Re: [Talk-GB] Electric forecourt

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

I would map it as amenity=charging_station area.

Dec 20, 2020, 12:05 by rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com:

> Hi all,
>
> I saw on Fully Charged (YouTube channel) that there is now a electric vehicle 
> charging forecourt. Unlike others, this is not a couple of charging points 
> added to an existing petrol station or slapped down in a carpark. This is a 
> full on electric version of a petrol station (without petrol as an option).
>
> https://www.gridserve.com/braintree-overview/
>
> Feels like a good time to review how we map them. Do we have the right tags 
> available?
>
> The wiki has a lot but it seems a bit jumbled. For example, I believe this 
> site has CCS socket chargers at various kW sizes. Our current tagging scheme 
> doesn't look like it allows for that. Is this an issue?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station
>
> Best regards
> Rob
>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 13, 2020, 20:52 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> Dec 13, 2020, 19:50 by ch...@c-hodges.co.uk:
>
>> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does go 
>> down the steps?
>>
> Add them to bike route relation.
>

Obviously it applies only if there is some signed bicycle route there.

If it is just part of cycleway system, without signed bicycle route then
relation should not be created and there is actually a gap in cycleway
system.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 13, 2020, 19:50 by ch...@c-hodges.co.uk:

> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does go 
> down the steps?
>
Add them to bike route relation.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Note that someone who wants to show their map style at OSM website can
be included, though they must sponsor hosting

See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tile_layers/Guidelines_for_new_tile_layers

As far as I know, the main blocker seems to be 
"Capable of meeting traffic demands. The proposed tile layer server/server farm
must be capable of accepting the traffic volume from the OpenStreetMap website."

ÖPNVKarte is map style that joined recently.

Dec 13, 2020, 12:08 by n...@foresters.org:

>
> Seems to me that apart from the tagging, the issue highlighted  here is 
> with how the general public cab easily use OSM? Going to  the OSM map, 
> the layers on offer are Standard, Cycle Map (which  does show the 
> driveway connected) etc. but if a user wants a more  specific use this is 
> not easy to find. To my mind this is where  more options from the 
> worldwide map fail to deliver and is a  bigger issue that can be resolved 
> by understanding the 'customer'  journey better? 
>
> On 13/12/2020 10:28, Nick Allen wrote:
>  
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tend to think of tagging more in terms of 'who will usethis?' I 
>> know my local area extremely well, so I map it as bestI can using 
>> tags that will make sense to anyone visiting thearea. When I'm away 
>> from home I use OSM extensively to findthings, and hope that the 
>> local mappers are using a universalscheme so that it will work for 
>> me.
>>
>> I've travelled on roads in Portugal, Spain an parts of Africawhich 
>> dont have a surface such as tarmac (tarmacadam / asphalt)or 
>> concrete, but instead have been built with a top coatingsimilar to 
>> clay, which is compressed and then smoothed using agrader. 
>> Particularly in Portugal, at the time I drove on them,these 
>> 'unsurfaced' roads were so good that they were better thanthe (at 
>> that time) M25 which was full of pot-holes and difficultto drive 
>> safely on.
>>
>> Although >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways>>  is the obvious 
>> choice to look at, I actually find that >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa>>  explains it better.
>>
>> Regards & Happy Mapping / Surveying
>>
>> Nick
>> (Tallguy)
>>
>> On Sun, 2020-12-13 at 10:08 +, Edward Bainton wrote:
>>
>>> >  >>> https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>>>  >
>>>  >>> > It seems daft to methat 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 itnot? Generally in this part of the 
>>> world "track"
>>>  >>> > means mud, rather thana roadway suitable for all 
>>> vehicles.
>>>  
>>>
>>> I don't know what part  of the world you're in, but by my 
>>> Fenland lights, I'd  probably call that a track, not a driveway 
>>> - certainly  once it passes the farm buildings (since I see a 
>>> driveway  as implying car-worthy access to a building). 
>>>
>>> Would that solve it?  Driveway as far as the farm and then 
>>> track?
>>>
>>> I'm going to risk  blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the 
>>> renderer is  what we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem 
>>> imo is  "fudging it for the renderer", or "outright lying for 
>>> the  renderer". In this case, I'd say track is a valid choice - 
>>>  I think even for the whole length, if by "driveway" we 
>>>  infer something, short, tidy, and suburban.
>>>
>>> But I'm still a spring  chicken round here, relatively 
>>> speaking, and I await  correction by my olders.
>>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB <>>> 
>>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>> >wrote:
>>>
 >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


 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 

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

I run into from time to time and was unsure how to tag this.

On the other hand highway=track is supposed to be used on
roads used to access fields/forests (often unpaved and of low
quality, but there are also high quality asphalt
tracktype=grade1 surface=asphalt ones).

So with road that is both access road to single house and
forest neither highway=track nor highway=service service=driveway
really matches.

Dec 13, 2020, 11:44 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> IMHO, if it leads on to another road, track, etc. it is not a "driveway", but 
> could be a track, a bridleway, a service road, or something else.
>
> The Wiki says that a driveway is (with my bold for emphasis), 
>
> " ... a minor service road leading to a residential or business property. It 
> typically branches from a bigger road and leads toward an entrance to a 
> specific destination (building, etc.). It may end at or pass the entrance, 
> but either way, it gets close to its destination. > It is rare for a driveway 
> to be the way to access another roadway (but see Pipestems below)."
>
> (pipestems allow a driveway to be shared between several properties)
>
> So if, in this case, it leads on to another way (e.g. a bridleway, or a 
> track), it is not a driveway.  Does this solve the problem?
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
> Peter Neale
> t: 01908 309666 
> m: 07968 341930 
> skype: nealepb
>
>
> On Sunday, 13 December 2020, 10:25:46 GMT, Edward Bainton 
>  wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, I joined this thread late and I see the initial query was, How to 
> ensure tracks don't just pop up nowhere'. So driveway first then track 
> doesn't solve the problem.
>
> That makes me say track all the way, as someone else has said. The different 
> surfaces can be caught in the attributes.
>
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 10:08, Edward Bainton <> bainton@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>> >  >> 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.
>>
>> I don't know what part of the world you're in, but by my Fenland lights, I'd 
>> probably call that a track, not a driveway - certainly once it passes the 
>> farm buildings (since I see a driveway as implying car-worthy access to a 
>> building). 
>>
>> Would that solve it? Driveway as far as the farm and then track?
>>
>> I'm going to risk blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the renderer is 
>> what we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem imo is "fudging it for 
>> the renderer", or "outright lying for the renderer". In this case, I'd say 
>> track is a valid choice - I think even for the whole length, if by 
>> "driveway" we infer something, short, tidy, and suburban.
>>
>> But I'm still a spring chicken round here, relatively speaking, and I await 
>> correction by my olders.
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB <>> 
>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote:
>>
>>> >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
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted to 
>>> illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not permit it, 
>>> which is how I started Freemap and then later got involved with OSM. I 
>>> still haven't illustrated this walk incidentally, but...
>>>
>>> Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:>>>  Martin Wynne <>>> mar...@templot.com>>> >
>>>  >>> Sent:>>>  12 December 2020 14:30
>>>  >>> To:>>>  >>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>>  <>>> 
>>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>> >
>>>  >>> Subject:>>>  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 

[Talk-GB] Is "GB revert request log" wiki page something that should be recommended?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

It is about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log that 
appears
to be abandoned.

I was looking through 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Abuse and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
to improve them, and encountered

"It may be appropriate to set up a log of reversions. Within 
England/Wales/Scotland
please put requests on the GB revert request log 
."

Is it still true, or is it something that should be deleted?

Last edit is in 2012 so it seems clearly abandoned
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=GB_revert_request_log=history
and I removed this from Vandalism page
in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism=2071209=2071207
edit.

Please let me know if it was a mistake and this recommendation should be 
restored.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] FWD: Re: House number ranges that are only odd or even

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 10, 2020, 21:51 by sk53@gmail.com:

> However, I would regard > the Dutch 
> >  & Polish 
> communities approach of adding individual
> nodes for each address in the building irrespective of the actual address 
> position outline
> as incorrect mapping in the UK. In both cases, and probably > also in Denmark 
> > , this is 
> most
> likely because addresses have been imported from a national database and this 
> allows
> incremental updates from the same source. The problem with this is that it 
> prevents classic
> OSM iterative refinement, such as accurate mapping for indoor usage, for 
> instance to enable
> guidance for blind people. 
>
At least in Poland separate nodes for addresses are preferred as this:

- more accurate and allows to specify where given address actually is
- for example after mapping entrances, you can be guided to a correct one
- I am confused why it prevents 
"OSM iterative refinement, such as accurate mapping for indoor usage"
(maybe in UK addresses are assigned differently than in Poland)
- maybe it is related to fact that I am unaware of "address position outline"
existing in Poland - address is de facto assigned to building/plot/entrance
and in rare cases to complex objects such as a hospital or group of entrances
- it is common to have on street corner address from two streets in one building
(see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.07413=19.93361#map=19/50.07413/19.93361
and three nearby buildings), mapping this as an interpolation would not work
(and least I think so)
- and yes, is easier to map and import

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

Re: [Talk-GB] British Waterways

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 7, 2020, 16:00 by and...@black1.org.uk:

>
>
>
> On 07/12/2020 10:33, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>
>>   
>>
>> TBH there's  only 170 operator=British Waterways tags according 
>> to  taginfo, so it could be polished off pretty quickly with 
>>  an Overpass query and a manual edit.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> But (correct me if I am wrong) that is still an automated edit
>
>
Depends on whatever you just replace everything or check individual objects.

Meaning of "check" is important here. Is it necessary to just check tagging
(handling other operator tags, for example wikipedia:operator, 
wikidata:operator)?

Should you check surrounding OSM data? Aerial imagery? Research situation?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Inland Border Facilities

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 6, 2020, 15:05 by sk53@gmail.com:

> I was wondering if there were any equivalents elsewhere. 
>
> Closest I can think of is > this location 
> >  between 
> Feldkirch & Bludenz, which although described as a goods vehicle checkpoint 
> from my personal experience is also operated as in internal custom checkpoint 
> (and therefore amenity=police might be wrong too). As a group travelling from 
> Zurich to Soelden many of us were stopped for a passport/car check. A friend 
> who worked in marketing for BAT was driving a company van, and was hugely 
> amused at the idea that smuggling cigarettes from Switzerland to Austria 
> might be a way of making money.
>
> Close to the Poland/Belarus borders there are > Border Guard 
> >  stations, such as > 
> this one > . I think these are 
> mainly concerned with immigration rather customs. Certainly if travelling in 
> a car with non-local numberplates one can be expected to stopped & documents 
> checked (first time was stressful as unexpected & about 5:30 in the morning).
>
Looking at description in Polish it seems to be about handling smuggling and 
illegal migration,
not about handling customs of legally traveling cargo (AFAIK it would happen at 
border crossing,
such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.47616/23.35744 ).

BTW, it should be probably tagged as police-type force, not as military-type 
force.

On their website they imply that they enforce ban on presence on part of a 
border
("od znaku granicznego nr 303 do znaku granicznego nr 317 wprowadzono zakaz
przebywania na pasie drogi granicznej").


> Even traditional land borders with heavy duty border controls don't seem to 
> be tagged in an obvious way:
>
For example see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700736522#map=16/52.4744/23.3651 

- just fence mapped and some objects inside, no tag for the entire feature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

28 Nov 2020, 10:48 by robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com:

> I guess the problem is that recycling_type=container is being used
> both for individual containers and for mini sites with a group of
> containers.
>
Is it really a problem?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

I always mapped group of containers as one object.

amenity=recycling
recycling:type=container
recycling:paper=yes
recycling:metal=yes
recycling:batteries=yes

for location with three containers, one for paper,
one for metal, one for batteries

Easier to map, process, resurvey...

Nov 26, 2020, 14:50 by jez.nichol...@gmail.com:

> "amenity"="recycling" + "recycling:type"="centre" == Council Tip
> "amenity"="recycling" + "recycling:type"="container" == a single recycling 
> box, so multiple would appear at a Recycling Point
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 1:22 PM Dan S <> danstowell+...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>> Hi Jez
>>
>> Is this not it?
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drecycling
>>
>> Op do 26 nov. 2020 om 13:08 schreef Jez Nicholson <>> 
>> jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> >:
>>
>>> I'm planning some work with Household Waste Recycling Centres and Recycling 
>>> Points during the Code The City OSM hack weekend this Sat/Sun (which you 
>>> are very welcome to join >>> 
>>> https://codethecity.org/what-we-do/hack-weekends/code-the-city-21-put-your-city-on-the-map/>>>
>>>   in any capacity you like)
>>>
>>> A Recycling Centre being the local 'tip', see >>> 
>>> https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/bins-and-recycling/find-your-nearest-recycling-centre
>>>
>>> A Recycling Point being a cluster of recycling containers in, say, at the 
>>> end of your local supermarket car park. Often given a name by the Council, 
>>> see >>> 
>>> https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/bins-and-recycling/recycling-points
>>>
>>> Am I missing something, or is there no concept of a Recycling Point in OSM? 
>>> Have you seen/used anything else?
>>>
>>> - Jez
>>> ___
>>>  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] electric fences

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

So it is a footpath where somewhere along it there is an electric fence, but 
location changes?

Maybe wheelchair=no + note tag with an explanation placed on path
would be a good solution?


Nov 23, 2020, 06:25 by mar...@templot.com:

> 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
>

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

there is also bicycle=permissive (based on access=permissive) for
"permitted right now but can be revoked/changed at any time"

In general modelling "clearly illegal but accepted and normal" is problematic
for access/parking tagging in OSM.

