[Talk-gb-london] OpenStreetMap meet-up TONIGHT Angel pub from 7pm

2016-10-13 Thread Harry Wood
Sorry I'm forgetting to keep the mailing list informed, so this is rather last-minute if you missed it on twitter/wiki but... TONIGHT we're in the Angel pub from 7pm It's near Angel tube. Here on the map: http://osm.org/go/euu45JLI?m= The Angel pub is quite big but all on one floor. Hopefully

Re: [Talk-GB] Registered users over 3 million

2016-10-13 Thread Dave F
That's interesting. I wonder the reason for the increase in users/edits around April '16? Dave F. On 13/10/2016 15:01, Bob wrote: Though it doesn't necessarily mean much osm is now over 3 million registered users and has 40,000 contributers last month http://osmstats.neis-one.org/

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

2016-10-13 Thread Stuart Reynolds
Dave, yes - sorry. Mistyped what I had been sent. It is only 127, two of which are one single instance of access:psv:bus, which surely ought to be just bus=*, and one single instance of access:psv:maxweight Chris - I will quite happily build in different tagging schemes if I feel that the

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

2016-10-13 Thread Dave F
Stuart I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham) Compared with 77857 for psv=* Chris If they're to signify different entries, what are those differences. If they're for the same entity what is the advantage of access:psv. If there is none, they should be change as clearly more

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

2016-10-13 Thread Chris Hill
Dan, I'm not being dogmatic, I'm being practical. If a data consumer needs to edit the data rather than incorporate the options into their data handling stream they are making their process vulnerable to anyone's edits. If Stuart edits access:psv=* to psv=* his process will work, until someone

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

2016-10-13 Thread Chris Hill
Stuart, You explained your idea (thanks for emailing first) and you added 'in case anyone has any violent objections'. I voiced my objection. I'm not in charge nor am I the OSM Police, you should proceed as you see fit and so will I. I have written about this process more than once in the

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

2016-10-13 Thread Dan S
Chris, I think that's a bit too dogmatic, if you don't mind me saying. It seems to imply nothing should ever be tweaked, e.g. spelling mistakes. It's entirely possible that the key in question was a simple misremember rather than a deliberate choice. There have been many larger mechanical edits

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

2016-10-13 Thread Dave F
Most of Chris's blog appears irrelevant to this case. The cemetery/graveyard example isn't applicable. There's no "variations", "differences" or "flattening out the data into a monotonous grey". If you have 2 tags: X1 & X2 that represent the same object, & the data user checks for both

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

2016-10-13 Thread Gregory
I agree with what Chris says. I continue mapping with the tagging scheme I use until someone messages me as a discussion. By ignoring current usage (regarded with more reverence than the wiki) your consumption will potentially miss new data that mapper adds, they will likely be unaware of your

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

2016-10-13 Thread John Aldridge
On 13-Oct-16 18:51, Chris Hill wrote: I have written about this process more than once in the past, for example http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/homogenised-data-no-thanks.html I agree with this... any formal tagging schema is going to end up obstructing useful mapping of circumstances

[Talk-GB] access:psv

2016-10-13 Thread Rob Nickerson
Stuart, Putting "access:" in front of psv is a documented approach as set out in the Conditional Restrictions wiki page [1]. This is designed to create a hierarchy from simple restrictions (e.g. access:psv=yes, often shortened to psv=yes) to the more complex. Proceeding with "access:" follows the

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

2016-10-13 Thread Warin
On 14-Oct-16 05:22 AM, Gregory wrote: I agree with what Chris says. I continue mapping with the tagging scheme I use until someone messages me as a discussion. By ignoring current usage (regarded with more reverence than the wiki) your consumption will potentially miss new data that mapper

Re: [Talk-GB] Autumn Quarterly Project

2016-10-13 Thread Dave F
On 11/10/2016 12:36, John Aldridge wrote: In most cases that involves filling in addr:postcode and fhrs:id on existing OSM features. I'm not, however, trusting that the postcode recorded on FHRS is accurate, and I'm not setting addr:postcode unless I can find corroborating information (e.g.

[Talk-GB] Registered users over 3 million

2016-10-13 Thread Bob
Though it doesn't necessarily mean much osm is now over 3 million registered users and has 40,000 contributers last month http://osmstats.neis-one.org/___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb