Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

As others have said, having some uniform national scheme of places/areas that each address is assigned to is useful for anyone using addresses. No-one outside the local area will know which postal districts correspond to which areas, or even where many remote postal areas are. Local authorities

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 12:02, Alan Mackie wrote: > > I struggle with what to call the in that example. > > A recent suggestion for named terraces was to use addr:street= > and addr:parentstreet=, but if the relates the > whole building to to parentstreet, then reconstructing an address seems

Re: [Talk-GB] Anglican churches

On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 20:07, Donald Noble wrote: > Forgive me if I've missed it somewhere, but what do the different colours > represent on the nameless places of worship page? It's not documented anywhere at the moment, but the different coloured markers on the "nameless" maps at e.g.

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

Like it or not, in the UK addresses are defined by Royal Mail. They're introduced the concept of a "postal town", and this is one of the few common elements that each address must always have. Once you accept that the Post Town is intended to be a nearby significant place (to help with delivery

Re: [Talk-GB] Anglican churches

On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 18:05, Sean Blanchflower wrote: > In case anyone's interested I set myself the lockdown project of ensuring all > the active Anglican churches in England are mapped consistently in OSM, and > have gotten as far as I realistically can for the moment. > > The net result is

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 13:18, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > > https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg > > There you go, free of any supposed copyright infringement. Not quite. Before we're able to use any third-party data in OSM, we need to verify that it is available under a suitable licence. So you would

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 12:37, Dave F wrote: > On 08/12/2020 12:08, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB > > wrote: > >> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway > >> (https://www.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote: > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the > Wiltshire Definitive Map. I see that you've put source="Wiltshire Definitive Map" in the tagging. Do you have

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 15:29, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote: > A shame really, an open, standard API - and accompanying open source clients > to the API - adopted by all councils for problem reporting would be a great > thing to have. It would indeed be great. An open standard for this

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

On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 09:53, Ken Kilfedder wrote: > IpswichMapper forwarded me this note, apparently received from NLS via an > enquiry made by Rob-from-OSMF: > > > “I wish I could give you better news on the 1940s OS maps of south-east > > England. > > Unfortunately, you’re right, they were

Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 at 12:35, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: > 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

Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 09:42, Jez Nicholson wrote: > Agreed, "point" sucks as a value, I won't use itmy fundamental reason for > it not being a 'centre' was size, but a Recycling Point _could_ be seen as a > mini Recycling Centre that only accepts recyclable waste. You can see a >

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN wiki page

On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 10:42, Jez Nicholson wrote: > My personal opinion is that UPRNs never apply to a road or road section. They > apply to something that you cannot see, like a grit bin that is no longer > there. It's definitely possible for UPRNs to be assigned to streets. I think you can

Re: [Talk-GB] "Survey Me" Tool Update

On Sat, 7 Nov 2020 at 13:02, ael via Talk-GB wrote: > On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:11:42PM +0000, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > For anyone who's interested, I've just updated my "Survey Me" tool at > > https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/ . > > I took a l

[Talk-GB] "Survey Me" Tool Update

For anyone who's interested, I've just updated my "Survey Me" tool at https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/ . It now includes food retail chains where OSM mapping doesn't agree with the "Retail Points" dataset from Geolytix ( https://blog.geolytix.net/tag/retail-points/ ). The idea of "Survey Me" is

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM UK's first tile layer

On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 at 00:22, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Just in time for the AGM, I have just published OSM UK's first tile layer. No > don't get too excited it is not a full map render. Instead I have produced a > very simple tiling of the Land Registry polygon data now that this is under > the

Re: [Talk-GB] Q4 2020 Quarterly Project: Defibrillators

On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 at 16:20, Gareth L wrote: > The UK quarterly project for Q4 has been selected as Defibrillators. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q4_Project:_Defibrillators > > A check on taginfo shows there are 4181 nodes and ways with > emergency=defibrillator in Great

Re: [Talk-GB] New Bing Imagery

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 15:36, SK53 wrote: > This isn't necessarily true. If you open any OS Open Data product in QGIS one > is now confronted by a bewildering array of ways of converting from the OSGB > national grid co-ordinates to WGS84. > > The optimum one currently uses the 2015 file of

