Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary
On 14/12/2020 17:27, Edward Bainton wrote: Any thoughts on why when I enable "public GPS traces" in iD, I get one that near enough exactly tracks the LA boundary South Kesteven:Peterborough (at Deeping St James)? Someone took their tracker with them when "Beating the Bounds"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_the_bounds Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
I have now changed this from "driveway" to "service road" with access for motor vehicles as "destination", i.e. for access to properties only. I don't think it can be "private" because there are two properties along there, Noverton Cottage and Noverton Farm. I have also added the gate at the public road. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.28186/-2.42748 Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On 13/12/2020 13:45, Nick wrote: what do people think of Overlapping ways i.e. one is a road and a duplicate is a bridleway? Not elegant and something I would not normally suggest but... Hi Nick, When I've tried that in the past I've been jumped on for breaking a fundamental rule of OSM that one feature should have only one entry in the database. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Noverton Farm - driveway-becomes-track
On 13/12/2020 09:06, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm) sounded familiar. A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a long distance walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary footpaths (planned using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme Valley. It was very nice *but* the footpaths were in an appaling state of disrepair, I remember on several occasions that day having to scramble through dense shrub cover and attempt to negotiate barbed-wire fences. I seem to recall Noverton Farm as being the site of some particularly badly-maintained footpaths. Hi Nick, The footpaths in the area, or at least the ones walked by me, are now no worse than in other areas of Worcestershire. Here is Noverton Farm with stile: https://85a.uk/noverton_stile_1280x800.jpg The heavy lifting appears to have been done by the local Ramblers volunteers: https://85a.uk/noverton_ramblers_1280x800.jpg Others nearby have been replaced with galvanised kissing gates, again with the Ramblers doing the actual work. The state of the footpath between them tends to depend on the time of year and the state of the crops. Farmers tend not to regard their legal requirement to reinstate footpaths within 14 days as being at the top of their to-do list. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
As the OP on this, all I can say is that in this part of the world, which includes that farm, that roadway would be called a "farm drive" (not "driveway") with double gates and a nameboard where it leaves the public road. If you referred to the "track leading to the farm" the farmer might take offence after laying and rolling hardcore along it to make it suitable for all vehicles. A "track" is a narrow muddy lane between fields, and a farm at the end of one would typically be an old-time tumbledown affair, not one ready to receive delivery vans from Amazon. However, my post was not about the naming, but about the rendering on the standard OSM map. Where at zoom level 15 driveways are not rendered, but lower-grade tracks and bridleways are. It doesn't make sense to a user of that map, although I can see the intended logic behind it. The simplest solution would to remove the driveway tag and simply leave it as "service road". But that then causes it to be rendered on the standard map at the same width and colour as a minor public road, which is equally confusing to a map user. However, I notice that the entry gates have not been mapped, so adding those to a basic service road may be the best solution, and I will do that. thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On 12/12/2020 21:30, David Woolley wrote: Your first problem would be establishing a funding model for it; OSM, in general, is not funded to a level that would support large scale end user use. Hi David, Small-scale end use would be a start. But folks need to find it in the first place. Andy obviously already has some hosting on a server, and I do too. So funding for small-scale use would not be a problem. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On 12/12/2020 17:37, Andy Townsend wrote: That allows maps such as https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16=52.28208=-2.42987 to display it as a public bridleway (in blue) Hi Andy, That's a great map! It seems you have already done what I would be interested in doing - to provide a better map for walkers and others showing footpaths, stiles and gates, etc. much more prominently. What I'm wondering is how the typical recreational country walker would find that map, or get it on their mobile phone app in place of the awful Google maps? It's a lot of work to create if no-one ever uses it? One thing I would ask for is more prominent rendering of benches. They appear only at maximum zoom on the OSM standard map, and only as a very small symbol. I don't suppose younger OSM mappers roam the countryside looking for somewhere to sit and eat their lunch, but at 72 years of age I do (cheese & pickle sandwich and a hard-boiled egg, since you ask)! Something I feel strongly about, and would be a prime motivation for doing something about myself, is to map and provide rendering for the area:highway tag: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway Country walkers often need to include a stretch of public road in a planned walk, and it is very difficult to discover whether a road will be safe to walk along. Sometimes there are wide verges, but sometimes high banks or close hedges with nowhere to leap to out of the way of approaching traffic. It's necessary to look on Google Streetview before setting out, but not all country roads are covered. At present even apps which do render it (I believe OsmAnd) can't do much because it is not commonly mapped between the hedgerows along country roads. Legally the entire area between the property boundaries on each side is the public highway. Having recently been very nearly taken out by a van while walking (legally!) along an A road, it's an omission I want to do something about. Local highway authorities are required by law to provide a "Public Footpath" sign where a public footpath joins a road. But they are not required to provide any safe means of reaching it. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote: Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it. Perhaps that someone is you? Hi Andy, Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus, Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory space and bandwidth. I have been thinking of making better use of it, possibly by hosting something from OSM. > I'd suggest setting up a copy of the > standard map rendering as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ > (just for Worcestershire would be fine) and start tinkering with the > logic that decides what sort of service road is what, such as > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b10aef3866bacf387581b8fea4eec265010b0d14/project.mml#L475 Thanks. I have been looking at https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ but I have a lot to learn. I can do Windows programming, but on stuff for the web I'm only a dabbler. I looked at Mapnik and saw interfaces only for Python and C. If that had been Pascal, I would have dived in by now. I will have another look and see where I might start. The idea of creating my own map does appeal to me. Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud: https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track" means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles. This is where the farm drive leaves the road - this is definitely more than a "track" - note the double gates: https://goo.gl/maps/XEs4XKs5UUHNBt8E8 cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On 12/12/2020 13:16, Mark Goodge wrote: Out in a rural area, nearly everybody would call that length of road, especially one that links a public highway with private farm tracks, a track or access road. Hi Mark, I'm not sure about that. In this part of the world, a roadway which links from a public road to a private residence is called a "drive" (not usually "driveway") irrespective of the length, or what other tracks or footpaths connect to it, and also irrespective of its legal status as a public byway or public bridleway. If it's a public highway for all, it's just called a "road" or "lane". cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On 12/12/2020 13:03, Nick wrote: For this particular example it is clearly complex as it was shown as a 'permissive' footpath (other non vehicular access was along the designated bridleway). As this is in England and given that the driveway seems to have just been changed to 'designated', I assume the change made to the map allowing 'other access' along the private driveway could be contested by the landowner? Hi Nick, I'm not clear what you are saying there? The driveway is a public bridleway which subsequently passes through a farmyard. The farmer has provided a permissive by-pass footpath for walkers to avoid the farmyard. The driveway has been broken into 3 sections and given separate pro-ref numbers (not by me). cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
p.s. here's a screenshot of that. It looks silly: https://85a.uk/missing_driveway_zoom15.png Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
A common situation is that a service road/driveway continues as a track beyond the initial residential destination. This is common on farms. On the standard map at zoom level 15, driveways are not shown. But tracks and footpaths are. This seems counter-intuitive in that driveways are usually wider and more substantially surfaced than farm tracks. The result is that a track, and sometimes a footpath, appears to start in the middle of nowhere. An example of that is at: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.2816/-2.4320 What is the process for getting something done about this? thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths
On 10/12/2020 14:13, John Aldridge wrote: There'd be a whole lot less temptation to tag for the renderer, if the renderers rendered for the tags a bit better! Agreed, and while we are on the subject, please can we have *tracks* rendered on the standard map as a double line? As they are on most maps. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths
My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2) Many public bridleways have many more walkers and cyclists using it than actual horse-riders. But are still mapped as bridleways. Map it as a cycleway, unless it is a public bridleway, in which case map it as bridleway. You are mapping the status, not the actual usage. My feeling is that a highway should be mapped at the highest level of permitted usage. The assumption is that pedestrians can go almost anywhere anyway. Motorways excepted. Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field
What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical evidence You walk along them. There is then physical evidence, and you can map it. I've done that a lot. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] electric fences
There are several instances locally where a footpath across a field is crossed by an electric fence. The farmer usually fits a length of rubber hosepipe over the wire so that walkers can safely step over the fence. Sometimes with the aid of a couple of concrete blocks. How to map? Technically it is probably a form of stile. But the problem is that the location isn't fixed. Electric fences are moved about according to which area of the field the livestock are currently grazing. In a large field the position could change significantly. But walkers with restricted mobility do need to know that there is one somewhere in the field. The position might be important if there is an alternative gate or other access which could be used. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] featdesc & featcode
On 19/11/2020 16:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > > Anybody know what featdesc & featcode refer to? Local authority > references? Hi Dave, Sorry about poor formatting, copied from: https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/os-vectormap-district-product-guide.pdf OS VectorMap District technical specification feature codes v1.8 – 09/2016 © Crown copyright Page 51 of 56 Feature Codes Feature Codes represented in the vector product FeatureType classification featureCode Building25014 Glasshouse25016 Road Motorway 25710 Primary Road 25723 A Road 25729 B Road 25743 Minor Road 25750 Local Street 25760 Private Road Publicly Accessible 25780 Pedestrianised Street 25790 Motorway, Collapsed Dual Carriageway 25719 Primary Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway 25735 A Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway 25739 B Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway 25749 Minor Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway 25759 RoadTunnel25792 MotorwayJunction25796 Roundabout Primary Road 25703 A Road 25704 B Road 25705 Minor Road 25706 Local Street 25707 Private Road Publicly Accessible 25708 SurfaceWater_Line25600 SurfaceWater_Area25609 TidalWater High Water Mark 25608 TidalBoundary High Water Mark Low Water Mark 25604 Low Water Mark 25605 Foreshore25612 AdministrativeBoundary National 25204 Parish Or Community 25200 District Or London Borough 25201 County Or Region Or Island 25202 RailwayTrack Multi Track 25300 Single Track 25301 Narrow Gauge 25302 RailwayTunnel25303 RailwayStation Light Rapid Transit Station 25420 Railway Station 25422 London Underground Station 25423 Railway Station And London Underground Station 25424 OS VectorMap District technical specification feature codes v1.8 – 09/2016 © Crown copyright Page 52 of 56 Light Rapid Transit Station And Railway Station 25425 Light Rapid Transit Station And London Underground Station 25426 FunctionalSite Education Facility - School 25250 Police Station 25251 Medical Care 25252 Place Of Worship 25253 Leisure Or Sports Centre 25254 Air Transport 25255 Education Facility - Higher 25256 Water Transport 25257 Road Transport 25258 Road Services 25259 Woodland25999 Ornament25550 ElectricityTransmissionLine25102 NamedPlace Populated Place 25801 Landform 25802 Woodland Or Forest 25803 Hydrography 25804 Landcover 25805 SpotHeight25810 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Holes in modern England?
I think I have now worked this out. The NLS historic 25" georeferenced map first looks on the server for tiles from the County Series maps. If that returns a 404 Not Found error (presumably because the sheet wasn't available when the rest were scanned), it then looks on the server for the same tile from the "Holes England" map to fill in the gap. These appear to be from later OS revisions, but are available only for the locations shown as blank patches at: https://geo.nls.uk/mapdata3/os/25_inch/holes_england/#holes_england_new/ol3 Hopefully if/when they get enough of these scans, these later 25" revisions will become available as a separate map on the web site. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Holes in modern England?
One of the "holes" contains the town of Kidderminster. Looking at it on the full 25" map, that sheet is from the 1921 revision, the surrounding sheets are from the 1901 revision: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17=52.38277=-2.24342=168=7 Which may explain the holey map, as a record of which revision is where. Or not. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Holes in modern England?
On 30/10/2020 20:34, ipswichmap...@tutanota.com wrote: If this is referring to what I posted earlier, then you have chosen a different map to what I linked. Hi, No it's a separate issue. I was browsing the NLS site when Firefox threw an error. I clicked "Try again" and the holey map appeared. It seems to be an extract from the normal 25" georeferenced map, but to what end I can't fathom. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Holes in modern England?
p.s. I've now discovered an overlay slider top-right which makes a bit more sense. The slider is almost invisible over the map in Firefox. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Holes in modern England?
Anyone care to explain what's going on here: https://geo.nls.uk/mapdata3/os/25_inch/holes_england/#holes_england_new/ol3 It displays the OSM basic map (without attribution), with some random blank patches (see for example a large area north-west of Oxford). If you zoom in on the blank patches, they turn out to contain historic 25"/mile mapping from the NLS. Puzzled. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts
Surely OpenStreetMAP is about creating a MAP? The clue is in the name. So you map what's on the ground: 1. Put the flares in the right place (often they are wildly out). 2. If there is a "No U-turn" sign you add it, otherwise you don't. Making a router work properly is a job for the person making the router, not the person making the MAP. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Jewson - is it shop=doityourself or shop=trade?
shop=builders_merchant ? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Using OSM as a base for my own fictional map?
On 25/07/2020 00:36, David Woolley wrote: Also, generating a PDF server side is a relatively expensive, so don't expect to welcomed if you start doing this on the fly. Hi David, Can you clarify what you mean by "on the fly"? I anticipate clicking the PDF download button, and then working locally on the downloaded file. Maybe doing a dozen or so in an evening, once or twice a week. The modified images would then be distributed to others via my own server. Which would have no effect on the OSM server. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Using OSM as a base for my own fictional map?
On 24/07/2020 23:18, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: "OpenStreetMap data is free for everyone to use. Our tile servers are not." See https://operations.osmfoundation.org/policies/tiles/ for more "In particular, downloading an area of over 250 tiles at zoom level 13 or higher for offline or later usage is forbidden." is the most limiting part Thanks Mateusz. However, I would not be using any OSM tiles at all. I would be using this PDF download function instead: https://85a.uk/osm_pdf_download.png and once only for any given map area. Though I suspect that rendering map (raster tiles with Mapnik, client-side rendered vector tiles, rendering on client side from raw OSM data etc) will be better than fetching raster tiles and modifying them I agree that modifying a raster image, whether from a tile or any other, would give very poor results, especially when zoomed in. But I'm not planning to fetch or modify any raster tiles. The downloaded PDF files are vector files which can be zoomed to any level without pixelating, and can have the internal records modified as required. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Using OSM as a base for my own fictional map?
Many thanks for the suggestions and links. A lot to take in there. Zooming the tiles far enough to see the track detail is essential, so I'm wondering if I'm looking at doing this the wrong way. It's not intended that the tiles would be viewed on a slippy map in a web browser. I'm writing a Windows executable to fetch them from the server and display them. I have discovered that from the standard OSM map it is possible to download a vector file as a PDF of a selected area. An EMF metafile would be preferable, but the PDF format is essentially a wrapper for metafiles, so it's not too difficult to convert PDF to EMF. Which means I can programmatically remove the railway tracks by searching the metafile records for the relevant line styles and colours. And then programmatically draw in the required new railway track. From the modified EMF I can generate the image tiles and upload them to my server. Here's a quick test of that idea, showing the platforms and footbridge at the north end of Bewdley station on the SVR, with the OSM tracks replaced with detailed track: https://85a.uk/bewdley_osm_test.png Here's the OSM map from which it was derived: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.37590/-2.30719=N I need to work out how to do the attribution and any copyright issues. I can easily add the usual © OpenStreetMap Contributors caption on the corner of each tile. But is it permitted to modify and re-use the standard OSM map image in this way? What indication is required that it has been modified? The project will be free and open-source, there is no financial gain involved. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Using OSM as a base for my own fictional map?
I'm looking for some pointers. I have a dedicated server (located in Ohio, I'm in UK) with full controls. I'm fairly confident with web sites and javascript (and geometry), but I'm entirely new to online mapping (apart from editing OSM in the iD editor). What I want to do is use OSM as a base map for small areas of the UK, but remove entirely all the OSM-derived railway tracks, and replace them with my own data. This data would be essentially fictional, not based on or derived from anything which is there now. I want to be able to create tiles zoomed in far enough to see individual rails and sleepers, with each rail as two separate rail edges. Where would I start to do that? How would I deal with attribution, warning unsuspecting users that everything is derived from OSM (and can be relied on to the same extent, if any, as any other OSM) EXCEPT the railway tracks, which can't? Many thanks for any help/ideas/suggestions. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings
> but most people I know aren't aware of OSM. I've been trying to persuade country-walking groups to use OSM. There is a lot of useful stuff there not shown on OS Explorer -- stiles, kissing gates, benches, bus stops, all pubs, cafes, etc. It's a lot more up-to-date, and if they find anything missing they can add it themselves for the benefit of others. Most of them go back to OS Explorer when they find UK public rights of way are not shown in different colours on the OSM standard map. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
It is just possible (sight unseen) that it is an Easter Egg. We could do the same. If we don't know whether it is permissible to tag it Fairfield Road in OSM, and there is no actual sign on it, we could call it Fairfields Road. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
Is a "public right of way" a highway? I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line. Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes with a physical highway, sometimes not. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] underfoot art
What is this stuff called? https://goo.gl/maps/uVVfLbicFhT25TM5A https://goo.gl/maps/5g1yJnsAGEHzpqqY6 I got as far as tourism=artwork but then artwork_type= ? thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
On 03/04/2020 13:40, nathan case wrote: I ruled it out because, from the same wiki: "This tag is intended for (usually urban) parks with managed greenery" and "parks not so designed and manicured, but rather left in a more wild and natural state should not get this tag, instead, use another tag like boundary=national_park" But village greens and public open green spaces are normally managed, or at least mown, by the local authority. They are not left in a wild or natural state. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
What is wrong with Park? From the wiki: "A park is an area of open space for recreational use, usually designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and bushes. Parks are usually urban" Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections
What missing roads? In this area of the UK at least, there are no *public* roads missing from OSM, apart maybe from a few very new ones on new residential developments, which are very quickly added by human mappers, no AI needed. A few private driveways are missing, but are they all strictly "roads"? A hundred yards from the gate to a residence doesn't strike me as a road in the usual sense. Is there a minimum length for a vehicular residential access to be classed as a road? Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] 'Freemap' - partial reprieve
On 23/03/2020 13:57, Nick Whitelegg wrote: You can access it via http:///www.mapthepaths.org.uk/freemap Hi Nick, the extra / makes that link invalid. :) Should be: http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/freemap cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt
The traditional distinction was that Halts were unstaffed. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?
On 31/01/2020 20:07, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: But that's not a parking spot. Because a vehicle just happens to be there, it doesn't make it one. By your logic we should be tagging pavements as such, because lazy drivers think they're entitled to break the law. But that was my whole point. No it's not a designated car park or a layby so it shouldn't be tagged as one. But it is something. What? Physically it could be described as highway=passing_place but those are not intended to be blocked with parked vehicles. There is also highway=yes verge=yes The wiki says "Existence of verges may indicate scope for informal parking of cars in rural areas." How to tag that there is in fact sufficient space to leave a car? It's not illegal to leave a vehicle on the highway provided it is not causing an obstruction and there are no parking restrictions. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?
On 31/01/2020 12:24, Andy G Wood wrote: For me the most logical is amenity=parking as a node. But "amenity" suggests something specifically provided for the purpose? Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?
