Re: [Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org wrote: Looking at it the best way to do it would be to create an Overlay and add it on top of OpenLayers... However the simplest way to do this currently is probably to use Google Maps My Maps Feature. :( What we really need is someone to produce a database of layers like the My-Maps on Google. Cloudmade Location Management might be a good thing to look at too. This probably needs to be a plugin for a wiki/blog so that its easy to use. ie Drupal, WordPress, etc. Peter. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb I started to glaze over reading that. That's 20 things I'd have to look up before I even knew what you were talking about. If it's low-density, unchanging, undisputed, useful geodata, then why make not make it available to people that want to use it? Just create tags so that you know whether your usage needs to ignore the data or not. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes
Richard Mann wrote: If only it were as black and white as that. In practice it's a continuum of usage, maintenance and signposting, not a fact=yes / fact=no. We have a pretty good rule of thumb, which is Can an independent mapper verify the information?. If there's no way of doing so without being let into the secret by some group of people, it's not verifiable. if joe public wants to put information in, then you need to find somewhere for them to put it, not tell them to go away. Here's where we do fail. We shouldn't tell them to go away, but we should be better at telling them Here's how you present your information based on OSM maps and data. Many questions about putting unsuitable data into the main OSM DB arise because there doesn't seem to be an easy way of producing overlays. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes
2009/7/27 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com: On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:04 PM, John McKerrellj...@mckerrell.net wrote: How about a bus route? Though there's bus stops along the way there's no arrows or anything like that saying bus route goes this way. Not trying to be difficult, just wondering. I can verify which way the number 37 bus goes approximately 60 times a day more often than I can verify where the high tide line is :-) I like to think of the scenario where if two OSMers disagree could a third member join them both at the place in question and arbitrate. With bus routes that's possible. With unofficial cycle routes, that's often not. I'm not saying that *only* information verifiable on-the-ground is acceptable, but it certainly a strong indicator that it's acceptable. And for some reason, the third person is always Andy Robinson in my mind. Curious. Cheers, Andy Now for a silly point. County and Borough Boundaries do are not on the ground, and yet we still want them? Ok you might find the odd road sign, saying Frinsbury Extra or Welcome to Kent but I certainly have not worked out a good way of verify them all on the ground, yet. They all seam to come from some copyrighted source or another. They also like Bus routes have this amazing trouble of moving. Yet we go to some real trouble to get them in the database.. Peter. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes
While a signposted route on the ground is the best criterion for a reactive mapper, I think you can proactively identify cycle routes unambiguously prior to that (at least well enough that there won't be edit wars). Sometimes the reality follows the map. I think the criteria are something like: 1) clear objective for the route (best way from x to y) 2) reasonably clear intended user group (Sustrans' sensible 12-yr old, for instance) 3) route alternatives to have been surveyed on the ground, and considered against those objectives, to the extent that the dominant input becomes local knowledge If the intended user group is sufficiently dominant for the area, I think it's reasonable to put such routes in as the local cycle network. See the ones I've set up in Oxford as examples (use lcn=yes instead of lcn_ref=number if they are unnumbered). In the Oxford case, 3 of the routes are fully signposted, the rest are intermittently signposted, and a reasonable distillation of what has been long-discussed (and putting them on the map is helping to prod the County into improving the signposting). But I wouldn't put in routes that are for small/atypical user groups, or which aren't notably better at achieving an objective than just using the normal road hierarchy. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Richard Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: While a signposted route on the ground is the best criterion for a reactive mapper, I think you can proactively identify cycle routes unambiguously prior to that (at least well enough that there won't be edit wars). Sometimes the reality follows the map. I think the criteria are something like: 1) clear objective for the route (best way from x to y) 2) reasonably clear intended user group (Sustrans' sensible 12-yr old, for instance) 3) route alternatives to have been surveyed on the ground, and considered against those objectives, to the extent that the dominant input becomes local knowledge If the intended user group is sufficiently dominant for the area, I think it's reasonable to put such routes in as the local cycle network. Maybe in some other project, but let's stick to factual data for OSM. The best way to cycle for a dominant user group is not factual data. If you want to make a map showing such routes in order to help cyclists, prod governments or whatever than that's a great idea, but that's not what should go into the OSM db. Cheers, Andy See the ones I've set up in Oxford as examples (use lcn=yes instead of lcn_ref=number if they are unnumbered). In the Oxford case, 3 of the routes are fully signposted, the rest are intermittently signposted, and a reasonable distillation of what has been long-discussed (and putting them on the map is helping to prod the County into improving the signposting). But I wouldn't put in routes that are for small/atypical user groups, or which aren't notably better at achieving an objective than just using the normal road hierarchy. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes
Peter Childs wrote: In short if some local bike group have published them, then map them. They are official to that bike User Group and perfectly good routes to use (I guess) In short feel free to put in a relation for any published route. So long as it either has signs and/or some documented evidence (preferable available under a compatible license) Then map it. If they've been published, that's actually a very good reason *not* to map them, unless there are signposts on the ground. It's a clear violation of copyright without specific written permission. Furthermore, unless the group has based its maps on OSM in the first place, the chances are there will be a derived data problem -- who owns the original mapping the routes were plotted against? If there are signposts on the route, fair enough. If not, our only source of data is a copyright publication. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes
On 27 Jul 2009, at 15:02, Jonathan Bennett wrote: Furthermore, unless the group has based its maps on OSM in the first place, the chances are there will be a derived data problem -- who owns the original mapping the routes were plotted against? If there are signposts on the route, fair enough. If not, our only source of data is a copyright publication. I'm guessing this part of it wouldn't matter as you're not deriving lat/lons from a map, you're saying this route goes down Church Road which is way 3423 in OSM, then Station Road which is way 353234 in OSM, etc.. Copyright issues from the group would obviously still count, unless he's got permission of course. John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes
Jonathan Bennett wrote: If they've been published, that's actually a very good reason *not* to map them, unless there are signposts on the ground. It's a clear violation of copyright without specific written permission. I've obtained permission to publish the routes under CC-BY-SA. This was the first thing I did. Furthermore, unless the group has based its maps on OSM in the first place, the chances are there will be a derived data problem -- who owns the original mapping the routes were plotted against? The routes are primarily published as a description i.e. Starting at X, take the first left, after five hundred meters you come to... Regards, James ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes
2009/7/27 John McKerrell j...@mckerrell.net: On 27 Jul 2009, at 15:02, Jonathan Bennett wrote: Furthermore, unless the group has based its maps on OSM in the first place, the chances are there will be a derived data problem -- who owns the original mapping the routes were plotted against? If there are signposts on the route, fair enough. If not, our only source of data is a copyright publication. I'm guessing this part of it wouldn't matter as you're not deriving lat/lons from a map, you're saying this route goes down Church Road which is way 3423 in OSM, then Station Road which is way 353234 in OSM, etc.. Copyright issues from the group would obviously still count, unless he's got permission of course. John What I think we're saying is; we don't want things on the map that are not actually there on the ground. either via Signs or Real Things. So a Route route round a country park marked with Purple Arrows can be marked. But a Route on a leaflet, notice board (or website) can't be. If you wish to put your own routes on a Blog etc then fine but don't add them to OSM. Unless you put markers on the ground that others can see. Peter. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes
Peter Childs wrote: What I think we're saying is; we don't want things on the map that are not actually there on the ground. either via Signs or Real Things. So a Route route round a country park marked with Purple Arrows can be marked. But a Route on a leaflet, notice board (or website) can't be. If you wish to put your own routes on a Blog etc then fine but don't add them to OSM. Unless you put markers on the ground that others can see. That's essentially it -- please, please use OSM as the basis for your maps, and make sure the underlying roads, paths, ways etc. are in OSM, but as for the route itself, unless it's verifiable, it probably doesn't belong in the main DB. Bear in mind that it won't render on the main map anyway, so unless you're willing to do your own map rendering, it will be for nothing. There is a problem in that creating your own maps should be easier, but it's getting there. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes
On 27 Jul 2009, at 15:52, Jonathan Bennett wrote: Peter Childs wrote: What I think we're saying is; we don't want things on the map that are not actually there on the ground. either via Signs or Real Things. So a Route route round a country park marked with Purple Arrows can be marked. But a Route on a leaflet, notice board (or website) can't be. If you wish to put your own routes on a Blog etc then fine but don't add them to OSM. Unless you put markers on the ground that others can see. That's essentially it -- please, please use OSM as the basis for your maps, and make sure the underlying roads, paths, ways etc. are in OSM, but as for the route itself, unless it's verifiable, it probably doesn't belong in the main DB. Bear in mind that it won't render on the main map anyway, so unless you're willing to do your own map rendering, it will be for nothing. There is a problem in that creating your own maps should be easier, but it's getting there. How about a bus route? Though there's bus stops along the way there's no arrows or anything like that saying bus route goes this way. Not trying to be difficult, just wondering. John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes
John McKerrell wrote: How about a bus route? Though there's bus stops along the way there's no arrows or anything like that saying bus route goes this way. Not trying to be difficult, just wondering. There are some people in the OSM community who argue that bus routes shouldn't be in the DB, putting forward that argument, and also that bus routes can and do change. However, you can verify a bus route by sitting on one. The stops themselves are also evidence of a route, even though they don't describe it perfectly. Ideally we wouldn't store the routes themselves in OSM, since we can never be the authoritative source; Instead whoever does set the routes should make them available in OSM format so you can render them on a map. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding unofficial cycle routes
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:04 PM, John McKerrellj...@mckerrell.net wrote: How about a bus route? Though there's bus stops along the way there's no arrows or anything like that saying bus route goes this way. Not trying to be difficult, just wondering. I can verify which way the number 37 bus goes approximately 60 times a day more often than I can verify where the high tide line is :-) I like to think of the scenario where if two OSMers disagree could a third member join them both at the place in question and arbitrate. With bus routes that's possible. With unofficial cycle routes, that's often not. I'm not saying that *only* information verifiable on-the-ground is acceptable, but it certainly a strong indicator that it's acceptable. And for some reason, the third person is always Andy Robinson in my mind. Curious. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