Nov 21, 2020, 16:36 by tonyo...@gmail.com:

>
> Wiki says
>
> bicycle 
> yes 
> Where bicycles are permitted, overriding default access(such as 
> to motorways that permit bicycles as commonly foundin western 
> parts of North America)
> bicycle 
> designated 
> Where a way has been specially > designated  
> > (typically 
>by a government) for bicycle use
>
> So in the example 'designated' is not an option as there are no  signs 
> indicating that bicycles are allowed on this footway. 
>
>
> 'yes'  is probably wrong as there is no obvious permission and in  
> England and Wales Highways Act 1835 s72 'If any person shall  wilfully 
> ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any  road made or set 
> apart for the use or accommodation of foot  passengers;' . . .a penalty. 
> So in the absence of any evidence -  no bicycles. 
>
>
> In practice it is customary to ride a bicycle and no one is  bothered 
> unless inconvenience or damage is caused. But how to mark  this in OSM? 
> Change the meaning of 'yes' to include customary use?
>
>
> Tony
>
> On 21/11/2020 14:04, Stephen Colebourne  wrote:
>
>> I'm of the view that if it is fundamentally a footway then it shouldbe 
>> tagged as highway=footway. If bicycles are allowed, then 
>> addbicycle=designated.If the question is here:>> 
>> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.545389,-0.2770973,3a,75y,234.69h,79.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_-EkidXXQeWqPY5KfXGmaQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D96.41411%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656>>
>>  then this is just a footpath across a bit of grass that someone hasdecided 
>> to allow bikes on. Looks like a footway, rides like a footway,tag like a 
>> footwayStephenOn Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 13:48, Dave F via Talk-GB>> 
>>  >>  wrote:
>>
>>> There's a misconception that highway=cycleway implies an automatic 
>>> authority over other path users. This is untrue It's just a hierarchy of 
>>> the number of different transport modes permitted to use it. Similarly, 
>>> highway=residential permits motor vehicles as well as bicycles & 
>>> pedestrians.Who has right of way is specific to certain locations.If it's 
>>> definitely designated as cyclable (I couldn't see any signs in GSV) then 
>>> I'd tag it 
>>> ashighway=cyclewaybicycle=designatedfoot=designatedsegregated=nosurface=asphalt
>>>   (in this case)width=*If you know it's a public footpath 
>>> add:designation=public_footpathIf you know the footpath's reference 
>>> add:prow_ref=*Is there a reason you tagged it as access=no?The only place a 
>>> rider of a bicycle should go full speed is in a velodrome.CheersDaveFOn 
>>> 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:Is there established tagging for a 
>>> tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but designated foot and cycles shared?Eg: 
>>> >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974>>> There's highway=cycleway 
>>> | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't feel like one, and you 
>>> can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag 
>>> nonetheless?Thanks.___Talk-GB 
>>> mailing list>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>>> 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>>> 
>>> ___Talk-GB mailing list>>> 
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>>> 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>> ___Talk-GB mailing list>> 
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

segregated=no

I added it to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle as an example S7

surface=asphalt (if I am interpreting word "tarmac" well)
width=1.5 / est_width=1.5 if you want

Access tags are bit weird, but I will leave commenting to people who know GB 
rules
well.


Nov 21, 2020, 11:28 by bainton@gmail.com:

> Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but 
> designated foot and cycles shared?
>
> Eg: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974
>
> There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it doesn't 
> feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's the best tag 
> nonetheless?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Service road with private locked gate and routing apps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surface

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype that is useful tor 
highway=track
and unpaved ones, but mostly duplicate of surface tag

Nov 16, 2020, 12:40 by mattatt...@gmail.com:

> Good point. I will also update the surface and quality of the service road as 
> it is visible through the gate and last I checked it was covered with debris, 
> are there any appropriate tags for that?
>
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 11:31, David Woolley <> for...@david-woolley.me.uk> > 
> wrote:
>
>> On 16/11/2020 11:18, Mat Attlee wrote:
>>  > Upon surveying this service road it is very much closed to the public 
>>  > with locked gates which I marked as thus 
>>  > >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93935943
>>  > 
>>  > However these routing apps still use this service road. Have I missed 
>>  > something or does it take a while for the changes to propagate?
>>  
>>  It takes time for routing engines to update.  However, I would also have 
>>  put access tags on the service road.
>>  
>>  ___
>>  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] Weight restrictions

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Beware of such mass tagging, I also thought this about my area but during 
surveying with
StreetComplete I found some surface=sett and surface=paving_stones and 
surface=concrete roads.

(though it would be true for largest roads)

Nov 13, 2020, 20:24 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> Yes. Just added "surface=asphalt" to all the motor-vehicle roads in my area 
> using JOSM, because every single road here (except service roads)  are paved 
> with asphalt...
>
> -- 
>
>
> 13 Nov 2020, 19:19 by bainton@gmail.com:
>
>>  hmm thank you 
>>
>> This is probably one more occasion where I should graduate to JOSM rather 
>> than sticking with iD - just guessing a bulk edit of all roads in a given 
>> area would be possible?
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020, 09:05 Philip Barnes, <>> p...@trigpoint.me.uk>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 08:32 +, Edward Bainton wrote:
>>>
 Hi all

 I've been reading the wiki  here 
   on 
 conditional restrictions.

 Should these be along the whole length of the relevant road, or can they 
 be on a fragment of way near the restriction sign? 

 Eg, the whole of  Stanwick 
 
  , Northants, is off-limits to 7-tonners. Presumably I don't have to tag 
 every street; but maybe the access/through routes should be tagged all 
 along their length?


>>> Hi Edward
>>> These restrictions are quite common in Leicestershire and are intended to 
>>> prevent lorries using residential areas as a through route.
>>>
>>> They are generally 7.5t and only apply to goods vehicles, not buses or 
>>> coaches.
>>>
>>> They allow access for deliveries, loading.
>>>
>>> We usually use hgv=destination.
>>>
>>> You do need to tag every road within the boundary, not just the main roads 
>>> otherwise you will end up with some very strange routing.
>>>
>>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lorries can't limbo

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Nov 13, 2020, 10:16 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk:

> On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 08:36 +, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
>
>> I am pretty sure that I remember checking bridges in my area some time ago, 
>> using a tool that someone kindly provided, which flagged up all bridges, 
>> where the clearance height was not specified in OSM.
>>
>> I regret that I cannot now find the link.   
>>
>>
>>
>
> The isssue with a tool which finds roads under bridges with no maxheight tag 
> is that many are above a legal minimum so have no sign.
>
> Motorway bridges for example.
>
> Maybe we need an unsigned tag so that these can be elimiated?
>
> A hay lorry managed to hit this (unsigned) one a few years ago.
>
StreetComplete is using maxheight=default maxheight=below_default for unsigned
maxheight in places where there is some height limit (for example within 
tunnels).

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxheight#Non-numerical_values
for some alternative tagging styles

And extending this quest to roads under bridges was recently implemented,
though this is not released yet.

See https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/pull/2234 for code.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Nov 11, 2020, 16:04 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> >After a quick look at his edits locally he has also been removing ref
> >tags from roundabouts which seems an odd thing to do.
>
> This seems perfectly reasonable to me - the roundabout is a junction of 
> various roads and I do not consider it to be part of a referenced highway.
>
> I note that the wiki indicates that the ref should be added to roundabouts to 
> allow fluid routing, but this has relatively recently been added (April 2019) 
> and I do not agree. It smacks of tagging for the renderer (in this case a 
> routing engine). It seems bizarre to specify that for naming it should not 
> use the name of a road it connects, but it should use the ref of a road that 
> connects!
>
I reworded this recommendation in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:junction%3Droundabout=2059754=1972469
to 
"{{Tag|ref}} and {{Tag|int_ref}} tags from those ways should be added to that 
roundabout if roundabout is also part of that routes."
(in Poland roundabout would be part of route with assigned ref, in UK situation 
may be different,
I removed part that based in on tagging for router)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967 in NLS is 
> available freely.
>
What are its licensing terms?

"available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license"

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a building that's two connected separate buildings

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

It sounds like three connected buildings,
but one building with three building:part
areas also would be acceptable

12 paź 2020, 18:52 od m...@good-stuff.co.uk:

> I was looking at tidying up a few things around my local area, and came 
> across this:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.08855/-1.94195
>
> What you can see there is a building labelled "Evesham Hotel" (which is 
> correct), and, just to the south-west of it, another, unlabelled building.
>
> However, look at the aerial view (eg, via the edit feature, although Google 
> Maps will do just as well), and it's clear that there is a link building 
> connecting the two (something which I can confirm from local knowledge):
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/52.08855/-1.94195
>
> (There's also an unmapped extension to the bottom left building, but that's 
> another matter).
>
> That's because, many years ago when the manor house was converted to a hotel, 
> the owners expanded the hotel by building the link to the adjacent building 
> so that it's all one building internally (more of the accommodation is in the 
> bottom left building, the original manor house is mostly reception, function 
> and dining rooms and associated non-public areas such as kitchens and 
> offices).
>
> So, how should this be mapped? Should the entire hotel, covering both 
> original buildings and the later link building, be mapped as a single 
> polygon? Or should they be mapped as three adjacent, but separate, polygons? 
> Is there a standard way of approaching situations like this?
>
> Mark
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Multi-lingual tagging in Wales

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

ad b) yes, but we had edit wars about all
kinds of ridiculousness, and this is possible
already and happened in some places
12 paź 2020, 15:21 od jez.nichol...@gmail.com:

> Just being Devil's Advocatea) how do you decide on-the-ground what the 
> name by which the place is widely known in Wales is? i.e. is it on signage, 
> etc.? b) could it start an edit war if someone with strong views decided to 
> use one particular language for every 'name' attribute? c) are there 
> precedents for other countries in OSM?
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 2:06 PM Ben Proctor <> b...@benproctor.co.uk> > wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone
>>
>> I'd like to open up the currently unresolved question of multilingual 
>> tagging in Wales. 
>>
>> In the Mapio Cymru project we've been exploring Welsh language mapping >> 
>> https://openstreetmap.cymru/>>  and we've done some thinking about how Welsh 
>> and English naming works in parts of Wales. We plan to organise some 
>> (online) workshops in November to encourage people to add Welsh language 
>> tags to the map. Those workshops will initially be delivered through the 
>> medium of Welsh but we hope also to run some in English at a later date.
>>
>> The wiki entry for Wales in Multilingual Names highlights that this has been 
>> an area of discussion. >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#Wales
>>
>> The current entry is short and so I'll reproduce it here in full.
>>
>> [starts/---]
>> In Wales, the name tag should be used for whatever the local population uses.
>>
>> name:en and name:cy can be used to give English and Welsh names where such 
>> names exist but are not the name used by the local population. (cy is the 
>> two letter ISO639-1 language code for the Welsh language.)
>>
>> The percentage of Welsh speakers varies very significantly across the 
>> country and visiting mappers should be aware of local usage.>> [---/ends]
>>
>> From a Mapio Cymru perspective we'd like to propose, for discussion, 
>> replacing this text with the following (reasoning follows):
>>
>> [starts/---]
>> In Wales the name tag should be used for the name by which the place is 
>> widely known in Wales. This could be English or Welsh but not both. So name: 
>> Wales or name: Cymru would be acceptable but not name: Wales/Cymru.
>>
>> name:en should be used to give the name by which the place or feature is 
>> known in English.
>> name:cy should be used to give the name by which the place or feature is 
>> known in Welsh
>>
>> Even though this will lead to apparent duplication. For example:
>>
>> name: Swansea
>> name:en Swansea
>> name:cy Abertawe
>>
>> This allows places and features to be named unambiguously and so rather than 
>> duplication is conveying useful new information.>> [---/ends]
>>
>> Our Reasoning
>> Wales is a bilingual country and many places have different names in Welsh 
>> and English. Many other places have the same name in Welsh and English. It 
>> is not possible to infer from the Name tag whether the contents are in Welsh 
>> or English. 
>>
>> We believe that the only unambiguous way to name places and features in 
>> Wales is to use the name:en and name:cy tags. 
>>
>> The "name" tag does not fit the Wales context well but we recognise its 
>> importance within the wider OSM community. Though in some bilingual 
>> countries the name tag contains both versions of a name and notably in the 
>> Basque country this seemingly reflects the official state policy of 
>> designating the official name of a town as its two names delimited by a 
>> hyphen. We believe in the Wales context this would be better achieved by 
>> processing name:en and name:cy tags.
>>
>> We're really happy to get some feedback, questions or comments on this 
>> proposal. Especially highlighting things we might have missed or 
>> misconstrued.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ben
>> --
>> Mapio Cymru 
>> OpenStreetMap.Cymru 
>> ___
>>  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] Multi-lingual tagging in Wales

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

In case of name where there is a language specific tag,
repeating name tag in language specific tag
is useful, welcome and a good idea.

I even run into a case where it was needed to render map as expected(Polish 
labels, with fallback to English ones)
-

I am unable to comment on Wales-specific
part.
-


"So name: Wales or name: Cymru would be acceptable but not name: Wales/Cymru"

It suggests that it is perfectly fine to
make edit changing country name.

Maybe some other example would be better?

