject: [Talk-GB] How to tag marine lights on posts




I've just tagged a row of 18 marine hazard lights, on tall posts, as
highway=street_lamp

For example:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1494256519

Clearly that's not correct; what tag would folk suggest?

--


Something from

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/Seamark_Tag_Values

depending on exactly what the light characteristsics are

David


Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk







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

Re: [Talk-GB] Looking For Unconnected Cycleways

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu

To: Steve Dobson st...@dobbo.org
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Looking For Unconnected Cycleways


Keep right seams to lag a bit behind the current state, just click the
ignore for now option.  Does anyone know how/ when it updates?


Text at the very extreme bottom left indicated last update was 3 August 2011

David




On 12 Aug 2011 11:25, Steve Dobson st...@dobbo.org wrote:

Hi Tim, Craig

Many thanks, KeepRight does appear to fit the bill, it also seams to
spot other things around Eastbourne and I will start work trying to
clear them.

However, it has shown up that the edit I made yesterday isn't perfect
as I didn't create junction nodes.  I can't see what's different about
the nodes I created and the end points so I have no idea what I didn't
do that I should have.  Could you be kind enough to point me at the
documentation for junction nodes so I can create them correctly.

Ta
Steve




On 12/08/11 11:19, Craig Loftus wrote:

I think Keep right is what he is looking for, the inter...



On 12 August 2011 10:09, Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:


Hmm, actually, may not ...
--- On *Fri, 12/8/11, Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk* wrote:


From: Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk



Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Looking For Unconnected Cycleways
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org, Steve...








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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com

To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK




Michael Collinson mike@... writes:


Ordnance Survey has explicitly considered any licensing conflict between
their license and ODbL and has no objections to geodata derived in part
from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0.


As I understand it the objection was not so much whether the data can be
distributed under the ODbL but whether the contributor terms (which under 
some
reasonable interpretations allow OSMF to distribute under a different 
licence

in future) are compatible.

You have previously given your personal interpretation of the CTs, which 
is that
a contributor need only assert that data is compatible with the *current* 
licence
terms (and so might be incompatible with some putative future licence). 
Will

there be official confirmation from OSMF backing up this interpretation?


This was discussed at the LWG meeting 21 June [1], and draft wording was 
proposed.  I assume that this will at some stage be formalised, maybe even 
at tonight's LWG meeting?


Regards

David

[1]  https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_121dzjmk5c5pli=1





If not, is there a means for people to click 'I accept the CTs, subject to 
the

interpretation posted on the talk-gb mailing list'?

--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


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








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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz

To: OSM talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 1:53 PM
Subject: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK




Good news.

I hope that helps a number of UK contributors who have been uncertain as 
to whether they can accept the new contributor terms because their 
contributions are derived in part from OS OpenData. Unless you have used 
Code-Point Open data, unequivocally, yes you can.


Following my correspondence and  a follow-up informal meeting by Henk 
Hoff, I am now pleased to announce that the licensing group of the 
Ordnance Survey has explicitly considered any licensing conflict between 
their license and ODbL and has no objections to geodata derived in part 
from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0.  
At the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data since they 
are awaiting a response from Royal Mail who have rights in that dataset.


Pending the Royal Mail response, the OS may well also add a specific 
ODbL compatibility clause.


If permitted, I will make some of the correspondence public so that you 
can see the exact question asked and the response.



This is excellent news.  Thanks to you, Henk and the OS.

Regards

David


I would like to thank the Ordnance Survey for their kind consideration 
and the speed in which they were able to give a response.


Regards,
Michael Collinson
License Working Group



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







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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms

[David Groom]

Michael

Thank you for such a full explanation

- Original Message - 
From: Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz

To: talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 5:50 PM
Subject: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms


[snipped]

regretfully decided not to use that but instead incorporate it into their 
own unique license. The only provision that we can see that might be 
contentious is this:


The same attribution statements must be contained in any sub-licenses of 
the Information that you grant, together with a requirement that any 
further sub-license do the same.




As this is the only provision that the LWG can see might be contentious, can 
I ask if the LWG specifically asked their legal advisors about that point, 
and if so did they give any detailed reasoning why in their view it wasn't a 
problem.