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

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 14:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Sustrans' own website mapping has just been updated to take account of this, > which you can see at https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn . The dashed > lines are reclassified, while some sections have been removed entirely. > > It's

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 16:56, SK53 wrote: > OpenRoads from the Ordnance Survey contains a field containing the toid for > the street name. I wonder if we should include these alongside usrn & uprn. > They may be more useful than either for gathering complex roads which share a > name. I'd

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 23:12, Nick wrote: > Could the data be included in https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/ ? I had a quick look at the National Charge Point Registry data a while ago. I got as far as plotting a map showing both the OSM charge points and those from the Registry:

[Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map

I'm not completely sure if/how we can best make use of the new OS OpenData (UPRNs, USRNs and related links) in OpenStreetMap, but as a first step I've set up a quick slippy map with the UPRN locations shown: https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/ (zoom in to level 16 to show the data) The UPRN

Re: [Talk-GB] Land Registry INSPIRE data - 1 July OGL release

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 20:50, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Looks like 1 July will be a big open data release day. Not only do we get the > USRN and UPRN data, but the land registry data will also be released: > > https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inspire-data-to-be-shared-under-open-terms > > Should

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW archive

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 20:30, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 20:50 +0200, BD wrote: >> I was looking at the discussion about PRoW and how to request the >> information from local council. I wonder if there is a comprehensive >> list/central location where we have stored

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 14:12, nathan case wrote: > Thanks Tony and Adam for your responses. It is good to know that LCC have > released the parish IDs in the data as well. Makes a lookup table easy to > produce. > > It still remains that if I were a casual mapper and wanted to add an unmapped

[Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

This may have got lost in the discussion about highway=no, but I'd like to get some feedback on what prow_ref format is best to use in Lancashire. See my previous message below: On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 19:23, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > The format of the Right of Way numbers se

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 19:33, Mike Baggaley via Talk-GB wrote: > >Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically > >blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing > >people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive >

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:54, Adam Snape wrote: > I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a > public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a > somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's > certainly being

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 14:13, nathan case wrote: > Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following the > definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being > rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the fixme as Tony > suggests.

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

As a general principle, I think we should certainly map both (a) any physical paths on the ground and (b) the legal Definitive Line (though not necessarily as a highway if it isn't one). These might be separate ways if the two line differ, though they'd normally be one and the same. It would also

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 15:34, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > I wasn't familiar with the situation in Dorset but MapThePaths uses the 'SE > 4/22' scheme (actually it appears as 'SE 4 22') so if people want to use MTP > as a source for prow_refs, then that would be the format to use. In general, I

[Talk-GB] prow_ref format for Dorset Public Rights of Way

I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new counties. In particular, I've been looking at the data from Dorset. I've hit a small issue though, in that the council uses two different formats for their Right of

Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 12:27, Peter Neale wrote: > I tried following the link to your proposed new source of “official” data, > but none of the 3 links to the data worked very well for me. > > Link 1: (API format) led to http 404 error. > Link 2 (CSV(TSV) format – led to http 404 error > Link

Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites

On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 20:40, Peter Neale wrote: > I looked up my 2 "wholesale" pharmacies on the list. Unfortunately, they are > both classed as "community", so will continue to be included in your checking > tool. > > So... ...should we: > a. Continue as we are: Plot them in OSM, tag them

Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites

On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 18:08, Peter Neale wrote: > As Boots' stores don't ALL have a pharmacy counter, IMHO they should be > tagged as "shop=chemist". Those that DO have a pharmacy (dispensing > prescriptions) should be additionally tagged, either with "pharmacy=yes", or > with a separate

Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites

On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 18:39, Dave Love wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 12:08 +0100, SK53 wrote: > > Robert Whittaker has a Pharmacy QA > > site > > That shows a Boots missing which I tagged as the brand from the > correction iD wanted (brand=Boots

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 14:26, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 09:21, Tony OSM wrote: > > If the data is to be in the public domain the next step has to be tagging. > > Do we need country specific tags for these two pieces of data? > > What sh