On 31/01/2020 11:13, ael wrote: OK. I agree that parking=layby is much better. Thanks for the comments. But the places I was asking about can't really be called laybys, or car parks. Somewhere that a car could be left for a few hours out of anyone's way on an otherwise long narrow lane: https://goo.gl/maps/nSTAbnE4nYXTBAz59 It would be very helpful for country walkers to be able to locate such places from a map in advance of a visit. But how to tag them? Thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?
If you enjoy country walking off the beaten track, it's often difficult to find somewhere to leave the car for several hours without it getting in anyone's way. Country lanes can be narrow with passing places or field gates which would be obstructed if a car is left there for long periods. So it's great to find unofficial parking places such as these -- wide verges with solid ground, unused corners at junctions, odd bits of unused land, etc. https://goo.gl/maps/XrjmrV8eSgRr76U49 https://goo.gl/maps/cM4HZycSEvWiCHCNA It would be even better to be able to locate them on a map in advance. But how to tag them? It's hardly a Car Park. Nor a Lay-By in the usual sense -- even if it is, highway=layby appears to be an abandoned proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lay-by Thanks. Martin. ___ 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)?
Hi Dan, See also man_made=street_cabinet. The wiki page invites us to add additional usage tags: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstreet_cabinet perhaps street_cabinet=pickup_locker cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
On 01/01/2020 11:00, David Woolley wrote: The standard map doesn't claim to be a definitive specification of what is allowable. So where is the definitive specification? The only practical way to discover if something is valid seems to be to see how the standard map renders it. If it renders ok, the assumption must be that it is acceptable mapping. Otherwise, why call it the "Standard" map? It is rather more than a demonstrator, it is used in many places for actual use, see for example: https://www.plotaroute.com/routeplanner Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
On 01/01/2020 09:21, Warin wrote: OSM - any tags you like. (that includes landuse=highway, sport=cricket_nets etc) So what is the significance of having proposed changes, voting, etc.? There must be a set of accepted tags somewhere? As opposed to any tags I care to invent as I go along? One I could use a lot is barrier=broken_stile. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
On 01/01/2020 05:11, Warin wrote: I would map the area around the road as landuse=highway. I would do the same for the lane/track between farm fields, while it supports the use of the farm it is not a field. Thanks, but the problem is that landuse=highway is not a valid tag. Voting on it was suspended in 2013 after several votes against, see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dhighway However, I have discovered that highway=track, *area=yes* is valid - as evidence of that it is rendered on the standard map as a light brown infill between the fences with the existing highway=track as a routable way superimposed over it, in darker brown. It seems odd to have highway=track twice, but if that's what it takes to have a meaningful mapping for an area of land, I'm happy to do it that way. Presumably the developers of the standard map know what they are doing. So I seem to have answered my own question, thanks all for the replies. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
On 31/12/2019 18:10, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: I would add the appropriate surface=* tag to the way. Thanks Dave. But a way is a *line*. I want to tag the *area*. I've got 3 ways - 2 fences and a track. Tagging ways is easy. Finding a meaningful tag for areas seems to be much more difficult. If the landuse is the same on both sides, a field of cabbages on the left and a field of potatoes on the right, I can just let "farmland" flow across the track area. But if it is a wood on the right, where is the boundary between the wood and the cabbages? The track? Stitching things to highways is frowned on. Or one of the fences? Which one? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
Here is a track/public bridleway: http://85a.uk/coffin_way_960x520.jpg which I can easily map as such. But that is just a *centre-line*. If I add the fences, what is the correct landuse tag for the area between them? I can't find any tag which seems to apply. Everywhere I look on OSM such areas are left blank. But it can represent a significant area, sometimes 20 feet wide -- much larger than other areas on OSM which are mapped in great detail. If it was a canal for example, its banks could be separately mapped and the area between them mapped as water. Tracks and fences/hedgerows don't seem to have anything comparable. Thanks. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
On 29/12/2019 22:23, Andy Townsend wrote: Looking elsewhere in a couple of areas I'm familiar with, as well as missing data, there are plenty of of basic digitisation errors around, e.g. gardens seeming to be significantly larger then they should be. This is, I guess, only the free version - maybe there's a parallel complete version for paying customers? Hi Andy, No there isn't - I'm a Premium subscriber. The "Standard" base map is rubbish as a map in its own right. For example it has contour lines, but no height indications on them, or even which direction is uphill. What's the use of that? It is used as a base map for other coloured overlays in addition to the Street map, such as the National Park Paths, Cycle Map, Greenspace maps. None of which work very well. On mobile devices there is also a low-brightness Night map which is useful. However, the Aerial, 25K and 50K maps are fine -- and the 3D stuff and fly-over functions are great. The main reason for subscribing however, is the ability to view a large database of routes, create your own custom routes to add to it (or not), and have an easy URL of your route which you can send to friends. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
On 29/12/2019 15:53, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ > This OS map render only shows a selection of paths. Does anyone know > what criteria OS used to decide which to render? Initially, it appears > random. OS call that the "Standard Map", which is displayed to visitors to the "OS Maps" app who have not signed up for the subscription service (or logged in). After which you can see the "Leisure Maps" (Landranger and Explorer), the Night Map, and several other options. The Standard map appears to have been made as information-free as possible, perhaps intentionally as a background to the street map overlay -- and presumably to encourage folks to sign up for a subscription. For example the OS Maps help page says helpfully "There is no legend available for the Standard map at the moment." Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] No Through Road Ahead
How to tag this road? https://goo.gl/maps/B4kUxoR83ej9JXWQ8 There is no actual barrier, just a very sharp corner. Thanks. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?
I'm happy to use "farmland" to mean cultivated land, whether for cash crops, pasture for livestock, haymaking, any farming activity. But I keep finding myself on land for which none of the available tags really seem to apply. There seems to be one missing. For example: http://85a.uk/bredon_960x640.jpg Beyond the hedge is clearly farmland. But I don't think any of farmland/grassland/scrub/meadow properly describes the foreground area. I believe the technical term is "unimproved grassland" but I would most likely call it "hillside". Here is some more of it: http://85a.uk/bredon1_960x640.jpg Is it perhaps "heath"? That usually means an open level area of "heather", on acidic sandy soil. The wiki says: "don't use heath for areas primarily covered by non-woody plants like grasses - use natural=grassland or landuse=meadow instead". cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?