Regards

David





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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Vector Map District

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: David Fitzhugh davidttfitzh...@yahoo.co.uk

To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 9:26 PM
Subject: [Talk-GB] OS Vector Map District


While browsing in the area of Fakenham, Norfolk, UK, I came across some
entries with the source = OS Vector Map District ( look at the woodland). 
As

I had not heard of this before I tried to look it up on the web and could
not make sense of the OS copyright statements on their website. Can data
from OS VMD be imported into OSM and if it can then why am I doing it the
hard way ---GPS, surveys, using my eyes and writing it down in my little
black book,---??

David



I am of the opinion that the OS Opendata licence is not compatible with 
OSM's contributor terms.  However I know many on this list have a different 
view.


The matter was discussed by the licensing working group on 11 January 2011 
( see point 4 of minutes) [1].


On the minutes of almost every LWG meeting since then under MATTERS ARISING 
(open action items from previous meetings)   has been Mike - Follow-up to 
try and get a meeting with OS, which I have taken to mean that the LWG are 
to follow up the issue of CT's  compatibility with the OS licence, and that 
the current position is still unresolved.


Regards

David


[1]  https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_100cv4n9bdj 






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

[Talk-GB] Opendata and the CT's [WAS Adding a further 250, 000 UK roads quickly using a Bot?]

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com

To: Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding a further 250,000 UK roads quickly using a 
Bot?




Thanks for your thoughts on this. I won't respond to individual points not
because I don't think they are valid, but because I think it will be 
useful

to hear from others and let the conversation develop. I am of course aware
that there is ia lot of concern about the proposal in the comments so far.

One point of clarification though - I did indeed consider that I and other
could be  'locked out' of OSM due to my use of OS Open Data, however that 
is

no longer the case given that the OS have adopted the Open Government
License.



To further clarify your clarification.

OS have not adopted the Open Government Licence.  To quote from the OpenData 
website [1] Ordnance Survey will be incorporating the new Open Government 
Licence into our OS OpenData Licence.  Note the use of the word 
incorporating rather than adopting.


If you look at the terms of the OS open data licence [2] you will see 
incorporates the Open Government... which is varied by the following 
terms.  The following terms are important as they place more further 
restrictions upon the use of the data than the Open Government Licence has, 
and may mean that use of OS OpenData is not compatible with the proposed 
CT's.


The OSM wiki page for imports [3] shows that a legal review of the 
computability of OS OpenData with the CT's is due soon, and the minutes of 
the LWG for 11 Jan 2011[4] also take note of the concerns.


Of course this is not to mean that you will be locked out of OSM, since 
when the new CT's which are applicable to a user account and not a user are 
brought into effect you will be able to create a new user account even if OS 
OpenData is deemed not to be compatible with the CT's.


Regards

David


Regards,


Peter



[1] http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/

[2] 
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/docs/os-opendata-licence.pdf


[3] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue#Digital_Recified_Maps


[4]  https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_100cv4n9bdj 






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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS have switched to Open Government License today...

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com

To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS have switched to Open Government License today...




But (unless I've missed something) that doesn't deal with the issue
that the CTs reserve the right to switch the data to (amongst other
things) a non-attribution licence at a future date.


Indeed, and as many will be aware its something I have raised concerns 
about.  It is touched upon by Mike Collinson here 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-January/005716.html


Perhaps the answer is that if at some time in the future a new licence was 
proposed, and OSMF is aware that there is data in the DB which would be 
incompatible with that proposed future licence, and they are unable to 
identify and remove that data, then they would have to accept that they 
would be prevented from switching to that licence.


David




Richard

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com 
wrote:
The OS have today switched to the Open Government License which means 
that

any remaining doubts of the compatibility of OS Open data with ODBL have
been resolved as far as I can see.

Details in the email below.


Regards,


Peter


-- Forwarded message --
From: Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu
Date: 6 January 2011 10:29
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
To: Licensing and other legal discussions. 
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org

Cc: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net


On 04/01/11 15:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote:


As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution
licence.
(It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical 
to
cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is 
good

practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in
another
file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.)