For example some specific settlement for
each language?
12 paź 2020, 15:04 od b...@benproctor.co.uk:

> Hi everyone
>
> I'd like to open up the currently unresolved question of multilingual tagging 
> in Wales. 
>
> In the Mapio Cymru project we've been exploring Welsh language mapping > 
> https://openstreetmap.cymru/>  and we've done some thinking about how Welsh 
> and English naming works in parts of Wales. We plan to organise some (online) 
> workshops in November to encourage people to add Welsh language tags to the 
> map. Those workshops will initially be delivered through the medium of Welsh 
> but we hope also to run some in English at a later date.
>
> The wiki entry for Wales in Multilingual Names highlights that this has been 
> an area of discussion. > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#Wales
>
> The current entry is short and so I'll reproduce it here in full.
>
> [starts/---]
> In Wales, the name tag should be used for whatever the local population uses.
>
> name:en and name:cy can be used to give English and Welsh names where such 
> names exist but are not the name used by the local population. (cy is the two 
> letter ISO639-1 language code for the Welsh language.)
>
> The percentage of Welsh speakers varies very significantly across the country 
> and visiting mappers should be aware of local usage.> [---/ends]
>
> From a Mapio Cymru perspective we'd like to propose, for discussion, 
> replacing this text with the following (reasoning follows):
>
> [starts/---]
> In Wales the name tag should be used for the name by which the place is 
> widely known in Wales. This could be English or Welsh but not both. So name: 
> Wales or name: Cymru would be acceptable but not name: Wales/Cymru.
>
> name:en should be used to give the name by which the place or feature is 
> known in English.
> name:cy should be used to give the name by which the place or feature is 
> known in Welsh
>
> Even though this will lead to apparent duplication. For example:
>
> name: Swansea
> name:en Swansea
> name:cy Abertawe
>
> This allows places and features to be named unambiguously and so rather than 
> duplication is conveying useful new information.> [---/ends]
>
> Our Reasoning
> Wales is a bilingual country and many places have different names in Welsh 
> and English. Many other places have the same name in Welsh and English. It is 
> not possible to infer from the Name tag whether the contents are in Welsh or 
> English. 
>
> We believe that the only unambiguous way to name places and features in Wales 
> is to use the name:en and name:cy tags. 
>
> The "name" tag does not fit the Wales context well but we recognise its 
> importance within the wider OSM community. Though in some bilingual countries 
> the name tag contains both versions of a name and notably in the Basque 
> country this seemingly reflects the official state policy of designating the 
> official name of a town as its two names delimited by a hyphen. We believe in 
> the Wales context this would be better achieved by processing name:en and 
> name:cy tags.
>
> We're really happy to get some feedback, questions or comments on this 
> proposal. Especially highlighting things we might have missed or misconstrued.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ben
> --
> Mapio Cymru 
> OpenStreetMap.Cymru 
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

28 wrz 2020, 13:53 od talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

>
>
> On 28/09/2020 10:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> The change you plan to execute is of limited use. Yes, it ensures more
>> conformity in the data, but it will be a temporary fix (since new
>> "wrong" URLs can be added at any time).
>>
>
> Moot. Your claim applies to all tags, all the time. By your logic we might as 
> well not amend anything.
>
Yes, this argument would work as argument
against any type of fix.

fixing case of
 highway=mtorway to highway=motorway
would be useful, despite that it may appear
again and it is possible to add automatic fix
for that

(I am not enthusiastic about this pub edit,
as benefit are minimal but if someone
wants to spend time on that I see nothing
wrong with that)

(I am also thinking whatever wiki should 
claim that http / https is needed -
in practice it is not really needed or useful)___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Jewson - is it shop=doityourself or shop=trade?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

I encountered https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/issues/4140
and it is hard to me how it should be decided.

Do you have some clear preference?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Thanks! I forgot that en-GB can also be translated, so
translation mistakaes may become cause of a problem.

Thanks for a fixing it!


Sep 16, 2020, 13:51 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> Hopefully I've fixed them on TW for the next update.
>
> Tom
>
> On 16/09/2020 12:44, Tom Hughes via Talk-GB wrote:
>
>> That would be because somebody on TranslateWiki has added a bunch
>> of bogus strings to the en-GB translation:
>>
>> https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/blob/master/config/locales/en-GB.yml#L621
>>  
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On 16/09/2020 12:00, Paul Berry wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I wasn't in edit mode so nothing to do with iD. I'm using the latest 
>>> version of Chrome on Windows 10 and browsing to the standard 
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org site with Standard Layer selected and the 
>>> Query tool used. You can see that everything's in en-gb (as I have set it), 
>>> excepting the one search result in question, by viewing the screenshot 
>>> here: http://pberry.me.uk/osm/osm_query.png
>>>
>>> I've double-checked on other devices, operating systems, and browsers but 
>>> the issue remains. I hope this helps to narrow down the problem.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> /Paul/
>>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 11:04, Nick via Talk-GB >> <mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi Gareth
>>>
>>>     It was just a thought if that might have been the source
>>>
>>>     Cheers
>>>
>>>     Nick
>>>
>>>     On 16/09/2020 10:12, Gareth L wrote:
>>>
>>>>     Hi Nick,
>>>>
>>>>     Not in the example I cited.
>>>>
>>>>     Gareth
>>>>
>>>>>     On 16 Sep 2020, at 10:03, Nick 
>>>>>     <mailto:n...@foresters.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>     Just out of curiosity, were these all mapped with the new version
>>>>>     of the RapiD OSM editor https://mapwith.ai/rapid-esri?
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 16/09/2020 08:18, Gareth L wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Morning Mateusz,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     __ __
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     You’re right, it’s not encountered in edit mode.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     __ __
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     4:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  1. “en-GB en”
>>>>>>  2. “en-GB”
>>>>>>  3. System Locale: en-us;English (United States)*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Input Locale: en-gb;English (United Kingdom)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     __ __
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     *damn, i’m normally better at keeping it en-gb!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     __ __
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Gareth
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     __ __
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>
>>>>>>     for Windows 10
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     __ __
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     *From: *Mateusz Konieczny <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>
>>>>>>     *Sent: *16 September 2020 08:09
>>>>>>     *To: *Gareth L <mailto:o...@live.co.uk>
>>>>>>     *Cc: *Paul Berry <mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>; Talk GB
>>>>>>     <mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
>>>>>>     *Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     __ __
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     1) it is not a bug of default style at all - what is displayed
>>>>>>     in tiles is not related
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     (both are using OSM data and here similarities end)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     2) it is not a Mapnik bug - it is a library used by OSM Carto
>>>>>>     (default map style)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     3) it is not in edit mode, so it is likely not an iD bug (maybe
>>>>>>     it uses an iD 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     presets that have some bug)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     __ __
>>>>>

Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

1) it is not a bug of default style at all - what is displayed in tiles is not 
related
(both are using OSM data and here similarities end)
2) it is not a Mapnik bug - it is a library used by OSM Carto (default map 
style)
3) it is not in edit mode, so it is likely not an iD bug (maybe it uses an iD 
presets that have some bug)

Is it still visible in edit mode? The it may be an iD bug.

4) Which exactly language settings you have? 

(a) In OSM settings
(b) In browser
(c) In OS

For me this is not present,
I see Polish description ("Budynek przemysłowy itp group 
") as I selected
Polish as preferred language in OSM settings.

Sep 16, 2020, 08:57 by o...@live.co.uk:

>
> Hi Paul,
>
>
>  
>
>
> I’m not sure if the fault is with the ID viewer, mapnik, or overpass-api 
> really. ID bugs can be reported/tracked through its GitHub repo > 
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD
>
>
>  
>
>
> For others curious, an example is go to >  
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.37824/-1.23676>  and right click> 
> query features on say, the ITP building or air ambulance. It will show “> 
> Индустриална сграда > itp group> ” on the results where you choose which 
> element you want more detail on.
>
>
>  
>
>
> I’m not that familiar with the codebase but it looks like there has been 
> quite a lot of activity in the localisation section, so it is possibly a 
> recently introduced bug.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Gareth
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> From: > Paul Berry 
>  > Sent: > 16 September 2020 00:21
>  > To: > Talk GB 
>  > Subject: > [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD
>
>
>
>  
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>  
>
>
> Not sure who to direct this to so apologies for targeting the mailing list. 
> However, I hope the right people can be found this way.
>
>
>  
>
>
> If you use the query feature within iD (which uses the Overpass API) and 
> point at a commercial building you get a Bulgarian label in the results set 
> instead of an English one: Търговска Сграда, which translates as "commercial 
> building" - there might be other cosmetic bugs out there.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>  
>
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass query strangeness within iD

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Have you set Bulgarian as a preferred language in OSM settings?

Are you using browser in Bulgarian language?

Have you set Bulgarian as preferred language in browser?

"query feature within iD (which uses the Overpass API)" - which 
part of iD is using Overpass API? Can you be more specific?

Are you maybe talking about query feature on the OSM page
used without going into edit mode?

If it is an actual iD bug then it would be worth reporting it at
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD

Sep 16, 2020, 01:20 by pmberry2...@gmail.com:

> Hi all,
>
> Not sure who to direct this to so apologies for targeting the mailing list. 
> However, I hope the right people can be found this way.
>
> If you use the query feature within iD (which uses the Overpass API) and 
> point at a commercial building you get a Bulgarian label in the results set 
> instead of an English one: Търговска Сграда, which translates as "commercial 
> building" - there might be other cosmetic bugs out there.
>
> Regards,
> Paul
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

3 wrz 2020, 11:58 od o...@live.co.uk:
> Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that 
> also mangling tagging conventions. I genuinely don’t know!
>
It would be bicycle tag, not access:bicycle___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] NCN 231 and NCN 235 Isle of Wight

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Iff it is not existing then it should be deleted.

It is easy to do it in JOSM (after one 
passes hurdle if doing anything in JOSM)


1 Sep 2020, 11:52 by jpennyc...@bcs.org.uk:

> Hello.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2821036>  and > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2821037>  (claiming to be National 
> Cycle Network Route 231 and 235) have been listed on OpenStreetMap for some 
> time. They appear to mostly duplicate Regional Cycle Network route 67 (> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2742> ) aka "Round The Island" or 
> "Taste the Wight". 67 is shown on the SusTrans OS Map, but 231 and 235 are 
> not. 
> The only NCN signs I have ever seen on the Isle of Wight are for 22 and 23. I 
> can't find any original sources thst mention either 232 or 235 (they are 
> mentioned in passing in the Wikipedia article on the NCN). I suspect someone 
> worked out a proposed route that was never approved, but it got into OSM 
> anyway. 
>
>
> What should I/we do? E.g.
> * Mark 231 and 235 as "Proposed"?
> * Delete both relations? How can this be done easily? 
>
> Jon 
>
>
>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Proposal: Import EV charging point data

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Plausible deniability is not the reason.

Either 
(1) it is clear that we can do that
without copyright and copyright like
issues and then we can freely ignore
whatever data provider likes it or not

(2) it is not ok to do this in OSM

Reason for not creating such notes
automatically is for example fact that
notes are not supposed to be created
automatically - we have different 
tools for that such as JOSM validator,
StreetComplete and Osmose.

Last one is already including some suggestions
like that.

18 Aug 2020, 15:18 by me-osm-talk...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk:

> On Tue, 2020-08-18 at 12:18 +0100, Steven Hirschorn wrote:
>
>> Are we allowed to put the points on a non-OSM map to ask local
>> mappers to survey?
>>
>
> Legally I think it's a bit ambiguous, but current practice is to do
> exactly that. See tools like [1] where most of the data isn't
> compatible with the ODbL but they are overlaid for local mappers to
> survey and add them selves [2]. At a certain point it may be easier to
> "import to notes", but the current way at least has plausible
> deniability if any data provider was upset that there dataset was used
> to inform surveys.
>
>
> Cj
>
> [1] https://osm.mathmos.net/defib/
> [2] https://osm.mathmos.net/defib/progress/NE/
>
>
> ___
> 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] New Bing Imagery

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

19 Aug 2020, 12:17 by ajt1...@gmail.com:
> To be honest, I'd never trust any imagery anywhere until I've seen how it 
> compares with other available sources in that area (GPS traces, OS OpenData 
> StreetView, etc.).
>
Not sure is there such dataset in UK,
but Polish government releases
aerial images with alignment better than
GPS traces from smartphones and
comparable with GPS traces from 
dedicated receivers (such as Garmin
etrex)___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] New Bing Imagery

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Have you checked whatever
there is an open issue proposing to
support imagery offset database in iD?

19 Aug 2020, 11:11 by scolebou...@joda.org:

> So, I followed the links below and added an offset. But this simply
> isn't a viable solution to the problem because it only works for JOSM
> and not iD.
>
> I managed to convince one mapper to type in the offset manually in iD
> every time, but that is a horrible thing to ask new mappers to do,
> very offputting. And now I can see Amazon mappers using an iD variant
> that doesn't have the offset and moving all the roads as a result:
>  
> https://osmcha.org/changesets/89549551?aoi=758c7f2b-faca-44e5-acd2-0cb8c33034bd
>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/89549551
> This is going to keep happening so long as OSM has multiple image
> sources and multiple editors. Frankly I'm amazed that this isn't a
> solved problem.
>
> Having done some mapping across the country recently, it seems like
> Bing is offset to the previous best imagery across the country, but by
> varying amounts. Is there really no solution that can be applied to
> the source Bing layer? Or should we all just accept Bing as golden?
>
> Having added thousands of buildings and fixed roads to align to the
> previous best imagery, I don't have a good solution to the problem,
> and it is demotivating to think that others are going to come along
> and move individual roads/buildings to align without considering the
> bigger picture.
>
> The only solution I can think of is to move all nodes in the area I've
> worked on to match the new Bing (ie a mass edit). Any other
> suggestions?
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 23:36, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB
>  wrote:
>
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Imagery_Offset_Database/Quick_Start
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Imagery_Offset_Database
>> (I think that nowadays it is built in - is plugin installation still 
>> necessary?)
>>
>>
>> No idea about iD support - 
>> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/search?q=imagery+offset
>>
>> Jul 13, 2020, 00:21 by scolebou...@joda.org:
>>
>> Wow, the imagery is really good. But in my area the imagery is about
>> 3-4m east west and 3-4m north south out of alignment with Esri World
>> Imagery (Clarity) Beta, which is what I've been using up until now
>> (for thousands of buildings).
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.39886/-0.24940
>>
>> Is there any way to unify the alignments?
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 06:41, Gareth L  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I’ve noticed patches of vastly improved bing imagery since December, but it 
>> is really patchy.
>> Gareth
>>
>> > On 6 Jul 2020, at 23:21, Cj Malone  
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > I was splitting houses in Portsmouth/Southsea this morning. The imagery
>> > is great, I don't know if it was part of this update, or if it's been
>> > like this for a while.
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Proposal: Import EV charging point data

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

18 Aug 2020, 16:28 by aamac...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2020 at 09:09, Rob Nickerson <> rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>> For me, once licencing issues have been fully resolved, it comes down to 
>> accuracy of data. 
>>
>> For example the TfL cycle data is great as it has been collected by ground 
>> survey and with two photos of everything. Some other third party data has 
>> been less accurate. At this point it becomes tricky as we've no agreed 
>> threshold. We all know that OSM is not perfect but less clear on what level 
>> of accuracy we require for imports.
>>
>
> Wouldn't this be partially dependent on the level of mapping in the area in 
> question? 
>
And on preferences of a local
community.