I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland. Thanks Dave. But in that case, how on OSM do we differentiate between the two? It seems silly that in some areas of OSM we can go into ridiculous detail, such as whether a bench seat has a backrest, but vast tracts of land which visually look very different are classed as one and the same? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] What is farmland?
My understanding of "farmland" is fields of arable land used for the growing of crops. Vast areas of OSM have been marked in this area as "farmland", often as huge multipolygons which are difficult to edit in the iD editor. On the standard map it creates massive chunks of single colour which don't represent the true patchwork nature of the countryside. A lot of the land is not suitable for the growing of crops, and is only ever used as pasture for cattle or sheep. I would tend to call that a meadow. Some of it is too uneven, too high, too steep, soil too poor, for cultivation. I would tend to call that grassland or heath. Is this "farmland"? http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg If not, what should it be mapped as? On the right the ground rises steeply to a wooded hilltop. On the left is a farmyard and beyond that fields of crops. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging Mill Races / Leats / Lades
On 14/11/2019 12:31, Ken Kilfedder wrote: Per the wiki "Use waterway=canal for man-made open flow (free flow vs pipe flow) waterways used to carry useful water for transportation, hydro-power generation OR irrigation purposes." E.g. there are a range of purposes for which waterway=canal is used. But see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_(water_supply) "An aqueduct is a watercourse constructed to carry water ...in modern engineering, the term aqueduct is used for any system of pipes, ditches, canals, tunnels, and other structures used for this purpose. ...The simplest aqueducts are small ditches cut into the earth" Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging Mill Races / Leats / Lades
"Canal" should surely be restricted to transport functions? Boating apps presumably treat "canal" as a route unless navigation restrictions are added. If the stuff that is moving is the water rather than the boats, "aqueduct" would be the correct term. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Monochrome map layers
the standard Carto layer is costly to print in colour and doesn't work very well when printed in black and white as it uses a lot of subtle colour for detail. Hi Mark, The standard Transport map prints quite well in monochrome, and the street names are nicely prominent: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.1929/-2.2504=T I've used it in the past for the same purpose - election canvassing. :) cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Poly Tunnels vs Greenhouses
Large areas of farmland are being covered with poly tunnels which are readily apparent from aerial imagery which are sometimes tagged as building=greenhouse. Hi Brian, OS call them "glasshouse" rather than "greenhouse". But if they are plastic... Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Parish Councils needs
What happens in these parts is that the town/parish councils get the new responsibility and increase their precept to cover it. They then contract with the district council to provide the actual service. The net result is that residents see no change whatsoever, it is just a paper-shuffling exercise. Apart that is from the difficulty of finding any corresponding reduction in the district council precept. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops
On 09/10/2019 11:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed. "Sunderland-based Hays said it planned to reopen all the shops under its own brand with immediate effect." Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops
The advantage of turning them all to disused: is that they are done. The disadvantage is that there is no local confirmation. However .. I think most will agree that even without a local survey .. the shop is closed. Not so fast -- see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49985369 Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way vs. tracks
There is absolutely no indication of it on the ground: no beaten path, no fingerboard, no break in the hedge at the SW end (it wouldn't need one at the NE end, open country). Do I delete as probably sourced from OS, or leave as it's a right of way? First thing to do is check the County Council's definitive map (it should be online, with reference numbers) to check that it is still a public right-of-way, and hasn't been closed or diverted since the OS map was made. If it is, you walk to and fro along it until there is some evidence on the ground, and then you map it as highway=footway with designation=public_footpath and foot=designated. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps (Jez Nicholson)
On 05/09/2019 09:47, Jez Nicholson wrote: It would seem ridiculous for me to have to set up an account and> licence the underlying section of map to sell a single field But what> if I'm selling 15,000 fields?? etc., etc. Field boundaries don't change much over the years. If you use an OS map over 50 years old it is out of copyright, and can be marked up as the basis of a modern survey if needed. Get the person who drew the red line on a modern map to draw it again on an old map. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits
On 29/07/2019 09:35, Andy Robinson wrote: I've just looked at a number of Amazon Logistics in my local area. A lot of service roads are getting added which on face value look perhaps to be driveways but that tag hasn't been added. Amazon have been asking for help with this, see: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jguthula/diary/390322 Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default
Sometimes deciding what is and isn't a gate is tricky. Is this a gate? http://85a.uk/beware_bull_960x772.jpg If not, what is it? Should it be mapped at all? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default
The tag is *barrier*=gate. A permanently open gate isn't a barrier, so I don't think it should be tagged as such. At least not across a way. You could add a separate node to one side of the way, and tag that as a gate. A gate which is often open, but sometimes closed, is just an ordinary gate. Many farm gates are like that. Potatoes this year = leave the gate open. They are not likely to escape, and it saves getting down off the tractor. Sheep this year = keep the gate closed. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 12:55, David Woolley wrote: ... (As a variation on the last point, one of my pet hates, these days, is how few houses now have house numbers in the UK. It make it difficult to give accurate locations for fly tips Have you seen: https://what3words.com/ Every 3m (10ft) square on the planet is given a location name consisting of 3 random words from the dictionary. Their app shows you the 3 words for your current location. Many emergency services are using it -- much easier than asking callers to give postcodes, grid refs, lat/lon, road numbers, etc. Just read out the 3 words from your screen. Even if the local authority don't already use it, they can easily download it when given the 3 words, or go to the web site to find the location. Anyone can scribble down 3 words without making a mistake. And often remember them. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data
On 04/07/2019 18:51, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: These are still 'physical' in the sense that they exist in the timetable & Naptan documents. (Think also boundaries which don't have dashed lines painted across fields) This strikes me as a strange definition of "physical" and could cover almost anything. My definition of "physical" is something I can take a photograph of. But I don't see any reason why OSM should be limited to such "physical" objects. Most maps show all sorts of non-physical data. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data