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 09:21, Tony OSM wrote: > If the data is to be in the public domain the next step has to be tagging. > Do we need country specific tags for these two pieces of data? > What should they be? Looking at taginfo, there are a number of different tags in use for UPRN values (see

Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 15:20, nathan case wrote: > The two main components of the green, a wood and a grass area, are separately > mapped as such. > > Where would you add the designation tag? To the boundary or to the two main > landuse components? Or would you create a relation so that the

Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 11:49, nathan case wrote: > I made a recent edit to a local area that has recently been designated a > “Town Green”. > > Edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329 What I would do with these is to separate the legal status from the physical and usage

Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 22:19, RobJN wrote: > It's all a bit unclear but from what I've read it sounds like there will be > a release of the UPRN / UPSN identifiers and their associated geometries > ("coordinates" in some text). I see no reference to address data being part > of the release. There

[Talk-GB] Stale Developments

I'd like to announce a new mini QA tool that I've put together for UK OSMers: Stale Developments: https://osm.mathmos.net/developments/ It finds OSM UK highway and landuse tags with tags values of construction, brownfield and greenfield, which haven't been edited for over a year. The idea is that

Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref reference table

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 14:32, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > > On 26/11/2019 12:01, Tony OSM wrote: > > to the preferred prow_ref format Adlington FP 5. > > As previous, this is not the preferred format. The format should be as > supplied by the LA, the organisation which has the *authority* to

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

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 16:35, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > This message seems to complain > about something, but it is unclear > what is the problem. Having looked at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom I assume the problem was that in the opening sentence under the map, the page

Re: [Talk-GB] Name Suggestion Index

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 08:24, Jez Nicholson wrote: > I was wondering how iD (and Vespucci) decides what to offer as brands when I > create a new feature, or when it suggests something like "Ibis looks like a > brand with incomplete tags". The answer is the >

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Map Rules

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 23:38, Andrew J wrote: > 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

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

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 11:45, Jez Nicholson wrote: > +1 for a bot edit My initial instinct was to say this too. But if most of these crossing=zebra tags were added by iD users who selected "Marked Crossing" and never saw the zebra tag, then how sure are we that almost all Marked Crossings in the

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Licences

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 >

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

On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 21:35, Mike Baggaley wrote: > Hi Robert, Looks interesting. I've signed in and had a look. However, the > first one I looked at is a petrol station, and the wiki indicates that > shop=yes is the correct tagging as an additional tag for amenity=fuel. Hence > I suggest that

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

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 12:40, Silent Spike wrote: > Perhaps a https://maproulette.org challenge would be a good way to track the > progress of this? I've never really used Maproulette before, but I thought this would be a good opportunity to have a go. So here's my attempt at a challenge, for

Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 12:34, Edward Bainton wrote: > I've been sent a map by a local charity that looks after large swathes of > countryside near Peterborough. It's for their own internal use, showing the > extent of their estate. It's based on an OS map, and comes with flags > indicating

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

Since version 4.22 of the Carto map style (which was deployed a few days ago), the generic shop=yes tag is no longer rendered on the default OSM-Carto map at https://www.openstreetmap.org/ . For details of the decision see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3697 . In Great

Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire

On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:59 Dave F via Talk-GB, wrote: > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Public_Rights_of_Way_Data_from_local_councils > > . While there's nothing listed there, it's definitely not ok to use > > the data in OSM. > > Rubbish. > > Just because one person isn't

Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 23:06, Neil Matthews wrote: > In light of some recent edits in South Gloucestershire -- is it ok to > import unsurveyed footpaths based simply on rowmaps data? Based on the licensing information at http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/SG/ my view would be "no". According to

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

On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 22:20, ndrw6 wrote: > Over past several months I've been adding postcodes from Code-Point > Open. I've streamlined the procedure a bit, so I can now add the tags > without spelling out every single one of them, but it is still a manual > and labour intensive process: > >

Re: [Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 21:08, Brian Prangle wrote: > The whole area needs simplification to replace multiple overlaid ways with > multipolygon relations. I'm curious about what you mean here. Are you referring to replacing (in a simple example) two square closed ways that share a common edge,