This switch has just been announced:

http://blog.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/2011/01/changes-to-the-os-opendata-licence/

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/






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

Re: [Talk-GB] Street name disagreement - whose right or wrong?

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com

To: talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2010 1:42 PM
Subject: [Talk-GB] Street name disagreement - whose right or wrong?




Hi

I have a street in my area whose name is being contest by another mapper. 
To prevent it reducing to a tit-for-tat retaliations I'd thought it best 
to get it adjudicated here.


I think it's X because it signed on the ground  in OS Locator as such.

He thinks it's Y because Royal Mail PAF and Land Registry say Y

AFAIK the PAF isn't publicly accessible so can't be verified (maybe he's a 
postman?).


I didn't know that the Land Registry had such information.

I've contacted him asking for verification.

Are OSM allowed to use data from these organizations?

Who do you think is correct?

Any other information or comments welcome?


Can you ask any long term residents of the street?  Simply because a 
roadsign says it's a certain name doesn't necesraily mean its right.


There's one road locally which when I started mapping was Bully's Hill on 
the roadsign, and a year ago the signed chnnged to Bulleys Hill.  Clearly 
both signs cant be correct


There's another local road which I had always known as Carpenters Road,  the 
farm which is along the road is Carpenters Fram, the latest road sign 
however says Carpenter Road.  I checked with someone who had lived in the 
village 60 years and they confirmed its name as Carpenters Road.


Moral: dont always trust the signs

David



Cheers
Dave F.







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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath reference numbers

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk

To: Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath reference numbers




On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 14:37 +, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
I think some discussion of this has come up before (some time ago) but 
how many people are tagging footpaths with their council reference 
numbers?


Reason I ask is that I'm in the process of overhauling Freemap and one 
thing I'd like to do is allow people to tag footpaths with (perhaps 
subjective) comments which would be out of place in the main OSM 
database, such as whether it has a nice view, whether there are any 
problems with the path, etc.


I do this already to some extent but the only problem is that the 
comments are linked to the path's OSM ID. Obviously if the path is split, 
or deleted and redrawn, the OSM ID then becomes invalidated so it's 
tricky to ensure that comments remain associated with the correct 
footpath.


However council footpath reference numbers can uniquely identify a 
footpath, so obviously if comments were linked to ref numbers the problem 
would be much simplified.


AFAIK the path numbers in Hampshire are only unique within parish
boundaries. Although not impossible, it might be a bit of a PITA to add
RoW numbers to paths that either cross the boundary multiple times or
are themselves part of the boundary.

I know one or two people have been tagging ref numbers but where have 
they got the info from? A couple of councils round here (Hants, West 
Sussex) publish the path numbers on their online maps but it's unclear 
whether copying from them would be infringement of copyright.




If anyone has been extensively tagging paths with ref numbers let me know 
where as it would be a good test bed for the system.


Eatern end of the IOW (see below)




Have a look at the Isle of Wight. The signs over there often include the
path number and I know at least some of them have been entered into OSM.


Footpath / Bridleway data in OSM on the IOW comes largely from 2 sources.

1) Ground survey - most (though not all) path signs have a reference number 
and this has been included in OSM.  In general the newer signs have more 
information, and over the last year the council appear to be undertaking a 
program of renewing signs.


2) tracing from NPE  OS 1:25k, in which case the path reference number is 
not available.


as a general rule the paths in the eastern end of the IOW are more likley to 
have been sourced from ground survey.


David



Cheers,

Andy


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








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

Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com
To: Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com; 
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source 
WAS The last 2%




However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is
incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly
ODbL too.



I thought this was still to be confirmed?  It may not be that important to
townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural mappers 
(woods,

streams, rivers, coastline, etc.) and it is a crucial issue for me.



It is still to be confirmed.  The situation at the moment is there is no 
guarantee that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's.


Hence if you currently contribute anything based on OS OpenData  to OSM you 
run the risk that you will be prevented from contributing to OSM in the 
future.


I am aware that the LWG have been considering the matter since at least 8 
June [1] , but that as 17 August they have yet to ask legal counsels opinion 
on this [2].