On 04/07/2019 16:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: In OSM we map *physical* objects only. In rural areas there are many places where buses are timetabled to stop but where there is nothing physical -- no signpost or shelter. Are these highway=bus_stop in OSM? The wiki for highway says "Can be mapped more rigorously using public_transport=stop_position for the position where the vehicle stops and public_transport=platform for the place where passengers wait. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves
seen this done in various places, but I've never understood the point it. The two representations are identical in terms of the data, but the latter requires 2.5 times as many objects and is much more of a pain to work with in the editors. This happens a lot in my area. Huge areas of "farmland" have been created as massive multipolygons, which are too big to fit in the iD editor, and include ways shared with other areas such as equally large multipolygon woods. It's a pain to split them up without damaging them where they include areas which should be mapped as meadow, orchard, scrub, etc., which I much prefer to map as separate closed field areas, sometimes with their own name. Likewise several woods are mapped as a single large multipolygon wood where in fact they are several separate woods each with a *name*. How can I apply names to parts of a multipolygon? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves
Thanks for the comments. There are in fact 3 adjacent nature reserves with different names and ownerships. It's possible to see the property boundaries on old maps, but after visiting the site again yesterday I can find little remaining physical evidence of the boundaries, with many footpaths crossing between them. The web sites refer to them being seamlessly linked together with connecting footpaths. So I have changed the OSM mapping to show a single nature reserve, with the individual reserve names applied to the land parcels within it: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3647/-2.2802 This seems a better way of showing what is actually on the ground for visitors. http://www.worcswildlifetrust.co.uk/reserves/the-devils-spittleful-rifle-range-and-blackstone-farm-fields https://www.wyreforestdc.gov.uk/things-to-see-do-and-visit/countryside-and-nature/nature-reserves/burlish-top.aspx cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves
At this location there is a large area of open sandy heath, forming a nature reserve: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.3716/-2.2816 In fact it is two nature reserves side by side with different names and ownership. One is charity-owned and managed by the county Wildlife Trust, the other is owned and managed by the local District Council. On the ground the boundary between them is barely visible, just odd bits of old fencing in places, and footpaths criss-cross between them. The visitor material tends to combine them as a single nature reserve, and that is how most folks think of them: http://www.worcswildlifetrust.co.uk/reserves/the-devils-spittleful-rifle-range-and-blackstone-farm-fields The council's web site refers to them linking "seamlessly": https://www.wyreforestdc.gov.uk/things-to-see-do-and-visit/countryside-and-nature/nature-reserves/rifle-range-sssi.aspx But on the OSM standard map, the common boundary is shown as a bold green line, which bears no relation to anything on the ground and could be misleading for visitors. Here's a picture of the boundary, running approx from 8 o'clock to 2 o'clock: http://85a.uk/rifle_range_boundary_960x448.jpg Is there a better way to map this? If I combine them as a single nature reserve, is there a way to name the two parts of it separately? Is there a way to show the common boundary less prominently? Thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] max_age=toddler? | Re: Playground age limits
What about `max_age=toddler`? (i.e. the oldest you can be is "a toddler"), likewise `min_age=young_child` for the "older" one? (Is that the best term?) Yes it's not a numeric age, but it's better than nothing? Thanks Rory. I wondered about that. If a tag expects a numeric value, is it ok to enter text? Or should I invent a new tag, such as maybe age_range=toddler? Is "toddler" too UK-specific? Does everyone understand it to mean the same thing? Is "infant" younger or older than "toddler"? For the older children, I wondered about "school-age", although of course there are also infant schools for toddlers. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Playground age limits
Mapping individual equipment is a possibility, whilst as a 58 year old I am unlikely to use the swings but I do use the exercise equipment and climbing wall. Hi Phil, Here the exercise equipment is in a separate area away from the playground. According to the wiki it should be tagged leisure=fitness_station, which I've done, although the signs call it a "Green Gym". As a 71-year-old my idea of exercise is to walk briskly by. :) Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Playground age limits
On 04/06/2019 15:31, Philip Barnes wrote: I would map them as separate playgrounds, map the fence and gate then add age tags as appropriate to that area. My towns main rec has such a distinction, outside the fenced children's area anyone can use the equipment. Hi Phil, That's what I've done, but how do I add age tags if there are no signs? I don't feel qualified to guess suitable ages in years. And max or min suggests actual restrictions apply. But it would surely be helpful to map users to know the type of play equipment available? I'm tempted to try max_age=yes, min_age=no for the fenced area, and min_age=yes for the remainder. The main reason for the fence would seem to be the several NO DOGS signs, which I have tagged. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Playground age limits
In the local park there are two areas of play equipment for children. One is fenced off and clearly intended for infants/toddlers accompanied by parents. Next to it there is a larger unfenced area containing play equipment for unsupervised older children, large climbing structures, zip wires, etc. leisure=playground allows min_age and max_age in years, but in this case there are no signs giving specific age restrictions. How best to map the distinction between the two areas? Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Preston Park, Brighton
Some of the fields are edged with small wooden posts to prevent driving onto the grass. Is this a 'fence'? if so, what is its type? Hi Jez, You can tag a way as barrier=bollard for a row of posts. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Farmland (crop or animals)?
Apart from the specialised tags such as "orchard" there appears to be
only 2 tags available for general agricultural land:
farmland
which I have taken to mean arable land. i.e. land suitable for the
growing of crops, even if currently used as pasture for grazing by
livestock; and
meadow
which I have taken to mean other land which has no history of being used
for crops, usually because it is unsuitable in some way -- too steep or
uneven, liable to flooding ("water meadows"), poor soil, presence of too
many trees, areas of scrub, poor drainage, etc. In many cases used only
for sheep.
Here are a few pics of what I would tag as "meadow" even if not
technically "unimproved grassland" or whatever is the proper definition
of a meadow:
http:/85a.uk/meadow1_960x640.jpg
http:/85a.uk/meadow3_960x640.jpg
http:/85a.uk/meadow4_960x640.jpg
http:/85a.uk/meadow2_960x640.jpg
If "meadow" is not the correct tag, what is? Do we need a new tag?
"farmland" doesn't seem right -- none of the above is going to become a
field of potatoes any time soon.
In the last pic, the hedge clearly marks the boundary between "meadow"
in the foreground and the fields of rapeseeed beyond. To use the same
"farmland" tag for both wouldn't properly describe the landscape. But
there are vast areas of OSM which are so described.
cheers,
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Miniature railway or minimum gauge?