I am not aware about any such case,
but local community may even have
stance "we are against all imports"
>
> In sparsely mapped regions even relatively coarse data might be an 
> improvement. In areas where individual gas lamps have been accurately placed 
> higher precision would be required to avoid misleading entries. 
+1___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Proposal: Import EV charging point data

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Aug 18, 2020, 13:18 by steven.hirsch...@gmail.com:

> And what would the conflation exercise be? Are we allowed to put the
> points on a non-OSM map to ask local mappers to survey?
>
It would be better to put location on OSM map and ask mappers to
survey there.

As long as they survey and enter data based on what they surveyed
and external source will be used solely to plan trip - AFAIK it should be fine.

With non-OSM map there is risk that some of them will start copying such map.

(there is risk that some of mappers will start copying just marker
positions, without survey, that is why it should be limited to more
experienced mappers and done in way encouraging actual survey
- so no putting such data into Maproulette and so on)

> Of course I won't begin an import without seeking consensus first -
> this was the start of such an attempt!
>
+1

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Aug 14, 2020, 15:53 by for...@david-woolley.me.uk:

> On 14/08/2020 12:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
>
>> If signage on the ground is gone or never existed then route relation should 
>> not be mapped in OSM*.
>>
>
> In the long term, this could make OSM useless for motor traffic as there is a 
> general policy of decluttering signs.  One of the arguments for that is that 
> everyone uses satellite navigators, so they don't need the signs.  I think is 
> also used as an argument for why it can take councils years to fix missing 
> street name signs.
>
> If OSM relies on on the ground signage, when the authorities rely on virtual 
> signage in online maps, it could lose a lot of roads!
>

At least in Poland it is purely theoretical issue while problem of 
nonexisting/proposed/gone
route relations cluttering map is real (local governments and organizations 
keep creating various
routes and later fail to maintain them).
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Aug 13, 2020, 16:41 by simon.st...@gmail.com:

>
>
>
>> On 13 Aug 2020, at 11:41, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <>> 
>> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com>> > wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 14:49, Richard Fairhurst <>> rich...@systemed.net>> > 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ... However, note that the "removed"
>>>
>> sections mostly won't be reflected on the ground yet. Also, the
>> dataset isn't perfect, as there's at least one bit near me where the
>> route Sustrans have is wrong. I think it's also likely that some of
>> the small gaps that have been created are inadvertent and will quickly
>> be filled back in as volunteers review the new network.
>>
>> We also might need to think about our tagging, as there will now be
>> more levels of routes: Full NCN routes, other promoted named routes
>> that aren't on the NCN. How can we distinguish these in OSM?
>> network=ncn and network=rcn are typically used for national and
>> regional level routes rather than specifically the Sustrans NCN.
>>
> An interesting conundrum.  I’m thinking about mapping and navigation in 
> London at the moment (see blogs at 
> https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1
> https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/signage-and-wayfinding
>
>
> So my understanding is that OSM normally only maps what’s actually on the 
> ground rather than what might be shown on a map (and there was some 
> discussion recently about this - > 
> https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-gb@openstreetmap.org/msg19303.html> )
>
> So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t it 
> remain in OSM?  
>
Yes, until signs are removed. Though for practical reasons - if there is not 
enough mappers to verify
it fully and it is certain that signs will be removed it may be OK to remove it 
without such survey.

> Conversely  - how do you deal with older bits of say London Cycle Network 
> where signs have been removed or become unreadable.
>
If signage on the ground is gone or never existed then route relation should 
not be mapped in OSM*.
Though I would first contact route operator before deleting/changing relation 
in OSM,
if route is supposed to be maintained.

*except rare and extreme cases where route is widely recognized without being 
signed, but
such cases are rare

>  For example, I recently had an extended discussion about the status of the 
> paths in Brockwell Park in Brixton (changeset here - > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/83547875>  )  Maps showed routes and 
> there may once have been signage but there is no longer any signage and 
> supporting information says there is not a designated ‘route’ here. 
>
Then it is eligible for deletion. OSM is not place to map things that used to 
exist but are gone.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMUK Instagram ideas

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Maybe something showing how 
editing actually happens?

Either as short movie, animated gif
or as combination of some photos
in one image?
10 Aug 2020, 16:38 by jez.nichol...@gmail.com:

> Thanks for the ideas.
>
> Today's post is about Missing Maps London on Tues 1 September > 
> https://www.instagram.com/p/CDtkiAFH-sS/>  which I attended last week. I've 
> been going to see what goes on. Gave me a chance to try out the new RapiD 
> editor.
>
> I forgot to say that I want to be able to post once-a-day.
>
> I haven't considered replicating somewhere 'open' yet. Insta has a big reach, 
> but I see that Pixelfed is a similar concept.
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 2:42 PM Robert Skedgell <> r...@hubris.org.uk> > wrote:
>
>> On 09/08/2020 14:31, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>>  > I've been posting to the OSMUK
>>  > Instagram >> https://www.instagram.com/openstreetmapuk/>>  account 
>> recently.
>>  > We are currently focusing on potential new mappers, so i'm thinking
>>  > quirky and topical.
>>  > 
>>  > So,
>>  > 
>>  > a) Do you know of an interesting looking feature in the UK?
>>  > 
>>  > b) Do you know of something topical (and visual)?
>>  > 
>>  > c) After this thread has finished, how best could/would you get in
>>  > contact to tell me? Twitter? A thread on Loomio? Here?
>>  > 
>>  > Regards,
>>  >               Jez
>>  > 
>>  
>>  Some of the COVID-19 related highway changes, e.g. modal filters
>>  implemented with planters might be worth including. There's an obvious
>>  visual and routing impact in real life, as rendered by OSM Carto and for
>>  routing engines.
>>  
>>  -- 
>>  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] Using OSM as a base for my own fictional map?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Jul 25, 2020, 00:06 by mar...@templot.com:

> 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? 
>
Copyright is not a problem. But note 
"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

>
> What indication is required that it has been modified? The project will be 
> free and open-source, there is no financial gain involved.
>
Not a lawyer, but clear attribution and explanation that railway lines are 100% 
fantasy
should be OK. And it will make you a better data consumer than a typical 
corporation
using OSM data.

There is no trap here, do not worry about it (as long as you properly 
attribute, no one
sane will even complain)

Note that it is perfectly fine to use OSM data for commercial purposes, just 
remember
about attribution (as usual).

Note that if you will draw this fantasy railways based on other OSM data you 
will create
derivative work that will be (AFAIK, not a lawyer) also ODBL licensed.

I skipped technical parts - I have no experience here and there is plenty of 
ways to achieve that.
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
___
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?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ika-chan!/Fantasy_maps_with_OSM_software

looks useful despite disclaimer on top

 finds other usefully
looking materials

In general, main technical issues are
exactly the same as with rendering
unmodified OSM data

I would not worry too much about
people thinking that railway map
is representing real railways

You would still need to attribute
OpenStreetMap
and attribution location may be a good
place to note that tracks are fictional


24 Jul 2020, 17:59 by mar...@templot.com:

> 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
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Jul 24, 2020, 12:46 by r...@hubris.org.uk:

> On 23/07/2020 10:55, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jul 23, 2020, 11:49 by for...@david-woolley.me.uk:
>>
>>  On 23/07/2020 10:12, Nick wrote:
>>
>>  Do we actually know what the general public use OSM for?
>>
>>
>>  My impression is that the target for a lot of the material in OSM is
>>  professional users of maps, rather than the general public.
>>
>> I would say that most of use by general public is indirect - from location
>> maps in a bus, through maps on mapy.cz/Osmand/FB/Snapchat/Uber/Maps.me
>> to indirectly benefiting from use of OSM data in various
>> plans/analysis/scientific research.
>>
>
> I though Uber used Google, which would explain a couple of comical
> misdirections to somewhere near-ish to my destination, which I could
> replicate later on in Google.
>
I have seen reports that they changed map source in app
(I never used Uber) - it may be also Android vs iPhone or
deployed only for limited testing

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Jul 24, 2020, 11:38 by n...@foresters.org:

>
> My thanks to Mateusz and Dave for their comments, which I would  like to 
> try to summarise as I see it:
>
> the purpose of OSM mapping in the UK of rural buildings isprimarily 
> to provide a general location of properties i.e.accuracy and 
> precision are unnecessary.
>
I would say that extreme precision/accuracy is not necessary. 

Some minimal accuracy is necessary, 
"I will map square area and tag it as building no matter building shape"
is not OK.

Improving roughly mapped geometry by a better one is always welcomed.


> 'armchair' mapping therefore meets the needs, predominantlyusing 
> aerial photos or other tools/data
>
> If so, I guess I was missing the point as I kind of thought that  in the 
> future there might be the potential for collaboration with  Ordnance 
> Survey e.g. filling in the gaps with high quality  surveys, sharing 
> 'other' data (based on local knowledge) that is  not on OS maps etc.
>
>
It potentially would be nice, though official datasets (based on experience 
from Poland) may have
other quality issue like say dividing building in too many areas. My favorite 
case has every step 
in an outdoor staircase mapped as a separate area, that was blindly imported.

Or including only parts of buildings that are officially existing, without 
illegally constructed parts.

>
> I also thought that there might be scope for collaboration with  
> construction developers - after all they do detailed surveys of  their 
> building sites which could be added to OSM. For some  developers that 
> would mean they could have free plans  (site/location etc.) for their 
> planning applications. The data  in  turn could be of value to the Local 
> Authorities e.g. creating UPRN  and BLPU data - with a collaborative 
> approach OSM 'volunteers'  could also be checking data quality.
>
>
> Hmm..  the potential for real collaboration between OSM  'volunteers', OS 
> and other agencies strikes me as a possible  win-win?.. 
>
>
Yes, though topic is quite tricky due to legal issues and due to different 
priorities/approaches.

> but I suppose that is me going 'a step too far'
>
I would not say that is going too far.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Jul 23, 2020, 11:49 by for...@david-woolley.me.uk:

> On 23/07/2020 10:12, Nick wrote:
>
>> Do we actually know what the general public use OSM for?
>>
>
> My impression is that the target for a lot of the material in OSM is 
> professional users of maps, rather than the general public.
>
I would say that most of use by general public is indirect - from location 
maps in a bus, through maps on mapy.cz/Osmand/FB/Snapchat/Uber/Maps.me
to indirectly benefiting from use of OSM data in various 
plans/analysis/scientific research.

I would say that direct use by general public is going to be fairly rare, 
though still
happening, like with nearly all resources.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Maybe changeset tag would be sufficient?


Jul 23, 2020, 11:47 by r...@hubris.org.uk:

> On 15/07/2020 10:18, Tony OSM wrote:
>
>> Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found Scheduled
>> Monuments. They are described in the Historic England list as Heritage
>> Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry Number.
>>
>> Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade: (I,
>> II*, II) and a list entry number.
>>
>
> I have a related question about using data from the Historic England
> list. How can we comply with the attribution requirement in para. 2 of
> OS Open Data Licence Agreement used by HE (below)? Some of this may be
> covered by OSM's general license and acknowledgements, but would an
> additional tag on the object be required?
>
> Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence Agreement
>
> Historic England is able to license the use of a number of its spatial
> data sets for use in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) ("Historic
> England GIS Data") for commercial and non-commercial use.
>
> 1. Subject to the terms below, you are now granted a worldwide,
> perpetual, non-exclusive licence to use this Historic England GIS Data.
> You may:
> - copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Historic England GIS Data
> - adapt or modify the Historic England GIS Data
> - exploit the Historic England GIS Data commercially for example by
> combining it with other information or by including it in your own
> product or application
>
> 2. You must always use the following attribution statements to
> acknowledge the source of the information:
>
> © Historic England [year]. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown
> copyright and database right [year] The Historic England GIS Data
> contained in this material was obtained on [date]. The most publicly
> available up to date Historic England GIS Data can be obtained from
> http://www.HistoricEngland.org.uk.
>
> 3. The same requirement for an attribution statement must be contained
> in any sub-licences of the Historic England GIS Data that you grant,
> together with a requirement that any further sub-licences do the same.
>
> 4. You must ensure that you do not use the Historic England GIS Data in
> a way which suggests any official status or that Historic England has
> endorsed you or your use of the Historic England GIS Data.
>
> 5. The Historic England GIS Data must not be used for purposes which may
> lead to damage to archaeological sites, historic buildings and landscapes.
>
> 6. You must not mislead others or misrepresent the Historic England GIS
> Data or its source.
>
> 7. This licence does not give you permission to use any Historic England
> trade marks or logos.
>
> 8. You must ensure your use of the Historic England GIS Data complies
> with the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Privacy and Electronic
> Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.
>
> 9. The Historic England GIS Data is updated on a regular basis. It is
> current only to the date of the dataset as given on the downloadable data.
>
> 10. All intellectual proprietary rights in this Historic England GIS
> Data and the documentation remain vested in Historic England and its
> licensors. Where Ordnance Survey base mapping has been used to create
> certain Historic England GIS Data, Ordnance Survey claims Intellectual
> Property Rights in the data. As such, Historic England GIS Data is
> subject to the terms of the Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence – a copy
> of which can be found here.
>
> 11. Spatial data is provided solely to indicate the location of the
> designated area. The spatial data for listed buildings does not indicate
> the extent of a listing or the curtilage.
>
> 12. The Historic England GIS Data is licensed 'as is' and Historic
> England excludes all representations, warranties, obligations and
> liabilities in relation to the Historic England GIS Data to the maximum
> extent permitted by law.
>
> 13. Historic England will not be liable (whether directly or indirectly)
> for any loss or damages arising out of or in connection with any use of
> the Historic England GIS Data, any infringement of third party
> intellectual property rights or any decisions made on the basis of this
> data.
>
> 14. Historic England is not liable for any errors or omissions in the
> Historic England GIS Data and shall not be liable for any loss, injury
> or damage of any kind caused by its use. Historic England does not
> guarantee the continued supply of the Historic England GIS Data.
>
> 15. Nothing in this licence shall exclude Historic England's liability
> for death or personal injury caused by negligence, or for fraud.
>
> 16. Historic England may terminate this licence if you are in material
> breach of its terms and fail to remedy any breach (if capable of remedy)
> within 14 days of being notified by Historic England. If Historic
> England does terminate this licence you must immediately stop all use of
> the Historic England GIS Data and terminate any 

Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

OSM building data was already used in Poland for flood preparation analysis.