David


Kevin


[1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_67f465m4cd

[2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_77rbr8fgfw





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk

To: '80n' 80n...@gmail.com; David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net
Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 8:06 PM
Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source 
WAS The last 2%



I've been mapping off and on since April 2006, and I've contributed 
approximately 1320 changesets in that time. Only three of which include OS 
data. Are all my contributions going to be rejected?

I have not, as yet, signed up to the new CTs, though was intending to.

I'm now not touching OS data - but is it too late? Surely it's just a 
question of removing the 'tainted' changesets? Or, to be safe, all the 
changesets I've contributed since the OS data became available?


Arguably it is too late, if you take a strict interpretation of the CT's and 
their preamble.


The preamble states  you accept the terms of this agreement for your 
existing and future contributions.  You have an 3 existing contributions 
(changesets) which include OS data, and so technically you cant agree to the 
CT's.


Even if you removed the tainted changesets I would contend you are still 
unable to agree the CT's as the data was still had added (though 
subsequently removed) .  Now if the preamble stated  you accept the terms 
of this agreement for your existing (to the extent that they have not 
previously been removed) and future contributions, then you might be on 
slightly safer ground agreeing to the CT's, but even then, as the addition 
exists as history, and isn't technically removed from the DB then you 
probably would still have problems agreeing to the CT's.


David



[http://www.itn.co.uk/images/ITN_Master_blue.gif]
PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UKhttp://WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this 
email?



From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org 
[mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of 80n

Sent: 22 August 2010 18:41
To: David Groom
Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source 
WAS The last 2%


On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Groom 
revi...@pacific-rim.netmailto:revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:



- Original Message - From: Kevin Peat 
ke...@kevinpeat.commailto:ke...@kevinpeat.com
To: Robert Whittaker (OSM) 
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.commailto:robert.whittaker%2b...@gmail.com; 
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.orgmailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source 
WAS The last 2%



However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is
incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly
ODbL too.

I thought this was still to be confirmed?  It may not be that important to
townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural mappers 
(woods,

streams, rivers, coastline, etc.) and it is a crucial issue for me.

It is still to be confirmed.  The situation at the moment is there is no 
guarantee that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's.


Hence if you currently contribute anything based on OS OpenData  to OSM 
you run the risk that you will be prevented from contributing to OSM in 
the future.


To be clear about this, you can still continue to contribute OS OpenData 
to OSM providing you have not, and do not, agree to the new contributor 
terms.


If you have already contributed content derived from OS OpenData then you 
cannot and should not agree to the contributor terms as they currently 
stand.


Your contributions will not be lost because there will probably always be 
a place where these contributions continue to be editable and available 
under CC-BY-SA.  This may not be OSM but it is likely there will be sites 
that continue to maintain CC-BY-SA licensed content.




I am aware that the LWG have been considering the matter since at least 8 
June [1] , but that as 17 August they have yet to ask legal counsels 
opinion on this [2].


David
Kevin
[1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_67f465m4cd

[2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_77rbr8fgfw






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

Please Note:

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not 
necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless 
specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential 
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they 
are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify 
postmas...@itn.co.uk


Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of 
our

Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: 80n 80n...@gmail.com

To: Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
Cc: David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source 
WAS The last 2%



Phillip
OSM has always taken a very conservative approach on licensing and if in
doubt has erred on the side of caution.

Following this philosophy you cannot agree to the contributor terms.

If you can find a way to revert your OS contributions then you would be 
able

to agree to the new contributor terms.


80n
I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you there, see my post which was made 
at 20:30




Alternatively, if someone were to provide a way to change the authorship 
of

those changesets to a different user ID that remained CC-BY-SA then you
would also be free to agree to the new license.  Doing this would actually


I'd also dispute this point, as the CT's talk refer to the user which added 
the data, not the user who currently owns it.  So even if the authorship 
were changed to a different user ID, it would still have been Phillip who 
added the data in the first place.


David


just postpone the reversion of those changesets and it would happen later,
after the license switch, when all CC-BY-SA licensed data would get purged
from the database.

80n


On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Barnett, Phillip 
phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk

wrote:



  I’ve been mapping off and on since April 2006, and I’ve contributed
approximately 1320 changesets in that time. Only three of which include 
OS

data. Are all my contributions going to be rejected?