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Open Greenspace tileset

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 10:24, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I've put together a simple tileset showing greenspace areas from Ordnance > Survey's recent OS Open Greenspace release. The data is released under the > standard OS open licence therefore suitable for tracing in OSM. > > Many features are

Re: [Talk-GB] Preston Park, Brighton

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 11:15, Jez Nicholson wrote: > I have to admit that Preston Park is my personal micromapping playground. I > walk the hound there nearly every day and I can capture excruciating detail > (so shoot me!). >

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric car charging points

On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 21:31, BD wrote: > Some time ago I came across "National Charge Point Registry", which can be > found here: > https://data.gov.uk/dataset/1ce239a6-d720-4305-ab52-17793fedfac3/national-charge-point-registry > > I wonder if we could import that data into OSM? I'm sure that

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMappers meeting in Norfolk

On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 20:31, Rob Nickerson wrote: > I hope the Norfolk event went well yesterday. I hope to see some more in the > future. Yes, I think it went well, and many thanks to Nora for taking the initiative and organising it. I've put together a quick wiki page for what will hopefully

[Talk-GB] Use of amenity=university within the University of Cambridge

I've noticed that there are rather a lot of amenity=university objects in Cambridge, most of which seem to be on individual buildings rather than actual universities or even university sites. http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/HLV This seems to be in line with the tagging scheme described at

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 at 12:55, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote: > Any conclusion on how to tag them now? > > Perhaps leisure=park, park=common? For places in the UK that are actually registered common land, then I'd suggest using designation=common_land to denote that fact, as it's an official

[Talk-GB] OSM Tool Updates

Just a quick message to let people know about a few recent updates to my OSM UK tools: * I've added a new class of objects to "Survey Me!" -- a tool to help mappers find local issues in need of a ground survey. OSM objects with no name=* tag where one would be expected are now shown with deep

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Hi-vis

On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 at 23:46, Rob Nickerson wrote: > OSM UK are now taking orders for high-vis vests. Show your support for > OpenStreetMap by ordering one or more today at: > > https://osmuk.org/product/osm-uk-hi-vis-vest/ Based on the sample you have, do you have any advice over the sizes?

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 17:08, Adam Snape wrote: > My conclusion from this is that we can safely map postcodes to the building > where their centroids are placed, perhaps avoiding doing so (or adding > FIXMEs) on brand new developments. There is one gotcha to that, which is that PO box

Re: [Talk-GB] Plumb Center (etc)

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 17:17, Ed Loach wrote: > After spotting that the Clacton store has re-branded to Wolseley I > noticed on their website [1] this is national: > "Wolseley replaces these 5 brands: Plumb Center, Parts Center, Drain > Center, Pipe Center, Climate Center" (logos replaced by

Re: [Talk-GB] Facebook Map Query - Thames rendered as Thanames

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 01:44, Steve Doerr wrote: > A user on the Facebook group 'UK Places Editors' has commented on the > fact that some maps on Facebook pages in the vicinity of Putney Bridge > (London) show the River Thames as 'Thanames'. See, for example, >

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Shropshire's rights of way

On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 10:56, James wrote: > I'd like to make Geocaching in my county (Shropshire) more accessible to > those who do not have OS maps, or simply want the convenience of navigating > from a mobile device. This relies on OpenStreetMap having comprehensive > mapping of the county's

[Talk-GB] PRoW Comparison Tool Updates

I've recently made a few updates to my Public Rights of Way Comparison Tool at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ , which people might be interested in: * I've fixed a long-standing bug that meant that each numbered right of way within a parish could only have a single type in my tool. Some

Re: [Talk-GB] New Ghosts Set and Survey Me Auto-Location Feature

On 6 August 2018 at 09:39, Philip Withnall wrote: > Thanks for the updates! A quick question about pharmacy matching: are > we supposed to add the GPhC registration number of the pharmacy to its > node/way in OSM, similarly to how we do FHRS IDs? There seems to be no > guidance for/against this

Re: [Talk-GB] New Ghosts Set and Survey Me Auto-Location Feature

On 6 August 2018 at 12:04, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: >> First there's a new set of objects in my "Ghosts" tool at >> https://osm.mathmos.net/ghosts/. There are 162 still-mapped >> "Co-Op Pharmacy" branches, which shou

Re: [Talk-GB] 'D' class roads references.