It was used to supplement official building dataset, that was of much higher 
detail and accuracy, 
but also outdated (updated every N years) and was not including illegally 
constructed buildings
and buildlings not requiring planning permissions (as it was based on 
construction permits).

Jul 22, 2020, 21:37 by n...@foresters.org:

>
> Hi Mateusz
>
>
> Many thanks for your comments. 
>
>
> It would also be good to hear from others, particularly around  the 
> question of the purpose of mapping. I was thinking that my  purpose was 
> to provide other people (OSM mappers and the general  public) with the 
> information that meets their needs. The problem  is that without knowing 
> how people use the maps, identifying the  quality of the data is tricky. 
> The other challenge for people  using the maps is not knowing what the 
> quality is ~ e.g. how  comprehensively properties are mapped, precision 
> in terms of  location etc. I also wonder if the quality is good, that 
> people  might use OSM as the map to go to e.g. for Planning applications?
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Nick
>
> On 22/07/2020 13:20, Mateusz Konieczny  via Talk-GB wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jul 20, 2020, 12:29 by >> n...@foresters.org>> :
>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> I have been mapping a few properties using Bing maps with  local 
>>> knowledge supplemented by some physical measuring (tape  measure or 
>>> simply pacing). I now want to ramp up my mapping  but the challenge 
>>> especially in rural areas is that sometimes  the outline of a 
>>> building is not clear - either obscured (e.g.  trees) or unclear 
>>> (e.g. decking or car ports). Also some  aerial imagery is offset. 
>>> Also, most of the properties are not  along public roads. So my 
>>> question is what are the preferred  methods for surveying that 
>>> others are using?
>>>
>> Nobody replied so far so...
>>
>> I am not worried too much about geometry offset, especiallyin rural 
>> areas where
>> moving building to fix offset is usually not problematic.
>>
>>> Supplementary question, do you include or exclude  conservatories, 
>>> car ports etc. from the main structure of the  property?
>>>
>> It depends. I usually include them in case of armchairmapping of 
>> aerial images (unless there is
>> a visible gap). In mapping during survey it depends whatevercar port 
>> is part of a building structure
>> or a separate structure standing next to house.
>>
>>> I guess at the back of my mind is what do people perceive  as the 
>>> purpose of mapping (hope I have not opened a can of  worms).
>>>
>> In my case I map what is useful for projects that I use/likeor is 
>> very simple to map
>> (=available as StreetComplete quest).
>>
>> So right now I map parking lanes for >> 
>> https://github.com/dabreegster/abstreet
>> and in rural areas I tend to map hiking routes rather thanbuildings.
>>
>> ___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] Surveying rural buildings

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Jul 20, 2020, 12:29 by n...@foresters.org:

> Dear all
>
> I have been mapping a few properties using Bing maps with local knowledge 
> supplemented by some physical measuring (tape measure or simply pacing). I 
> now want to ramp up my mapping but the challenge especially in rural areas is 
> that sometimes the outline of a building is not clear - either obscured (e.g. 
> trees) or unclear (e.g. decking or car ports). Also some aerial imagery is 
> offset. Also, most of the properties are not along public roads. So my 
> question is what are the preferred methods for surveying that others are 
> using?
>
Nobody replied so far so...

I am not worried too much about geometry offset, especially in rural areas where
moving building to fix offset is usually not problematic.

> Supplementary question, do you include or exclude conservatories, car ports 
> etc. from the main structure of the property?
>
It depends. I usually include them in case of armchair mapping of aerial images 
(unless there is
a visible gap). In mapping during survey it depends whatever car port is part 
of a building structure
or a separate structure standing next to house.

> I guess at the back of my mind is what do people perceive as the purpose of 
> mapping (hope I have not opened a can of worms).
>
In my case I map what is useful for projects that I use/like or is very simple 
to map
(=available as StreetComplete quest).

So right now I map parking lanes for https://github.com/dabreegster/abstreet
and in rural areas I tend to map hiking routes rather than buildings.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Part of highway=street_lamp, similarly to street lamps mounted on power poles.

Though it is yet another case of tricky difference between fuel stations that 
have quite standard
size and charging spots ranging in size from such minor ones to bigger 
features...

Jul 21, 2020, 14:47 by jez.nichol...@gmail.com:

> My Council has introduced 200+ lamp post mounted charging points > 
> https://www.instagram.com/p/B_Fm7L8nOL8/
>
> Would you give that its own node? or as part of > Tag:highway=street_lamp?
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 1:13 PM Dave F via Talk-GB <> 
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> On 21/07/2020 12:10, Chris Hill wrote:
>>  > Leccy car drivers need to know if the point is working. Apps from the 
>>  > charge point suppliers and from others such as Zapmap try to keep 
>>  > drivers informed about the availability and condition of the point. 
>>  > OSM doesn't have that info and can't update it in real time. Some 
>>  > leccy cars have this live info built into their satnav.
>>  >
>>  > There's nothing wrong with adding charging points. I expect people 
>>  > wanting to actually use them will look elsewhere for more info than 
>>  > OSM can reasonably supply.
>>  
>>  That's a moot point.
>>  That's the equivalent of saying drivers needs to know if a car park is 
>>  full or a commuter wants to find out if the 08:12 to Oxford has been 
>>  cancelled.
>>  
>>  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] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

"Is it one-way? oneway=yes / oneway=no" 
is it really a good idea to always include oneway=no?
I would consider it as kind of pointless to require
oneway tag to be always present

I added some advertisement for StreetComplete
(I implemented for example bicycle_parking quests
as part of my plan for collecting bicycle-related data).
Feel free to reduce/move/remove them.


Jul 13, 2020, 20:25 by o...@live.co.uk:

>
> Hello,
>
>
>  
>
>
> The UK quarterly project for Q3 2020 has been selected as Cycle 
> infrastructure. >  
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure
>
>
>  
>
>
> Another topical one with cycling having increased take up as people have 
> avoided public transport or took advantage of the (for a while) quieter roads.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
> Gareth
>
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] New Bing Imagery

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Imagery_Offset_Database/Quick_Start
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Imagery_Offset_Database
(I think that nowadays it is built in - is plugin installation still necessary?)


No idea about iD support - 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/search?q=imagery+offset

Jul 13, 2020, 00:21 by scolebou...@joda.org:

> Wow, the imagery is really good. But in my area the imagery is about
> 3-4m east west and 3-4m north south out of alignment with Esri World
> Imagery (Clarity) Beta, which is what I've been using up until now
> (for thousands of buildings).
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.39886/-0.24940
>
> Is there any way to unify the alignments?
>
> Stephen
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 06:41, Gareth L  wrote:
>
>>
>> I’ve noticed patches of vastly improved bing imagery since December, but it 
>> is really patchy.
>> Gareth
>>
>> > On 6 Jul 2020, at 23:21, Cj Malone  
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > I was splitting houses in Portsmouth/Southsea this morning. The imagery
>> > is great, I don't know if it was part of this update, or if it's been
>> > like this for a while.
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Jul 10, 2020, 14:49 by ajt1...@gmail.com:

> On 10/07/2020 12:54, Andrew Hain wrote:
>
>> I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for 
>> highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset in Potlatch 
>> 1.
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607
>>
> If Osmose is flagging "highway=footway;foot=yes" as a warning I'd suggest 
> that that is a problem that needs logging with Osmose.
>
It may be the best to make it a bit smarter - it is a completely valid 
suggestion in for example Poland.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bus Routes on OSM

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Jul 6, 2020, 15:43 by for...@david-woolley.me.uk:

> On 06/07/2020 14:02, Matthew Scanlon wrote:
>
>> How are Bus Routes added into OSM? I have noticed that bus routes in 
>> Basildon (my local area) are a few years out of date with some service such 
>> as the 5 and 8Ahaving been  withdrawn and the route 2 being renumbered 28
>>
>
> My understanding is that TfL doesn't licence the information on a basis that 
> would allow it to be directly used, so OSM rely on members of the public 
> using the buses, or tracing the routes between bus stops.
>
> How up to date the information is depends on how enthusiastic people are in 
> an area, and there tends to be a preference for mapping things for the first 
> time over maintaining existing mapping.
>
And many people prefer to map or maintain things that are likely to be more or 
less stable
- for example roads are far less likely to be moved/renamed than bus lines.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Server crash or dns spoofing?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

That is an unrelated failure that caused tile of
the default map style to stop updating
(other servers relying on the same toolchain also
were likely to be affected)


Jun 28, 2020, 21:08 by danstowell+...@gmail.com:

> I won't presume that everyone on talk-gb wants the gory technical
> details, but it seems they gave a brief summary on twitter:
> https://twitter.com/OSM_Tech/status/1277001284705570821
>
> Best
> Dan
>
>
> Op zo 28 jun. 2020 om 19:39 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB
> :
>
>>
>> Apparently it was a temporary outrage,
>> see https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/431
>> (without useful details except that whatever is broken become fixed)
>>
>> Jun 28, 2020, 20:30 by witwa...@disroot.org:
>>
>> Is www.openstreetmap.org down?
>>
>> I am getting an error "We're sorry, but something went wrong".
>>
>> My dns is giving
>> www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.11
>> www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.13
>> www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.12
>> www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:b
>> www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:c
>> www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:d
>>
>> but reverse lookup is a bit suspicious:
>> $ host 130.117.76.11
>> Host 11.76.117.130.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
>>
>> Am I the only one seeing this: do I need to investigate further?
>>
>> ael
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Server crash or dns spoofing?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Apparently it was a temporary outrage,
see https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/431
(without useful details except that whatever is broken become fixed)

Jun 28, 2020, 20:30 by witwa...@disroot.org:

> Is www.openstreetmap.org down?
>
> I am getting an error "We're sorry, but something went wrong".
>
> My dns is giving
> www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.11
> www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.13
> www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.12
> www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:b
> www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:c
> www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:d
>
> but reverse lookup is a bit suspicious:
> $ host 130.117.76.11
> Host 11.76.117.130.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
>
> Am I the only one seeing this: do I need to investigate further?
>
> ael
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Jun 21, 2020, 03:54 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

>
>
>
> Jun 21, 2020, 01:28 by list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net:
>
>> We think in particular that a significant part of the cycle parking data 
>> (generally the residential areas, where there is little parking presently) 
>> and the speed bumps data are ripe for automated conversion. These form tens 
>> of thousands of locations which we feel are very low risk, useful data, and 
>> eminently suitable for import.
>>
>> Speed bumps:
>> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=bumps_road/#14.98/51.47101/-0.02755
>>
>> Cycle parking:
>> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=parking_new/#14.98/51.46059/-0.05586
>>
> please, please, please do not add useless fixme tags
>
> fixme=Check bike parking type
>
> is not needed - just lack of bicycle_parking tag is enough to note that,
> and will be spotted by tools such as StreetComplete
>
> (spotted on id RWG102691)
>
I opened https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/36

>
>
> And instead of
> bicycle_parking=locked
> note=Own lock
>
> use
> access=private
>
> (id RWG102738)
>
and https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/37

> I remember big import preparations that had issue tracker about tag 
> conversion 
> - is it this project?
>
hopefully it is the correct location
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

21 Jun 2020, 12:07 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk:

> On Sun, 2020-06-21 at 08:42 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jun 21, 2020, 01:21 by list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>>
>>>> You’ll remember that a couple of weeks ago I posted about the work I’m 
>>>> doing to look at getting the relevant bits of Transport for London’s 
>>>> openly licensed Cycle Infrastructure Database into OSM.
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion
>>>>
>>>> It takes the TfL CID files, compares them against OSM (by making queries 
>>>> against a freshly loaded Postgres database), and outputs a series of files 
>>>> for each datatype, all categorised by the type of editing that will be 
>>>> required to get them into OSM.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can now view this converted data as an interactive visualisation at:
>>>
>>> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm/#13.12/51.50426/-0.08725
>>>
>>> Use the "Feature type" drop-down to change the type.
>>>
>>> This shows the results of Richard's excellent scripting to convert the TfL 
>>> CID data to OSM tagging. It hopefully demonstrates the correctness of 
>>> Richard's conversion and the extensiveness of the data. I have also 
>>> included the two TfL photos of each asset.
>>>
>>> NB You can see the original TfL data using the "TfL CID" layer button, and 
>>> OSM data using "OSM" layer button. These are both in the main list of 
>>> cycling data layer buttons on the right-hand side.
>>>
>> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=crossings_junctions/#14.77/51.50656/-0.08864
>> is missing bicycle=yes foot=no intentional? See say 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/24923378>>  (RWG082685)
>> that seems impassable for pedestrians
>>
>> https://api.cyclestreets.net/v2/infrastructure.image?key=c047ed46f7b50b18=tflcid=RWG082685=1=2=400
>>
>>
> Why?
>
> I cannot seen anything prohibiting pedestrians at that point.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
Is it ok for pedestrians to walk on
the carriageway and cross the road 
together with cyclists in place 
marked by bicycle paintings?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Jun 21, 2020, 01:21 by list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net:

>
>
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
>> You’ll remember that a couple of weeks ago I posted about the work I’m doing 
>> to look at getting the relevant bits of Transport for London’s openly 
>> licensed Cycle Infrastructure Database into OSM.
>>
>> https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion
>>
>> It takes the TfL CID files, compares them against OSM (by making queries 
>> against a freshly loaded Postgres database), and outputs a series of files 
>> for each datatype, all categorised by the type of editing that will be 
>> required to get them into OSM.
>>
>
> You can now view this converted data as an interactive visualisation at:
>
> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm/#13.12/51.50426/-0.08725
>
> Use the "Feature type" drop-down to change the type.
>
> This shows the results of Richard's excellent scripting to convert the TfL 
> CID data to OSM tagging. It hopefully demonstrates the correctness of 
> Richard's conversion and the extensiveness of the data. I have also included 
> the two TfL photos of each asset.
>
> NB You can see the original TfL data using the "TfL CID" layer button, and 
> OSM data using "OSM" layer button. These are both in the main list of cycling 
> data layer buttons on the right-hand side.
>
https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=crossings_junctions/#14.77/51.50656/-0.08864
is missing bicycle=yes foot=no intentional? See say 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/24923378 (RWG082685)
that seems impassable for pedestrians

https://api.cyclestreets.net/v2/infrastructure.image?key=c047ed46f7b50b18=tflcid=RWG082685=1=2=400


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

Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Jun 21, 2020, 01:28 by list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net:

>
> Speed bumps:
> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=bumps_road/#14.98/51.47101/-0.02755
>
> Cycle parking:
> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=parking_new/#14.98/51.46059/-0.05586
>
RWG197392 
https://api.cyclestreets.net/v2/infrastructure.image?key=c047ed46f7b50b18=tflcid=RWG197392=1=1=400

looks like bump to me, tagged as hump

RWG999715 has broken images

---

Overall for both - would it be possible to keep images hosted and link them 
with image tag?
Or maybe - upload images to Wikimedia Commons and link them with
wikimedia_commons?

It would make easier to verify what went wrong in case of manual verification.

Is there a plan which tags would be used by changeset itself?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Jun 21, 2020, 01:28 by list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net:

> We think in particular that a significant part of the cycle parking data 
> (generally the residential areas, where there is little parking presently) 
> and the speed bumps data are ripe for automated conversion. These form tens 
> of thousands of locations which we feel are very low risk, useful data, and 
> eminently suitable for import.
>
> Speed bumps:
> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=bumps_road/#14.98/51.47101/-0.02755
>
> Cycle parking:
> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=parking_new/#14.98/51.46059/-0.05586
>
please, please, please do not add useless fixme tags

fixme=Check bike parking type

is not needed - just lack of bicycle_parking tag is enough to note that,
and will be spotted by tools such as StreetComplete

(spotted on id RWG102691)


And instead of
bicycle_parking=locked
note=Own lock

use
access=private

(id RWG102738)
I remember big import preparations that had issue tracker about tag conversion 
- is it this project?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Status of Potlatch 2

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Jun 18, 2020, 10:57 by nathanc...@outlook.com:

>
> Hi all,
>
>
>  
>
>
> Possibly not the correct place to raise this but I was wondering if anyone 
> knew what the plans for Potlatch 2 are?
>
>
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Microgrants/Microgrants_2020/Proposal/Potlatch_2_for_desktop

> Where is best to raise this, if not here?
>
It was possible to comment on and support microgrant proposals but deadline for 
that ended.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle Track - part/soft protection tags - proposal

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Do you have a photo of such feature?

https://i1.wp.com/bicilonatours.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/barcelona-cr-urgell.png
link is dead


Jun 16, 2020, 20:21 by simon.st...@gmail.com:

> Full disclosure - I’m currently working for London Cycling Campaign on a 
> project to bring data from the Transport For London Cycling Infrastructure 
> Database to OSM.
>
> As part of this the question arose as to how to tag cycle facilities that are 
> give more protection and comfort than a painted lane on the road but not as 
> much as a fully protected lane with, say, a 50cm concrete kerb separating 
> cyclists from motor traffic. 
>
> This was raised here - 
>
> https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/23
>
> There are may types of ‘hybrid’, ‘partial, or ‘soft’ separation.  The London 
> COVID-19 ‘StreetScape’ programme is bring a lot of this type of 
> infrastructure to London’s streets very quickly.  Looking at OSM Wiki and 
> previous discussions it doesn’t appear that there is a definitive way to 
> record these. And indeed, looking at the recent infrastructure and how it has 
> been entered to OSM by users it is not happening consistently as a result. 
>
> My view on this is that the greatest distinction is between a painted lane 
> and a track (that has some form of protection).  The difference between the 
> different types of track is less than between no protection at all and 
> ’something’.  
>
>
> Given the multitude of different ways of giving some protection to cyclists I 
> wonder whether it is better to treat them all as variants of track (since 
> they all offer much greater protection than a lane but vary in comfort level 
> - in my view in this order of comfort).
>
>
>
> cycleway:track=kerb
> cycleway:track=rubber_kerb_wand
> cycleway:track=rubber_kerb
>
>
> cycleway:track=concrete_barrier
> cycleway:track=plastic_barrier
>
>
>
> cycleway:track=stepped
> cycleway:track=wandorca
> cycleway:track=wand
> cycleway:track=orca
>
>
>
>
> There may be more I've forgotten.
>
> This would mean that routing engines would see either lane or track at the 
> basic level, but the routing engine designer could then add further 
> refinement using info about the type of track (in combination  perhaps with 
> the size/speed of the road it was alongside) if that info was available.   
> The detail of the precise type of infra is relevant (rather than just simply 
> tagging these with a generic tag such as ‘part protected’ or ‘hybrid’ since 
> it may be that some types of infra prove more successful or have safety 
> issues and there is a desire to identify locations where they are present (eg 
> the concrete or water filed barriers prevent informal crossing of the road by 
> pedestrians) 
>
> Since this infra is being rolled out quickly and in volume (both in London 
> and internationally - though London, due to the fragmented local authorities 
> seems to be doing it in far more varied ways than other places) there is a 
> benefit to establishing this now 
>
>  
>

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

[Talk-GB] hgv=discouraged

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

I created
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:hgv%3Ddiscouraged
based on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access content
and what I found on internet.

Triggered by post on an international mailing list by someone who was unaware
that we have a way to tag "Unsuitable for Heavy Goods Vehicles" signs.

I never was in UK, but content at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
about "discouraged" value seemed to be a good idea.

Review is welcomed - is it matching reality and how OSM community maps such 
objects?

This new page should be found by
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=%22Unsuitable+for+Heavy+Goods+Vehicles%22=Special%3ASearch=Go
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=Unsuitable+for+HGV=Special%3ASearch=default=1
searches

(and that was primary reason for creating it).

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

Re: [Talk-GB] INSPIRE Polygons spatial data

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Is 
"Although the data is released under the OGL, there is an 
important caveat: third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised 
to license"
is still applicable what makes it basically useless for us?

May 16, 2020, 16:47 by christian.lederm...@gmail.com:

> Reading through the inspire land registry data, it seems they have adjusted 
> their licence:
> What would that mean for use in OSM?
>
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/inspire-index-polygons-spatial-data#conditions-of-use
>
> Conditions of use
>
> Your use of the > INSPIRE>  Index Polygons service is governed by conditions.
>
>
> The > INSPIRE>  Index Polygons and attributes provided in this service are 
> available for use and reuse under the > Open Government Licence (> OGL> ) 
> > 
> . This licence enables public bodies to make their data available free of 
> charge for reuse.
>
>
> Use under the > OGL>  is free. If you fail to comply with any of the 
> conditions of the > OGL>  then the rights granted to you under the licence 
> will end automatically.
>
>
> Under the > OGL> , when reusing the data you must acknowledge the source of 
> the data and include the following attribution statement:
>
>
> This information is subject to Crown copyright and is reproduced with the 
> permission of HM Land Registry.
>
>
> If you are reusing the polygons (including the associated geometry, namely x, 
> y co-ordinates), you must also display the following Ordnance Survey 
> copyright/database right notice:
>
>
> © Crown copyright and database rights [year of supply or date of publication] 
> Ordnance Survey 100026316.
>
>
> You must provide a link to these conditions, where possible.
>
>
> Under the > OGL> , HM Land Registry permits you to use the data for 
> commercial or non-commercial purposes. However, as the licence says, > OGL>  
> does not cover the use of third party rights which we are not authorised to 
> license. HM Land Registry uses Ordnance Survey data in the preparation of the 
> polygons and you will need to comply with Ordnance Survey licensing terms for 
> use of the polygons (including the associated geometry, namely x,y 
> co-ordinates).
>
>
> -- 
> Best Regards,
>
> Christian Ledermann
>
> Newark-on-Trent - UK
> Mobile : +44 7474997517
>
> https://uk.linkedin.com/in/christianledermann
> https://github.com/cleder/
>
>
> <*)))>{
>
> If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left,
> you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If
> you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both.
>
> 1) Don’t drive species to extinction
>
> 2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on.
>
> 3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above.
>
> }<(((*>
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Mar 15, 2020, 22:36 by witwa...@disroot.org:

> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 09:18:59PM +, David Woolley wrote:
>
>> On 14/03/2020 18:09, ael wrote:
>> > I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago.
>> > These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know well and
>> > have extensively surveyed. There is no trace of any embankments. No
>> > source was given and the user does not appear to be local.
>>
>> I suspect this is a case of tagging for the renderer, which is, of course,
>> wrong.
>>
>
> That is what I thought, and mentioned in the changeset comment. I have
> had no response as yet from the user.
>
> A *very* brief look at those recent edits suggests this might be a world
> wide problem, and may need a mass revert. There are other changes with
> no source given, and I wonder if copyright material has been used.
>

Given no reply and confirmed tagging for renderer reverting all similar edits 
should be acceptable (and likely - desirable).
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Feb 4, 2020, 16:37 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> >> (Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
> >> if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
> >> relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)
> >
> >There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch
> IMHO, it would be a waste of time, if you tried to create a single area 
> object (do I mean "closed way"?) to be the university.  
>
Or multipolygon, like for https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3830877

> The University is a collection of colleges, so could be a relation...   
> ...except that each college is probably in several buildings and they may not 
> be in a contiguous area, so each college might have to be a relation of 
> buildings.  So you would have a hierarchy of relations.
>
Or areas that belong to multipolygon of college and multipolygon of university 
(?)

> We used to enjoy the look of puzzlement on the faces of (mostly American) 
> tourists, who stood in the middle of town, surrounded by colleges, mixed in 
> with shops, offices and other buildings, and asked which way to go to the 
> University.
>
:) In this case university multipolygon (or closed way) covering most of city 
center 
sounds correct and would help OSM-using tourists.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Feb 4, 2020, 15:14 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> Hi
> There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html
>
> Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes
> A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance with 
> the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767
> This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.
>
+1

I assume that individual buildings are not separate universities? I would expect
one area (maybe multipolygon) for one university.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Soild fuel

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

shop=fuel + fuel=coal ?

2 Feb 2020, 22:27 by ajrli...@gmail.com:

>
> Solid fuel; as in a coal merchants. Yes, still a few of those around, 
> probably many of them in some countries.
>
>
> amenity=fuel / fuel=solid perhaps but that will receive a petrol pump on the 
> map for your efforts.
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7171642306
>
>
>  
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Andy
>
>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Feb 1, 2020, 00:49 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> I've now added them with the more explicit tag 'request_stop=yes'.
>
BTW, I just created wiki page for this tag at it appeared to be undocumented 
and it
seems to have no competing versions:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:request_stop%3Dyes

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

1 Jan 2020, 12:58 by mar...@templot.com:

> 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.
>
OSM Wiki, JOSM presets, Vespucci presets,
JOSM validator, iD presets, asking other mappers,
checkingtag usage, common sense are also available.

There is no definitive specification.
> If it renders ok, the assumption must be that it is acceptable mapping. 
>
Just because it renders as one person expects
in one specific map style it does not
mean that it is correctly mapped.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

1 Jan 2020, 15:31 by silentspike...@gmail.com:
> Definitely don't rely on the standard map to drive tagging practise, 
> rendering decisions for the standard map are made based on tag usage.
>
I would treat Standard Map display as a hint.

It is not final authority, but it very give an useful feedback.

Decisions about what and how should be rendered are
not based solely on tag usage, but it is the most important part.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

1 Jan 2020, 08:13 by mar...@templot.com:
> Thanks, but the problem is that landuse=highway is not a valid tag. 
>
Why?
> Voting on it was suspended in 2013 after several votes against, see:
>
>  > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dhighway
>
It is ok to use tags that were never voted on
and ones that lost votes.
> 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
>
This is a misuse of the Standard Map Style.

It is not defining correct use.

(I am author of current road rendering
in this map style, or to be more specific
- person who did last major redesign)

> betweenthe fences with the existing highway=track as a routable way 
> superimposed over it, in darker brown.
>
This is not an intended use of
highway=track + area=yes,
its valid use is for squares/areas
on highway=track, where vehicles drive in any directions

It is typical in logging camps,
where wood is stored, moved between vehicles,
processed etc.

In case of wide and frequent misuse
rendering of highway=track + area=yes
will be removed to discourage it.

It happened before with highway=proposed
and area rendering for tourism=attraction
> 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.
>
This is a mapping for renderer and 
it is incorrect.

Developer of the Standard Map Style
sending this message is not approving
this kind of tagging.

Please use area:highway for road areas
and landuse=highway for area used for
road infrastructure if you want to map this kind of thing.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition

[Mateusz Konieczny]

17 Dec 2019, 17:58 by silentspike...@gmail.com:

> The `building` tag actually specifies the original purpose or form of the 
> building - it just happens that this usually aligns with the current use. As 
> such, I think it's fine to leave them tagged as `building=apartments`.
>
I would do exactly this way and add 
disused=yes.

IMHO mapping closed convenience shop where just
sign/visible interior remain as
shop=convenience + disused=yes
is a mistake as it is no longer a shop.
disused:shop=convenience would make more sense
But for example landuse=quarry that is no
longer used but is still 
a clearly visible object is still a quarry
so in this case landuse=quarry + disused=yes is preferable

Buildings seems to fit the second case,
building tag describes building construction,
not building use.

Building constructed as a church,
now used as a warehouse but still
clearly constructed as a church is building=church

Church building that is now unused
is building=church

Apartments building that is now unused
is building=church.
>
> See: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:use> . Interestingly 
> that wiki page points to the lifecycle prefix page for the case of disused 
> buildings, but I'd say feel free to use `building:use=disused` to explicitly 
> tag them for future mappers to see.
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:22 PM Jez Nicholson <> jez.nichol...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>> Change it to building=yes + disused:building=apartments ?...it's still a 
>> building, but the original use is now disused?
>>
>> - Jez
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 14:51 Gareth L, <>> o...@live.co.uk>> > wrote:
>>
>>> There are some tower blocks near me which have been emptied of residents 
>>> ahead of eventual demolition of the buildings. They’re not coming back into 
>>> use due to issues with their construction. 
>>> http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/lzDlWfY8iYo2cUVmO1FNmQ/photo>>>  They’re 
>>> boarded up to secure them in the interim.
>>>
>>> All the guidance I can find on the abandoned or disused tags are to leave 
>>> the building as defined but to use abandoned/disused prefix on the amenity. 
>>>
>>> These didn’t have an amenity though. They do still exist on the ground, but 
>>> no longer function as apartments.
>>>
>>> I’d like to use construction style tagging, but it doesn’t feel quite right 
>>> looking at all examples I’ve found. e.g.
>>> Building=disused
>>> Disused=apartments
>>>
>>> What have you used for buildings which are awaiting demolition, or are 
>>> undergoing a protracted demolition process but are not amenities?
>>>
>>> Gareth
>>> ___
>>>  Talk-GB mailing list
>>>  >>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>>  >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>> ___
>>  Talk-GB mailing list
>>  >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Mateusz Konieczny]

It sounds like traffic_calming=table
(not 100% sure).

18 Dec 2019, 17:20 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> Returning to the original issue, I think I've worked out what the problem is. 
> It's that on a crossing node, kerb=* is fine (it describes the 
> presence/attributes of the kerb on the subsidiary highway) but barrier=kerb 
> should *not* be used. 
>
> Combining kerb=* with highway=crossing is blessed by Wiki:
>
>
>>  If the kerb is identical on both sides of a crossing, it is possible to add 
>> the >> kerb <>>> =*>>  tag to the >> highway 
>> >> =>> crossing 
>> >>  node, which 
>> sacrifices accuracy for simplicity, consider using kerb:left and kerb:right 
>> if the kerbs differ.>>   
>>
>
> but this doesn't say that barrier=kerb should be included on the crossing 
> node! 
>
> I think barrier=kerb + highway=crossing should be regarded as a mistake. 
> Taginfo shows ~ 1000 of them (0.47 of barrier=kerb nodes; 0.03% of 
> highway=crossing nodes) which should fixable.
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Philip Barnes <> p...@trigpoint.me.uk> > 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote:
>>  > On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
>>  > > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied sports 
>>  > > cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at 
>> low 
>>  > > speed.
>>  > 
>>  > Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and the 
>>  > resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London.  As 
>>  > such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs.
>>  
>>  Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly 
>> acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles  over lowered kerbs to 
>> access private property. 
>>  
>>  Phil (trigpoint)
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>   ___
>>  > Talk-GB mailing list
>>  > >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>  > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>  >
>>  
>>  -- 
>>  Sent from my Sailfish device
>>  ___
>>  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] What is farmland?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

16 Dec 2019, 11:07 by revi...@pacific-rim.net:

> -- Original Message --
> From: "Dave F via Talk-GB" <> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> >
> 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?
>
Allows to distinguish between one huge
field and multiple small, less likely to
degenerate into uneditable multipolygon
with far too many ways.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ITO! World Tools

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28 Nov 2019, 11:30 by jez.nichol...@gmail.com:

> As Jerry says, the key feature was that it compared OS road names to OSM and 
> highlighted the differences.
>
Just to check: was it containing any third-party data where 
"the licence explicitly excludes rights in third party data and therefore you 
need to take the same steps as you would for CC0 licenced material. "
would cause it to become unsuitable for OSM use?

See
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#Open_Government_Licence_.28OGL.29_based_licences

> The Microsoft Open Data Team recently analysed 
> streets-with-no-name-but-lots-of-houses which threw up positive hits, and 
> some potentially false positives of new housing estates which do not have 
> road names yet and auxiliary service roads.
>
StreetComplete would suffer from the same issue, though there is some benefit 
from tagging noname=yes

> I'd like to see a new tool be built
>
Sounds like something doable, but for me it goes onto a big pile of "nice idea, 
not enough free time"
for now. 

Also, licence issue would need to be confirmed to be not existing (has somebody 
did a review
who makes this data? Is there even any third party data there?)

> i'd also like someone to fund it being built and sustain it either through a 
> grant or donated work.
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] ITO! World Tools

[Mateusz Konieczny]

27 Nov 2019, 22:10 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> Apologies if this has already been announced. ITO! World have stopped 
> supporting their very helpful set of OpenStreetMap tools. Please see the 
> announcement here: > 
> https://www.itoworld.com/ito-openstreetmap-tools-announcement/>  
>
> Does anyone know the best, or suitable alternative, tool that replaces their 
> analysis tools for the missing road names? Their tools also highlighted road 
> coverage by local authority which was helpful.
>
How tool for missing road names worked?

How it was used?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM-UK misunderstands the British Isles

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Can you explain what you 
want to achieve?

This message seems to complain
about something, but it is unclear 
what is the problem.
13 Nov 2019, 16:08 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:
> Someone involved with OSM-UK may wish to check the definition of The British 
> Isles:
> https://www.britannica.com/place/British-Isles
>
> They may also wish to have a read of this:
> https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/cabinet-office/external-relations/constitution/
>
>
> What is the size of OSM-UK's membership?
>
>
> 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] Monochrome map layers

[Mateusz Konieczny]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_on_Paper may be useful


12 Nov 2019, 15:59 by m...@good-stuff.co.uk:

> Does anyone know of a map layer/tile set that is completely
> monochrome? I want to create some maps specifically for printing, but
> 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.
>
> Specifically, what I want them for is to print off maps of local
> neighbourhoods and villages for use when delivering leaflets (yes,
> this is general election related!), so that people can easily see
> where they need to go and mark off, using a highlighter, the streets
> they have done.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Mark
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Poly Tunnels vs Greenhouses

[Mateusz Konieczny]

We have over 1800 building=tent and over 14 000 building=houseboat.

I feel comfortable with tagging them as building=greenhouse.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/building#values

disclaimer: not from UK, but have plenty of objects matching this description

8 Nov 2019, 20:18 by bpran...@gmail.com:

> Hi Everyone
>
> Large areas of farmland are being covered with poly tunnels which are readily 
> apparent from aerial imagery which are sometimes tagged as 
> building=greenhouse. I've always hesitated from tagging them at all as they 
> are not to me really buildings: they are more temporarily constructed,  using 
> cheap materials akin to a transparent tent or marquee and certainly without 
> permanent foundations.
> They could certainly be tagged as man_made= ( but what? ). No great 
> preferences here from me but it would be good to have a UK tagging guideline
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Map Rules

[Mateusz Konieczny]

5 Nov 2019, 00:37 by andrew+...@pluven.co.uk:

> I was thinking of using a paper OS map to identify public footpaths
> which are not currently on OSM, and use it to plan and navigate (map and
> compass) a route along those paths.
>
> If I get a GPS trace (e.g. with OSMTracker) while I walk that route, is
> it acceptable to use this GPS data to update OSM, or would it be
> considered a derivative of OS data?
>
I often use copyrighted maps to plan trip and spot things unmapped in OSM.

But during trip itself I am not using any copyrighted maps to ensure that
I am mapping based on ground survey rather than copying copyrighted data.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

[Mateusz Konieczny]

24 Oct 2019, 22:48 by rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com:

> Hi all,
>
> Before I start this message, I would like to say that I am looking for 
> solutions and not wishing to open the flood gates on abuse of the iD editors. 
> On the whole they do a great job and even when we disagree it should be with 
> respect. Right now on to the message itself:
>
>
> It seems like the iD editor's "upgrade this" feature is replacing 
> crossing=zebra with crossing=marked but NOT adding crossing_ref=zebra to the 
> node. If lots of users make use of this "feature" in the UK then we stand to 
> lose some valuable data. Taginfo UK says there are 4,710 crossing=zebra 
> features in the UK.
>
> I have added a comment on to the GitHub issue but no reply yet.
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6962 
> 
>
I would suggest opening a new issue request GB specific - maybe with something 
like 
"I checked sample of 100 crossing tagged this way, error rate is low".

Comments in a closed issue are likely to be lost/unnoticed.

Though with just 5k crossing it seems that bot edit would be preferable if
- error rate is considered low
- crossing_ref tagging is acceptable
- there is no realistic plan to fight with iD over deprecating crossing=zebra
- bot edits are considered as acceptable

Why bot edit is preferable?
- cooperation with iD developers is not necessary
- more people can do it (I may do it in case of a clear support)
- adding complex region-based handling for 5k objects is making maintenance of 
editor
 complex, it is likely to not be done by iD developers
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Licensability of an employee's work

[Mateusz Konieczny]

21 Oct 2019, 13:47 by for...@david-woolley.me.uk:

> I meant you should use an account that clearly belongs to the company. I 
> guess you could have an account for each relevant employee, but that will 
> cause problems when an employee changes job, either internally, or to another 
> employer.
>
One can operate multiple accounts. I would say that it is preferable to have 
separate accounts
for bot edits, paid edits and hobby edits.

And single account for a company is a communication nightmare.

>
> Definitely do not use the same account to submit personal contributions and 
> company ones.
>
>
> On 21/10/2019 12:37, Edward Bainton wrote:
>
>> Thanks, David.
>>
>> Discussion ongoing on the legal list, but FYI from Frederick Ramm, who 
>> opines:
>>
>>  > PS: I would strongly advise against using a "corporate account" that
>>  > groups the activities of many individuals as it makes communication
>>  > between the group/company members and other members difficult, and good
>>  > communication is a cornerstone of every successful organised editing
>>  > activity.
>>
>> I don't know if that's precisely what you meant, but here for info (without 
>> judgment either way)
>>
>> Edward
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 at 20:08, David Woolley > > wrote:
>>
>>  On 18/10/2019 17:43, Edward Bainton wrote:
>>  > *If an employee edits the map in the course of their employment,
>>  has the
>>  > work been adequately licensed to OSM/the big wide Open?*
>>  >
>>
>>  I think it is true worldwide that employers have the copyright in work
>>  for hire, and only they can licence the use of their copyright.  If the
>>  map is being edited at the employers request, the employer should
>>  create
>>  an OSM account for such purposes.
>>
>>  In the UK, if you day job is producing copyrighted maps, you will
>>  almost
>>  certainly find that anything you attempt to do on OSM comes under the
>>  employer's copyright.  California, in the USA, is a notable
>>  exception to
>>  this.
>>
>>
>>  ___
>>  Talk-GB mailing list
>>  Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
>>  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] FIXME/fixme/OSm Notes Quarterly Project

[Mateusz Konieczny]

21 Oct 2019, 11:46 by bpran...@gmail.com:

> Hi everyone
>
> So  far according tothe taginfo script we've managed to ADD 415 fixmes and 
> remove 84 FIXMEs. I don't have data yet on OSM Notes. Don't know what's going 
> on here with the increase when the aim of the project is to reduce the 
> numbers by fixing the issues indicated nad thereby improve the qualit yof the 
> data.
>
In my typical mapping surveys, even targeted at fixing fixmes and closing notes 
I often add more
than close.

For example single "fixme=continue" may be fixed, new path surveyed.
And multiple new "fixme=continue" added at junctions of just surveyed path 
where further 
not yet surveyed paths are present.

I would also compare with previous months - maybe previously people were adding 
say 400 fixmes/month
and removing 10/month?

> Should we be converting fixmes to OSM Notes -will this give the occasional 
> mapper more chance of seeing them and adding detail or fixing them?
>
> Should we be actively dissuading the use of fixmes for the same reason?
>
Fixme are useful in cases where it is valuable to attach them to a specific 
object.

fixme="verify path geometry" is often more clear when added to a way
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published - proposed conflation process

[Mateusz Konieczny]

(1)

I would suggest also generating 
big OSM file with this data (without conflation, 
just what would be imported into unmapped area)
and running JOSM validator on it.
It may find bugs in data, proposed
conversion and in JOSM itself.


(2)
I would advise also consulting
OSM community after steps 4, 5, 6.

Just post on talk-gb and process feedback.

--
(3)
What is also missing is 
- posting in imports mailing list
- obtaining permission from OSM community for import
(Assuming that process continues to be as great
as so far it should be without problems).
- documenting new proposed tags on OSM Wiki
and getting feedback
(Full proposal process is not necessary,
but may be considered, but at least
post about new proposed tags on tagging mailing list. 
Things like that often benefit from additional review)

But mappers should be able to check
what exactly will be changed.

Agreeing on principle that data may be useful
does not mean that any import is ok.


-
(4)

Have you considered importing 
some topics separately?

For example - in the first run import just
bicycle parkings.

---++

 13 Oct 2019, 15:17 by list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net:

>
>
> I've been looking at the various tools available, e.g. JOSM Conflation, 
> Hootenanny, OpenStreetMap Live Conflation, etc.
>
> Whatever tool is best, a process is needed. May I seek comments on this 
> proposal which would be put to TfL in my report to them:
>
>
> 
>
>
> A proposed process for conflation would be:
>
>
> 1. Seek OSM community agreement in principle that the CID data is useful for 
> OSM (done).
>
>
> 2. Confirm licensing compatibility (done).
>
>
> 3. Consult on proposed technical translation of data (as per discussion in 
> this talk-gb thread, ongoing).
> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/
>
>
> 4. Write a programming script based on this technical translation, which 
> converts the CID data (using the version containing OSM IDs) to .osm format. 
> The fundamental aim of this is to get the CID data to be as compatible with 
> OSM norms as possible, so that amount of effort needed in the eventual 
> conflation tool will be as low as possible. This converted dataset is 
> referred to below as the “External OSM-compatible format dataset”. This will 
> require expert programming work undertaken by a programmer fully conversant 
> with the OSM data model. Estimate: 10 days.
>
>
> 5. ALPHA STAGE: small-scale merge of data into OSM. This stage aims to prove 
> that the data is capable of being converted, and to demonstrate to the OSM 
> community that it can be undertaken sensitively and accurately. It does not 
> seek to produce a tool selection recommendation. This work should be 
> undertaken by someone with experience of JOSM and the JOSM Conflation plugin. 
> Estimate: 3-5 days.
>
> i. Identify a suitable extract of the CID data covering only an area of 10-20 
> smaller streets. This should be an outer London area, and avoid main roads, 
> so that in the event that problems materialise, the effect on real users of 
> OSM data is low. It should include both point-based and line-based assets, 
> giving a good overview. It should aim to have a good variety of CID assets 
> rather than the same type of asset dominating.
>
> ii. Install the JOSM editor and the JOSM Conflation plugin, which provides a 
> toolset for this alpha project. JOSM Conflation is the most sensible option, 
> as this is most widely used conflation tool in the OSM community. Although it 
> requires manual inspection, it is workable for an alpha project at this 
> smaller scale.
>
> iii. Attempt a merge of the External OSM-compatible format dataset using this 
> tool.
>
> iv. Carefully and thoroughly observe the correctness of the data, iterating 
> the script output and repeating these alpha steps until correctness is 
> achieved.
>
> v. Save the merged import data into the live OSM dataset and request 
> community feedback.
>
> vi. Manually fix up any identified problems arising from this feedback so 
> that there is correctness, and fix the underlying problem in the script.
>
> vii. At this point, feasibility of conversion has been established, and 
> community confidence will be much stronger.
>
>
> 6. BETA STAGE: larger-scale merge of data for one area. This stage aims to 
> identify the best merging tool for a fuller conversion with a view to 
> creating a fully-optimised workflow. Estimate: 4-8 weeks.
>
> i. Identify a suitable extract of the CID data to undertake a pilot 
> conversion project. One of the 25 CID data packages would be an ideal size 
> for such an evaluation, and each package is likely to contain sufficient 
> variety.
>
> ii. Identify 2-3 most likely merging tools, e.g. JOSM Conflation and 
> Hootenanny (see below).
>
> iii. Install each such merging tool and learn and practice its use. The time 
> required for such installation and evaluation should not be underestimated. 
> These systems involve widely different 

Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

4 Oct 2019, 01:26 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:
> There's no point in importing to stand alone nodes as deliveries are destined 
> for buildings. 
>
Importing accurate and complete address
nodes on a suitable licence is certainly
helpful.

Not sure is it applying also to incomplete
set, but based on my experience address
nodes are very helpful and allow to do less boring survey.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] non-squared buildings

[Mateusz Konieczny]

30 Sep 2019, 12:55 by ajt1...@gmail.com:

> one of the complaints - perhaps because it's an "easy to find"problem 
> - is unsquared (or unrounded) buildings
>
Common issue was that traced geometry was sometimes utterly unrelated to
geometry of object on the ground.

Unsquared check is probably attempt to detect this kind of situation.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Is it possible to buy any services there?

24 Sep 2019, 15:20 by tonyo...@gmail.com:

>
> I think this is all premature. The shops still have the branding,  they 
> could be taken over by a new company operating as Thomas  Cook. I Think 
> that nothing should be done until there is greater  clarity.
>
>
> Tony Shield
>
>
> TonyS999
>
> On 24/09/2019 14:10, Tadeusz Cantwell  wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I have used once shop=vacant before, nowthat you mention it. 
>> Will read up on the wiki to see thedifferent intended uses for them. 
>> The old_name is an interestingoption. 
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 14:00,  Jez Nicholson <>> 
>> jez.nichol...@gmail.com >> >  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cookmyself 
>>>
>>> You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook  maybe
>>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34  Tadeusz Cantwell, <>>> 
>>> t4d...@gmail.com   wrote:
>>>
 I changed the three shops in N.I to  
 disused;shop=travel-agent since I wasn't sure what the  
 best practice was in this case. Not all of them had  the 
 wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Licences

[Mateusz Konieczny]

10 Sep 2019, 16:09 by robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com:

> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 13:49, Stephen Colebourne  wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see some guidance on whether data can be taken directly
>> from a business's website and entered directly into OSM. eg. on the
>> "contact us" page there is often address, postcode, phone number,
>> opening hours. This page
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:postal_code says "You can even
>> look them up on the official website of the place" which suggests you
>> can, but normal copyright of websites would suggest you can't.
>>
>
> My take is that if it's an independent store with a single site, or a
> small group -- say up to about half a dozen premises -- then you can
> use the address(es) listed on their official website, as they're
> un-copyrightable facts. For chains with more stores, the addresses of
> each branch will form part of a database, and then database rights put
> them off-limits for OSM, unless you get specific permission from the
> business.
>
Note
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2019-July/thread.html 

discussion that have some quite 
 arguments that in this case
database rights may not apply.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'Sources' tags

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Manual addition is still useful as it 
 confirms that editor guessed correctly
(iD will add this data both for user
tracing from imagery and one who
ignored it).

7 Sep 2019, 19:54 by bainton@gmail.com:

> I've noticed the changeset data includes the aerial image used (presumably at 
> the moment you hit 'save', if you've referred to several?)
>
> Does this mean I don't need to add a source=aerial_imagery tag before I save 
> a changeset? iD doesn't have it available as default; you have to choose it 
> under 'add field'.
>
> Thanks.
>___
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)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

5 Sep 2019, 00:40 by bainton@gmail.com:

> Out of interest, is OS's position on derived data clearly the correct one 
> legally speaking?  I note the wiki talks in terms of OS 'claiming' IP in the 
> derived data, not that it actually *is* their IP, so I wondered. 
>
As far as copyright goes, this seems fairly logical - without having copyright 
on derived data
one would be allowed to trace OSM/Google maps/other copyrighted map, get exact 
copy and
claim that it is free from any copyright/database rights/any legal limitations.

That seems to be an obvious truck-sized loophole that is probably not supposed 
to exist.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2 Sep 2019, 14:42 by robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com:

> Any mappers with a few minutes to spare might like to have a look at
> their local area, and see if there are any shop=yes objects they could
> re-tag with a more specific value. Some resources to help:
>
> * Overpass Turbo query to find shop=yes objects:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/M0w (Pan/zoom to the area of interest, then
> click on run. Try a smaller area if the query times out.)
>
For the overpass query I recommend rather http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/M1A 
 that 
is not complaining about "amenity=fuel shop=yes" (though it is still better to 
map 
shop as a separate object rather than as a property).

It should be also findable by running JOSM validator and it is one of issues 
reported by
Osmose - see
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=9=54.738=-1.868==1%2C2%2C3==
 


As usual, in case of bogus validator complaints for valid data - report it to 
authors of a validator.
Osmose devs are good and JOSM devs are magnificent at handling them.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2 Sep 2019, 15:30 by stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk:

> I have found, variously (aside from those without a shop tag at all) 
> “houseware”, “household”, “doityourself”, “department_store”.
>
> I would suggest that “houseware” or “household” (is this a recognised tag?) 
> comes closest, or maybe even (from the Wiki - I haven’t found live examples 
> yet) “variety_store"
>  
>
> But how to tell! There isn’t a standardised approach, by any stretch of the 
> imagination.
>
>
In case of multiple well fitting values any of them is better than shop=yes.

For example, something on border of shop=convenience and shop=supermarket
would be well tagged by both shop=convenience and shop=supermarket.

In the worst case mappers will keep changing the tag from time to time.

It is certainly better than unspecific shop=yes.

(not sure whatever values listed in this specific case are well fitting or not)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] postcode mapping (was Re: Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only))

[Mateusz Konieczny]

30 Jul 2019, 11:56 by nd...@redhazel.co.uk:

> 10M addresses that have yet to be surveyed.
>
Is it typical for post codes to be posted like housenumbers? Either on 
buildings or postboxes?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_postcodes 
 is not clear,
http://www.livingwithdragons.com/2009/06/my-postbox-obsession 
 suggest that it 
may be true.

I am asking as it may be a suitable quest for StreetComplete.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default

[Mateusz Konieczny]

26 Jul 2019, 14:14 by mar...@templot.com:

> 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.
>
Amber there is *highway*=path
and land*use*=water.

And *natural*=water used for man
made water bodies.

Literal meaning of key is rarely always true.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth

[Mateusz Konieczny]

19 Jul 2019, 13:55 by for...@david-woolley.me.uk:

> I think mapping it in conflict with a published official designation will 
> devalue OSM.
>
Not sure is it happening in UK but Poland has some private driveways that
are officially assigned status of major road ("droga krajowa").

There is also officially existing major road route, crossing river by bridge 
that
was destroyed in WW II and not rebuild. As result there is highway=track
that is officially a major road.

Japan has steps that have assigned rank of major road (for some historic 
reasons).

In some cases deviating from official designations makes sense (
not sure is it actually happening here).
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

17 Jul 2019, 12:58 by nd...@redhazel.co.uk:

> I haven't seen such guidelines for the UK myself. In general people prefer 
> having address tags on buildings. Separate address points are more of a stop 
> gap solution until building shapes are sufficiently accurate. 
>
In that case maybe it would be a good idea to merge existing address-only nodes
with building outlines as the first step?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Automated Code-Point Open postcode editing (simple cases only)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

16 lip 2019, 23:19 od nd...@redhazel.co.uk:

> added as separate points rather than tags (automated edit will add 
> addr:postcode tags directly to the building, this is what I chose to do 
> manually as well)
>
Duplicating address data or adding
part to a separate node and part to
building outline seems incorrect to be.

At least in Poland address imports
are obligated to handle this situation.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN Aberdeen Import Completion

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Thanks for making this import!

16 lip 2019, 13:47 od silentspike...@gmail.com:

> Just an update to say the import has been completed.
>
> I wrote a diary entry to share some insight (> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TheEditor101/diary/390283 
> > ), but no 
> doubt forgot to mention something so feel free to ask me anything.
>
> Now it's time for me to start confirming stop details and fixing 
> discrepancies.
>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data

[Mateusz Konieczny]

4 lip 2019, 19:28 od talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> On 04/07/2019 16:39, Martin Wynne wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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)
>
In that sense everything is physical,
boundaries also have paper records
and there are some markers.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> It's disappointing to see, once again, the PT schema developers hi-jacking 
> wiki pages to enforce their schema. The comments column is meant to describe 
> how to use the tag not promote alternatives. This needs changing.
>
Yeah, there is nothing more rigorous
in extremely verbose PTv2 tagging.
> highway=bus_stop is perfectly adequate to locate the place where people wait 
> for a bus. 'platform' is redundant
>
> PTv2 is a complete mess. it needs rescinding.
>
I completely agree here.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data

[Mateusz Konieczny]

4 lip 2019, 17:11 od talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

>
> In OSM we map *physical* objects only.
>
What about border - especially 
lower administrative units and 
nature reserves?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28 Jun 2019, 02:29 by for...@david-woolley.me.uk:

> On 28/06/2019 00:56, Warin wrote:
>
>> that are also holes in them (they usually omit making the hole, so an added 
>> car parking area will be covered by trees until I notice
>>
>
> I believe that is a renderer bug.  Generally smaller, fully nested, areas 
> should cut out holes in incompatible backgrounds without explicit relations.
>
It is not a renderer bug. At least in case of OSM Carto, where tree-covered 
area is deliberately
working in this way to indicate missing multipolygons. And to support case of 
tree covered areas of 
various types.

Missing explicit holes are not a biggest mapping quality issue. but  it is 
better to 
make it explicit, in almost all cases "is it incompatible area" is not actually 
obvious and the
same across world. Also processing such data with implicit holes is 
unreasonably hard.

Though I am still not a fan of using multipolygons where there are no holes in
areas.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Is metric or imperial units system used for max weight signs in UK?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

According to information that I found UK switched to metric system, 
at least as far as max weight signs go - with exception of Guernsey that use 
hundredweight
as a unit.

Is this correct? Are there still traffic signs using pounds as an unit?

I am asking as I am during implementing 
https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/361 

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