I have not, as yet, signed up to the new CTs, though was intending to.



I’m now not touching OS data – but is it too late? Surely it’s just a
question of removing the ‘tainted’ changesets? Or, to be safe, all the
changesets I’ve contributed since the OS data became available?


 **
*PHILLIP BARNETT
**SERVER MANAGER
*
200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this
email?
--

 *From:* talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:
talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] *On Behalf Of *80n
*Sent:* 22 August 2010 18:41
*To:* David Groom
*Cc:* Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a
source WAS The last 2%



On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net
wrote:



- Original Message - From: Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com
To: Robert Whittaker (OSM) 
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.comrobert.whittaker%2b...@gmail.com;

Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source
WAS The last 2%



 However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is
incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly
ODbL too.

 I thought this was still to be confirmed?  It may not be that important
to
townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural mappers
(woods,
streams, rivers, coastline, etc.) and it is a crucial issue for me.



It is still to be confirmed.  The situation at the moment is there is no
guarantee that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's.

Hence if you currently contribute anything based on OS OpenData  to OSM 
you

run the risk that you will be prevented from contributing to OSM in the
future.


To be clear about this, you can still continue to contribute OS OpenData 
to
OSM providing you have not, and do not, agree to the new contributor 
terms.



If you have already contributed content derived from OS OpenData then you
cannot and should not agree to the contributor terms as they currently
stand.

Your contributions will not be lost because there will probably always be 
a
place where these contributions continue to be editable and available 
under

CC-BY-SA.  This may not be OSM but it is likely there will be sites that
continue to maintain CC-BY-SA licensed content.



I am aware that the LWG have been considering the matter since at least 8
June [1] , but that as 17 August they have yet to ask legal counsels 
opinion

on this [2].

David

Kevin

[1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_67f465m4cd

[2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_77rbr8fgfw







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


 Please Note:

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not 
necessarily
represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless 
specifically

stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are 
addressed.

If you have received this email in error, please notify
postmas...@itn.co.uk

Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Andrew wynnd...@lavabit.com

To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB]Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS 
The last 2%





David Groom revi...@... writes:

Arguably it is too late, if you take a strict interpretation of the CT's 
and

their preamble.


I see no real problem.

All of my Opendata-based edits have clear source tags; apart from quality
control issues, I have always understood this is needed for the licence 
even

without the relicensing.

In the unlikely event that issues with Opendata are unresolvable the 
database

people will have to remove all Opendata-based mapping anyway, leaving my
contributions clean.



Oh , if only it were that simple.

Partly as I said in my earlier email, the CT's talk about data you have 
added, not data which still exists.


But more importantly your contributions would still remain in all the planet 
dumps, so I presume you'd be relying on the database people to remove the 
data from them as well.  Probably a time consuming task, but potentially 
do-able.  But then there are all the copies of the planet dumps held on 
other peoples computers.  Should the database people ask for all of them 
to be returned so they can be cleaned?


You see data you add to OSM cant easily be removed.

David

--
Andrew


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








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

Re: [Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Andrew wynnd...@lavabit.com

To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB]Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS 
The last 2%





David Groom revi...@... writes:


Oh , if only it were that simple.

Partly as I said in my earlier email, the CT's talk about data you have
added, not data which still exists.

But more importantly your contributions would still remain in all the 
planet
dumps, so I presume you'd be relying on the database people to remove 
the

data from them as well.  Probably a time consuming task, but potentially
do-able.  But then there are all the copies of the planet dumps held on
other peoples computers.  Should the database people ask for all of 
them

to be returned so they can be cleaned?

You see data you add to OSM cant easily be removed.

David
 --
 Andrew


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






I still see no problem.

There is essentially no difference post-relicensing between data derived 
from an
unrelicensable source and mapping that is not relicensed because people 
cannot
be contacted. Planet dumps from the CC-by-SA era are a non-issue because 
they
remain wholly under the Creative Commons licence; post-relicensing history 
dumps

omit both sets ofdata.