On 21/05/2019 12:18, Mark Goodge wrote: > ... From a mapping perspective, therefore, there are two questions which need to be asked: 1. Was the railway originally constructed purely for leisure purposes? 2. Are the locomotives intended to be models or replicas of full-size locomotives (or are otherwise "faked", such as petrol-engined locos designed to look like steam locos)? If the answer to both questions is "yes", it's definitely a miniature railway. If the answer to both are "no", then it definitely isn't. There are several small-gauge railways which are essentially leisure railways but which have been built or rebuilt on the trackbed of former full-size working railways, so answering your Q.1 isn't always straightforward. Q.2 assumes that all the rolling-stock either is or isn't a replica of full-size railways, when often it is a mixture of both. I would suggest that a more useful mapping question would be 3. Does the small-gauge railway publish a public timetable? If so, to my mind it is definitely a "Narrow-Gauge Railway", regardless of the gauge or design of the rolling stock. If not, it is probably better described as a "miniature" railway of some sort. The latter type can be further divided into a. those which are essentially the preserve of model engineering enthusiasts or clubs, where giving public rides is an occasional fund-raising exercise, and for their own amusement they are just as happy to run trains for themselves or friends: http://www.kinvermodelengineers.org.uk/images/50/20.jpg My original example of the Rhiw Valley Light Railway also falls into that category. and b. commercially operated seaside or park railways, where the object of the exercise is to amuse the paying passengers rather than the locomotive driver: https://www.pecorama.co.uk/trains/ These two types are quite distinct, and we do probably need some separate tagging for them. But I'm not quite sure what? Perhaps the miniature railway could have commercial=yes or no added? I re-tagged the RVLR as narrow-gauge in line with the wiki page as it then was, but I think perhaps I should now change it back. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Miniature railway or minimum gauge?
I refer to the Rhiw Valley Light Railway: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.61639/-3.26766 https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5712937 This is a private 15" gauge railway which holds regular open days for the public: http://rvlr.co.uk/ It is currently tagged as railway=miniature. But the OSM wiki says 15" gauge railways should be called instead "minimum-gauge railways", although there doesn't seem to be any such tag available: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway=miniature Wikipedia suggests that a "miniature railway" is one using rideable *models* of real railways, which is not the case for the RVLR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum-gauge_railway Should I change the tag to railway=minimum_gauge, bearing in mind this is not a common usage in the UK? Thanks. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] How to tag this?
On 08/05/2019 12:46, Andy Townsend wrote: It's a bit of a stretch, but perhaps some kind of tourist information feature? Thanks Andy. I think it is intended for locals rather than tourists. It's in a village on a country lane, not a recognised tourist destination. On closer examination of my original photo, I think it is advertising a themed "pub night" at the local village hall (which is nearby), rather than an actual pub. There is a notice inside with a date and admission charges. I found this, but it's rather more than a notice board: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/62741/best-tag-for-a-community-notice-board cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] How to tag this?
How should I tag this? It's a former phone box in use to advertise the attractions of the local pub. I don't know if it was done by the pub, or by the local community. Possibly it's a community-run pub. http://85a.uk/pub_kiosk_600x860.jpg thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?
On 07/05/2019 15:40, David Woolley wrote: Describing the physical object is a way of objectively mapping, but if that is all you do, you don't need a map; just use the aerial imagery directly. Yes, but the aerial imagery isn't available *free* for anyone to use for anything. It's not edited and kept up-to-date until fresh images are taken. Some of the aerial imagery we use is years out of date. It doesn't show names, it doesn't show rights of way, and it's of little use in wooded areas to see details below the tree cover, especially watercourses and footbridges. Try planning a footpath walk using only aerial imagery. :( cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?
On 07/05/2019 14:38, David Woolley wrote: However, I wouldn't say the primary purpose of the area you were asking about is to be a garden; I would say it is somewhere to reside, and the gardens form a subsidiary part of it, and should be represented with nested areas. Thanks David. But is that what OSM is for -- to describe the *purpose* of a thing? I thought the idea was describe the *physical* object and its location? Physically it is a house built in a garden. For all we know, it may not be anyone's residence -- it could be being used as offices, say. In that case landuse=residential would be wrong, it should be landuse=commercial. But it's still a house in a garden. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?
On 07/05/2019 13:21, Russ Garrett wrote: From a zoomed-out perspective, landuse= (and natural=) is the main thing you see on the map (especially if buildings aren't mapped), so I think it's pretty useful from a cartographic point of view. It's not just about what you see on the ground, but how you can turn that into a useful map when you're looking at a large area. Thanks Russ. That's what I was getting at when I started this topic. How many houses make a residential area? Does it make sense to apply it to a single isolated house? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?
On 07/05/2019 13:04, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: Primarily, map what you see on the ground, Any legalese requirements (access restrictions etc) can be added as secondary tags. Thanks Dave. In that case, I would think landuse=residential would be a secondary tag on something else more visible? The primary tag would be the visible garden. This idea of primary and secondary tags is new to me. There is no such distinction in the iD editor -- all applied tags are simply listed in alphabetical order. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?
On 07/05/2019 12:04, David Woolley wrote: I would say it was anything that was landuse=residential, and, in the UK, that would basically be anything where the primary planning class was C3 or C4. Thanks David. I think this goes to the heart of my (mis)understanding of what OSM is for? Are we trying to create a legal reference document? Or a description of what a visitor would see on the ground? If I look at the place I linked, I see a house in a garden and a hedge. If you ask most folk what they see, they would say the same. I don't know anyone who would say "I see a residential area". Or "I see a plot of land with planning class C3 or C4". Given that such information is available elsewhere, does it need to be in OSM? Does anyone use OSM for such legal purposes? On the other hand, where else are you going to find out that a property has a hedge on one side and a fence on the other? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?
On 07/05/2019 11:34, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: Your OSM example look fine to me - a single property is still where people reside. Any other details, such as garden, should be mapped individually within that area. Thanks Dave. But in that case, why in the iD editor when I change "Residential Area" to "Garden" does it remove the landuse=residential tag? Should I be creating a duplicate way as a "Garden" on the same nodes? Or should I leave it as "Residential Area" and add a leisure=garden tag? When I do that, the OSM standard map doesn't render the garden. Thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] What is a residential area?
What is a "residential area" in the iD editor? How many dwellings are needed in what proximity to become one? Is it a physical plot of land on which at least one person lives? Or the usual meaning of a village/hamlet/housing estate/suburb where a number of people live? In my patch there are lots of instances where a single house or an isolated pair of cottages along a country road have been mapped as a "residential area". Which seems a strange use of words to me. See for example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/611028880 Google streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/yk1SNzrmRPpvZL3Y6 Perhaps it's the iD editor at fault? landuse=residential is strictly correct, but calling it a "residential area" doesn't accord with most folks understanding of the term. I tend to change them to leisure=garden, access=private. When I do that, the iD editor removes the landuse=residential tag. Should it? Should I put it back? I also put a fence or hedge or wall around or between them if visible on Bing, add the buildings, and a name if it's known to me or shown on OS OpenData. But is that the correct thing to do? If I do one, am I obliged to do all the others nearby? Users of OSM might legitimately wonder why some properties and residents are singled out for this treatment, and others are not? Should we concentrate on adding detail, or aim for uniformity of treatment? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Is this a footbridge? - iD measurements
Many thanks Nick and Michael. I obviously need to do more RTFM. :) I did some digging in the Help panel and found that there are several out-of-date lists of iD shortcuts. To get the Measurements panel to appear I have to press CTRL+I, not M, at least in the Opera browser. The scalebar is useful, but not very convenient to use as it stands. I found that clicking on it toggles metres or feet units. To make much use of it needs a pixel ruler. There is a free one at: http://www.spadixbd.com/freetools/ which can be used horizontally or vertically (but not at an angle unfortunately). Using the scalebar and the pixel ruler you can calculate the essential metric, which is metres-per-pixel at the current zoom. Which can then be used to measure any element on the screen using the ruler. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Best One vs Best-One vs best-one vs Best-one convenience shop
The trade mark is "best-one", see: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/4/EU004384137 from which: Mark Description: The phrase "best-one" is written in lower case, italicized, with "best-" in yellow and "one" in white." The company name is: Bestway Wholesale Limited, 2 Abbey Road, London, NW10 7BW, United Kingdom All lower case here: https://www.bestwaywholesale.co.uk/shop?brand=ownlabel cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Is this a footbridge?
On 05/05/2019 17:39, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: Given the small width of the ditch, I wouldn't bother with the separate way, but just put the ford & handrail tags on the intersecting node. The way you've mapped it the ford & handrail are 5 metres in length. Thanks Dave. I have shortened it to about 2 metres (I think). I'm reluctant to remove the separate way. In this case the stream is very narrow, but in other cases it often isn't. A bridge has a finite span length, a culvert has a finite length, and a ford surely has a length too? If the stream was mapped as water between separate banks, it would look a bit daft to have only a single node in the centre tagged as a ford. p.s. Am I missing something? How can I see the actual dimensions of an element in the iD editor? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Is this a footbridge?
Got a Link? If you're mapping linear ways a node at their intersection with ford=yes is required. Thanks Dave. I have now added an intersection node, which has fixed the error. However, it seems a bit odd to have to do that? It means there are now 2 elements tagged ford=yes, an intersection node, AND a short bit of footpath corresponding to the length of the handrail. Are some renderings now going to show 2 separate ford symbols? The standard OSM map was happily showing a ford symbol with only the footpath tagged. Here's the link: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.29595/-2.60809 cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Is this a footbridge?
On 05/05/2019 14:42, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: Hi I'm not convinced it's a bridge I would tag your example as a ford=yes, handrail=yes. DaveF Thanks all. I'm also not convinced it's a bridge. There is no evidence of any other structure at each end of the handrail. I suspect the small bit of wood is local improvisation on what is basically just a ford. I have now tagged it as a ford, with handrail. I'm not convinced most folks would call this a "stream", it's little more than a ditch. But the wiki says both "ditch" and "drain" are man-made, and this looks natural. But there is no natural watercourse tag available smaller than "stream". n.b. the iD editor is now showing this as an error: "Stream crosses foot path", even though tagged as a ford. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Is this a footbridge?
Is this a footbridge? Or maybe a ford? Stepping stones? There is a solid handrail, but only a small plank of rotten wood, about 2ft long by 4 inches wide, dropped in the mud: http://85a.uk/plank_bridge.jpg Thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?
On 22/04/2019 14:09, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: If I have the patience, I split them: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.40349/-2.44502 The PROW ref should go over the stile's way even if the gate is always open - it's up the walker to decide which to use (even if the choice is obvious) DaveF On 22/04/2019 13:43, Martin Wynne wrote: Often in my travels I come across something like this: http://85a.uk/stile_gate2_1280x720.jpg http://85a.uk/stile_gate_1280x720.jpg Should this be mapped as a stile or a gate? Or both side by side? If the latter, which node should the way be connected to? Thanks for all the comments. I have adopted Dave's method of splitting the ways, with the PROW over the stile, and the de-designated bit of track through the gate. But it's a time-consuming business compared with simply dropping a node on a way. Also, I can't make up my mind whether the split way over the stile should be a long shallow V-shape, or a short sharp U-shape very close to the gate? That means adding 5 extra nodes instead of 3, but looks more like a single landscape structure. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] How would tag or name this wall crossing?
barrier=stile seems unhelpful to me if rendered as a normal stile symbol, for walkers needing to know if they will have to climb any. barrier=chicane would perhaps be more descriptive? Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?
Often in my travels I come across something like this: http://85a.uk/stile_gate2_1280x720.jpg http://85a.uk/stile_gate_1280x720.jpg Should this be mapped as a stile or a gate? Or both side by side? If the latter, which node should the way be connected to? It's a public right of way on foot, and walkers need to know that they must climb a stile if the gate is locked. But if you "map what you see on the ground" (which is the supposed golden rule), it is simply a track passing through a gate. If I split the way in two, and have a short section of footpath passing over a stile *and* a track passing through a gate, it looks daft on the map, as if there is a Clapham Junction in the middle of a grassy field. And if I do that, is it essential to split out the short bit of the track through the gate, from which the public right-of-way designation (and ref number) is removed? thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering
p.s. just noticed there is indeed a tiny Donation link on the bottom right corner. Perhaps it needs to be bigger? Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering
How do you propose funding such a service? Hi David, When I first found OSM the standard map was up and running, so I assumed that matter had been resolved. It is still currently up and running and displayed on the front page, so I assume it is still resolved? If not, perhaps a Donation button on the corner, as other free-to-use web sites? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering
For many people, the *point* of OSM is that it's a better version of Google maps. That's certainly my reason for adding stuff to OSM. If it doesn't appear on the "standard map" I'm not much inclined to spend hours recording it and mapping it. If there is a way I can legitimately change the tagging to ensure that it does appear on the standard map, I will do it. I use the iD editor, and after uploading you get a "thank you for improving the map" message. It doesn't say "thank you for adding that, but we are not going to bother to show it". If you suggest to someone that they try OSM instead of Google maps, the standard Carto map is what they arrive at from search engines: http://openstreetmap.org It is after all called OpenStreetMAP, not OpenStreetGeographicalDatabase, and I feel sure that the standard map is the way that many users access it, and want it -- a recognisable local MAP. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