On 5 August 2018 at 19:50, David Woolley wrote: > The only place for which I am aware of national legislation making certain > government publications automatically free to use is the USA. Thanks to the EU, we do however have the "Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015"

[Talk-GB] New Ghosts Set and Survey Me Auto-Location Feature

A couple of updates to my tools that you might be interested in: First there's a new set of objects in my "Ghosts" tool at https://osm.mathmos.net/ghosts/. There are 162 still-mapped "Co-Op Pharmacy" branches, which should have been rebranded to become "Well Pharmacy" branches now. Thanks to

[Talk-GB] Updates to 'Survey Me!' tool

A couple of minor updates to my 'Survey Me!' tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/survey/ to tell you about: First there is a new category of FHRS (Food Hygiene Rating System) reference mismatches. This includes items where the number in the fhrs:id=* tag doesn't match a current number in the

[Talk-GB] Documenting prow_ref formats (Was: MapthePaths & Lancashire)

On 13 July 2018 at 19:26, Andrew Black wrote: > I am pondering a similar but simpler question. I would like to add a table > listing each authority at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref > describing the conventions used. I've been working on something like this already as part of

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Talk-GB] Warwickshire footpaths - prow ref

On 7 July 2018 at 13:17, Rob Nickerson wrote: > I'm not sure if I will add the prow_ref as I'm not so sure it has much value > given that they are not signed on the ground. I also don't know what code to > add. Nick has it showing the Parish name/code, then a space, then the ref. I > think this

Re: [Talk-GB] Warwickshire footpaths - prow ref

On 7 July 2018 at 13:17, Rob Nickerson wrote: > I'm not sure if I will add the prow_ref as I'm not so sure it has much value > given that they are not signed on the ground. I also don't know what code to > add. Nick has it showing the Parish name/code, then a space, then the ref. I > think this

Re: [Talk-GB] New Data in PRoW Comparison Tool

On 3 July 2018 at 15:10, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > I've just added another county -- East Sussex -- to my PRoW Comparison > Tool: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/east-sussex/ Devon now added as well: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/devon/ There were a

[Talk-GB] New Data in PRoW Comparison Tool

I've just added another county -- East Sussex -- to my PRoW Comparison Tool: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/east-sussex/ I've also been doing a bit of updating of my table of council Rights of Way Open Data at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/open-data/ . Apart from the lines with

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

On 2 July 2018 at 11:17, Roger Calvert wrote: > I have found a difference in the references given in Map The Paths my area > from that on the local authority maps, and I suspect it is universal. > > The paths are given with a 3 figure reference, but on the maps issued by the > Lake District

Re: [Talk-GB] Two new tools: 'Ghosts' and 'Survey Me'

On 11 June 2018 at 21:37, Andy Mabbett wrote: > I have the same issue; it's telling me there's an "unexpected" school at: > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/9568056#map=18/52.54706/-1.89224 > > It's definitely a school; I drive past it daily; and it has a web presence at: > >

Re: [Talk-GB] Two new tools: 'Ghosts' and 'Survey Me'

On 9 June 2018 at 16:02, Artur R. Czechowski wrote: > How to report false positives to the 3rd party data? Tait's Pharmacy (BD18 > 3HZ) certainly does not exist at mentioned location. Neither there is any > track it existed before or would be exist soon. >

Re: [Talk-GB] Two new tools: 'Ghosts' and 'Survey Me'

On 9 June 2018 at 15:15, Rob Nickerson wrote: > A couple other "Ghosts": I'd be happy to add both of these to http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/ghosts/ if possible and appropriate. > - Total petrol stations (I'm almost certain this brand has gone now but > struggled to find definitive proof) I

[Talk-GB] Two new tools: 'Ghosts' and 'Survey Me'

I'd like to announce two new tools, which may help people improve OSM data in the UK. The first tool is 'Ghosts': http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/ghosts/ I put this together as a result of the discussion on this list last month. The tool aims to track closed and re-named/re-branded UK shops and

Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

On 30 May 2018 at 11:37, Adam Snape wrote: > Over the coming months I'm hoping to individually clarify licensing with all > of the authorities which haven't explicitly, unambiguously and publicly > licensed their RoW data under OGL3 (and, yes, I know that's most of them). > I'll also try and get

Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

On 24 May 2018 at 14:33, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > Following on from the recent topic regarding 1900 historical footpath data, > I'd like to clarify exactly what we can and can't do currently with the > council RoWs if possible. > > a) Copy designation status from

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Project: Post Offices

On 3 May 2018 at 11:25, SK53 wrote: > Can we please avoid changing the meaning of post office by extending it to > courier offices, and restrict it to those places which offer not only a full > service mail offering (aka Universal Postal Service), but the traditional > other

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Project: Post Offices

On 3 May 2018 at 18:57, David Woolley <for...@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote: > On 03/05/18 17:53, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: >> >> I would use a node where the van stops, tagged with > amenity="post_office", name="Over Mobile Post Office Service&quo

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Project: Post Offices

On 3 May 2018 at 14:02, Andy G Wood wrote: > I know one of the unmapped post offices is still "open" in my village > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/branch/110053 > however, it is basically a mobile van that turns up on the village green for > some hours a few days a

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Project: Post Offices

On 2 May 2018 at 19:08, David Woolley wrote: > On 02/05/18 18:52, ael wrote: >> >> I am confused:-) How should a Royal mail local delivery office be >> tagged? It seems that it is not amenity=post_office. I notice that >> I have used post_depot once some time ago, but

[Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Project: Post Offices

We're now one month in to the current Quarterly Project, which aims to use some official Post Office Ltd. branch data released under the OGL to help improve the mapping of Post Offices in OpenStreetMap. As you can see from the graph at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/#history there has

Re: [Talk-GB] Next quarters project: Post Offices

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 08:55 Ed Loach, wrote: > Is there any agreement how to map hosted post offices (one of the outreach > services), such as one held in a pub one morning a week or a community hall > on two mornings a week? > I'm not sure about agreement, but I've been mapping

Re: [Talk-GB] recent School ref:edubase update

On 13 March 2018 at 12:58, Dave F wrote: > Robert Whittaker has recently performed an edit across England & Wales to > update Schools ref:edubase code. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57034975 > > As well as the reference, he's amended some of the names in

Re: [Talk-GB] Petrol stations again

On 8 March 2018 at 21:28, SK53 wrote: > You may not be aware of a new planned import of petrol stations by Ilya. > > The dataset is downloadable, but is large to deal with even in QGIS, and the > direct website link at the time of writing is unusable by me. I therefore >

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode Changes

On 6 March 2018 at 23:36, wrote: > I was looking at Robert Whittaker’s Postcode Stats chart today and noticed > that there seems to be an increase in Sectors with 0 or less than 5% > postcodes mapped where the community had previously got over 5% of postcodes >

[Talk-GB] New Post Office Data and Comparison Tool

Some of you may have already seen that a few weeks ago I eventually got a positive response from Post Office Ltd. (POL) to a request I made for a re-usable list of their branches, and permission to use it to help improve OpenStreetMap:

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

On 31 January 2018 at 11:13, Will Phillips wrote: > I favour using addr:parentstreet rather than addr:substreet for the > following reasons: +1 > 1. The majority of OSM data users and tools/services using OSM data don't > know that either addr:substreet or addr:parentstreet

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

On 30 January 2018 at 11:40, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote: > On 30/01/18 10:14, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: >> >> (There weren't nearly as many objects in case 2 as I thought there >> would be here based on people's comments, so it's possible I've m

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

On 27 January 2018 at 20:09, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > Following on from last quarter's post-code and addresses project, I've > been doing a bit more playing around with UK address data from OSM. > I've put together a new r

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

On 29 January 2018 at 09:18, Lester Caine wrote: > So it ignores a simple 'name' ? which is why a lot of my streets are getting > tagged as wrong? I don't see any reason to have to add addr:street= when the > road already has name= ... The adjacent building use addr:street=

  1   2   3   >