But it is not a question of the wording of the licence, its a question of 
the wording of the Contributor Terms.  I've not mentioned the licence at all 
in the context of this discussion.


The preamble to the CT's state they refer to existing and future 
contributions.  Therefore they cover contributions exiting in the planet 
dumps, therefore you have to be able to say the data in those dumps complies 
with the CT's.  Nothing to do with what licence the planet dumps are issued 
under.


David


--
Andrew


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








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

[Talk-GB] Why I'm not currently using OS Opendat as a source WAS The last 2%

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Shane Reynolds shane...@gmail.com

To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] The last 2%



Hi,

I am the developer who works on a number of products including OSM 
Analysis

for ITO.

I am slightly confused about making the OS Locator box a dashed box if the
not:name tag is present. When we do the processing if any street is found
with the not:name tag matching an OS Locator street then these should not 
be

flagged in the stats nor should they be drawn on the map. Are you saying
that this is not the case and they are still appearing? If this is true 
then

possibly there is a bug that I may want to address (we are usually a day
behind the updated planet file so possibly its something to do with that?)

With regard to getting the figures down (in slight fear of being flamed as 
I

am a very novice mapper) - with apostrophes, if the road sign has an
apostrophe then I would say the apostrophe should be in OSM and if it is 
not
then it is correct to flag it as a difference. However if the road sign 
does

not have an apostrophe and OS Locator does then probably the road should
have a not:name tag added with the apostrophe version of the name. This
would remove any apostrophe issues. With regard to rural roads - if they
have no road signs is it not better to use the OS Locator name rather than
have no name at all as I think in general OS Locator has been proved to be
pretty accurate? (apologies if in my ignorance I do not know that there is 
a

good reason not to do this).


There is one pretty good reason.

OS opendata is released under a CC-BY-SA licence

There is a pretty strong reason to believe that CC-BY-SA data is not 
compatible with the new Contributor Terms   ODbL


If you have added any data based on the OS opendata therefore you can not 
agree to the contributor terms.


If you can't agree to the contributor terms then at some point in the future 
you will no longer be able to contribute to OSM.


Therefore, for me,  use of OS Opendata is one more factor which will 
complicate my ability to continue to contribute to OSM.once agreeing to the 
CT becomes mandatory


Note the above analysis is based on the current situation and assumes:

(1) that the OS will not change their licence so it is compatible with 
Contributor Terms   ODbL
(2) OSM does not change Contributor Terms   ODbL so it is compatible with 
CC-BY
(3) The Contributor Terms are not changed to allow a user to create a new 
account and start mapping afresh


As this isn't the legal mailing list , if anyone wants to debate these 
points I suggest they raise them on legal-talk mailing list or,


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Open_Issues

David








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

[Talk-GB] apostrophe's WAS The last 2%

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Shane Reynolds shane...@gmail.com

To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] The last 2%



Hi,

I am the developer who works on a number of products including OSM 
Analysis

for ITO.

I am slightly confused about making the OS Locator box a dashed box if the
not:name tag is present. When we do the processing if any street is found
with the not:name tag matching an OS Locator street then these should not 
be

flagged in the stats nor should they be drawn on the map. Are you saying
that this is not the case and they are still appearing? If this is true 
then

possibly there is a bug that I may want to address (we are usually a day
behind the updated planet file so possibly its something to do with that?)

With regard to getting the figures down (in slight fear of being flamed as 
I

am a very novice mapper) - with apostrophes, if the road sign has an
apostrophe then I would say the apostrophe should be in OSM and if it is 
not
then it is correct to flag it as a difference. However if the road sign 
does

not have an apostrophe and OS Locator does then probably the road should
have a not:name tag added with the apostrophe version of the name. This
would remove any apostrophe issues.


Shane,
great work on your OSM analysis tools.

My recollection of the discussion on this list in early June was that 
apostrophe differences would not be tagged with not:name as this might 
have a tendency to flood the not:name reports with minor issues.


It was also suggested (by me I'll admit) that on the ITO tiles that 
differences due solely to apostrophes could be marked just in one pale 
colour, so they could quickly and easily be distinguished from other errors.


David



With regard to rural roads - if they
have no road signs is it not better to use the OS Locator name rather than
have no name at all as I think in general OS Locator has been proved to be
pretty accurate? (apologies if in my ignorance I do not know that there is 
a

good reason not to do this).

Shane






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

[Talk-GB] Post box for franked mail only

[David Groom]

Our local delivery office has a post box which can only be used for franked 
mail.


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dpost_box#Franked_Mail_Only 
hasn't really come to a conlusion as to hwo these shaould be noted.


What are people using

David






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

Re: [Talk-GB] ito and OS Locator comparison

[David Groom]

1) add the slippymap plugin

2) then in preferences  advanced preferences , add the following two entries

key = slippymap.custom_tile_source_1.name ;value = ITO World OS comparison
key = slippymap.custom_tile_source_1.url; value = 
http://tiles.itoworld.com/os_locator

3 restart JOSM

4 in preferences  Slippy Map choose the tile source as ITO World OS 
comparison

David
 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Hawkins 
  To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:20 PM
  Subject: [Talk-GB] ito and OS Locator comparison


  I am at a loss to understand how I view the ito OS Locator comparison layer 
in JOSM.  I should appreciate it if someone would kindly explain how to access 
it.


--


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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO -apostrophes

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB]Map layer with OS Locator comparison from 
ITO -apostrophes



 Peter Miller peter.mil...@... writes:

I suggest we continue to flag alternative versions for which there is
no proven valid usage using not:name but where an alternative official
name is found (ie in the legal name or a past name or even one in
local usage) then we should put that in alt:name.

 I think alt_name is more common than alt:name.

 For trivial differences such as apostrophes or capitalization it doesn't
 make any sense to add an alt_name, I feel.  Anyone using the data - 
 whether
 a computer program or a human - is quite able to ignore punctuation when
 comparing strings, and so the additional tags don't add any value.  But 
 they
 can be added as not:name for the purposes of this data check.

1) There is a proposal to mark apostrophe differences in a single
colour.

 I don't believe anyone suggested that; I thought of removing them 
 altogether
 (in which case the single colour would be white!) but later accepted they 
 might
 as well be cleaned up with the other stuff.

Yes they did :)
I suggested it yesterday.

David


 -- 
 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com


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

 





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - apostrophes

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB]Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - 
apostrophes



 At the risk of reopening the apostrophes war, my point is that issues such 
 as
 Saint vs St, or Queen's Drive versus Queens Drive, are not ones that can 
 be
 resolved by survey.  They are merely orthographic conventions.  Similarly, 
 we
 do not report a mismatch between High Street and HIGH STREET, even though 
 the OS
 map and data uses upper case, and most councils use it for street signs.

 However, I've changed my mind - we might as well clear up apostrophes and
 abbreviations at the same time as other things, it's not an obstacle to 
 fixing
 the more serious discrepancies.  So I'm happy for them to be flagged.



Rather than simply deciding should these be flagged / should these not be 
flagged, would it not be simpler if where the difference between  OS Locator 
and OSM were just an apostrophe, then the map tiles used just one specific 
colour (and maybe in particular one of the pale colours).

Then everyone should be happy :)

All differences are flagged, but it's much easy to spot (and ignore) the 
apostrophe difference.

David 





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

[Talk-GB] Belfast ferries

[David Groom]

Does anyone know Belfast well enough to be able to join the two ferries to 
the road network?

There are two ferry routes going into the harbour, but its not obvious from 
the Yahoo imagery where each one should join the road network

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.6276lon=-5.8787zoom=14layers=B000FTF

David
 




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Automatically make street atlas?

[David Groom]

As a starting point you might look at

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/PDF_atlas 

David

- Original Message - 
From: Russ Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: OSM GB talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 8:51 PM
Subject: [Talk-GB] Automatically make street atlas?


 Hi people,
 
 I'd like to make some street atlases using OSM data. Has anyone  
 created a script/program to do this automatically? If not, I might  
 have a go at writing something myself, but I thought I'd see if anyone  
 else has done it first.
 
 Basically, I'd like to feed it a .osm file, and have it spit out a  
 load of printable files (don't really care what format).
 
 Russ
 
 
 
 This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
 
 
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb