Re: [Talk-GB] Layby restricted to abnormal loads

On 29/03/17 21:32, ael wrote: and, for good measure, hgv=permissive. Permissive sounds wrong to me. Permissive basically reflects the rights of the land owner, and for users is the same as yes. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] Countryside access map

On 24/03/17 18:47, Dave F wrote: What will? Isn't this issued under OGL? I think the questions were being asked because the copyright owner and licence status wasn't known. If it has OGL, it might actually be covered by Crown Copyright, which might result in a different period of time. I

Re: [Talk-GB] Countryside access map

On 24/03/17 17:58, ael wrote: Is this copyright free? Under UK law, it will have, as a minimum, database rights for 15 years from publication. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

On 09/03/17 06:05, Dudley Ibbett wrote: I’m not aware of any online map that displays sidewalks. http://product.itoworld.com/map/126 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

On 07/02/17 19:19, Marco Boeringa wrote: Lastly, the lack of proper multipolygon creation, means that other types of renderers and styles than Carto, and GIS's like QGIS and ArcGIS, that do not stack features based on size but need multipolygons to deal with polygon-within-polygon problems, have

Re: [Talk-GB] Named landuse polygons

[May be duplicate as email client crashed on submission.] On 20/01/17 14:02, Dave F wrote: They *reside* in a private back garden. They don't in a communal or public park & certainly not in nurseries/schools etc. As I said previously, landuse=residential is being misused to represent a

Re: [Talk-GB] Reversing the flow of a one-way street

On 13/01/17 22:44, Lester Caine wrote: You simply reverse the direction the way is drawn. What editor are you using as it's fairly obvious on all of them which direction a way has been input. I think you will find that JOSM defaults to also changing the oneway to oneway=-1 so there is no net

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM UK site

On 03/01/17 19:15, Dave F wrote: Indeed. A business needs something to sell before you can go scouting for customers. Actually, it only needs a vague concept. Some technology businesses don't actually develop the product until they already have a customer for it! (That's not even new; I

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

On 21/12/16 12:25, Dave F wrote: All: Are we greed that if it's *definitely* been issued under OGL, a local authority's data can be used within OSM? See An OGL may require specific attribution, in which case that

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

On 21/12/16 11:32, Dave F wrote: Interesting. Under what license to you believe East Riding issued the data that ROWmaps is using? Assuming it was taken from: for which the copyright details are on

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

On 21/12/16 11:10, Dave F wrote: It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map will know the copyright status. Could you expand on your claims please. Whilst it appears that more than I thought publish online, even if the jury is out on licensing, those that don't

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

On 21/12/16 10:54, Dave F wrote: Short answer: Yes, it can be incorporated as long as it's been issued under the Open Government Licence. http://www.rowmaps.com/ A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that many definitive maps are provided under such a licence. If they

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

On 05/12/16 20:19, Dave Barter wrote: -addr:postal_code -addr:postcode -postal_code -postcode Used correctly, postal_code won't tell you much, as it is only basically the outbound part as used to qualify the names of streets and pillar boxes. It should never contain a full code.

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

On 05/12/16 17:19, Colin Smale wrote: This reminds me of "unsuitable for HGVs" which IIRC has been the subject of debate in the past. One approach would be "hgv=unsuitable" meaning "legally yes but not advised". That seems to be exactly what we need here. Perhaps we could have "foot=unsuitable"

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS and businesses run from home

On 23/11/16 09:53, Warin wrote: A 'mobile' business .. such as a mobile caterer or a mobile mechanic may not be something that needs to present on the OSM map? I'd think someone looking for a mobile service would want to contact them by phone .. and be best served by using a phone search.

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS and businesses run from home

On 22/11/16 12:45, Dave F wrote: Please clarify exactly what data you believe to be personal? As it contains no data on "identifiable living people", could you provide evidence that it falls under the DPA? Occupation. (Real name and address can be obtained by anyone from the edited

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS and businesses run from home

On 22/11/16 12:58, Dave F wrote: On 21/11/2016 20:23, SK53 wrote: A bit late, but according to the FHRS manual businesses run from private addresses should be obscured (usually at the postcode district level). Do you have a link?

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS and businesses run from home

On 21/11/16 12:58, Dave F wrote: The FHRS database listing a business at a domestic address is verification IMO. It's also personal data. I actually thought that FHRS itself suppressed some of this, but if you include it, it becomes subject to the Data Protection Act, which put legal

Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright and MAPS.ME android 6.2.5-Google

On 04/10/16 22:35, Andy Townsend wrote: For completeness, what you get with Apple (at least up to 9.3) is essentially what you ask for. You specify the use case, so if you ask for "real time location tracking" that's what you get. I'm glad someone understood. I got two off list messages

Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright and MAPS.ME android 6.2.5-Google

On 04/10/16 21:03, Andy Townsend wrote: obtained as I understand it in recent versions via Google Play Services*. Whether that's compatible with OSM You would need to disable the use of wifi SSIDs (and cell site locations) to make it legitimate. That assumes it doesn't snap to Google maps

Re: [Talk-GB] No FHRS data on a food establishment

On 03/10/16 15:50, SK53 wrote: I've just added details for a pub where I stopped for a drink on Saturday. It obviously had about half of it's floor area given over to a dining room. It doesn't appear in the FHRS data. It would still need to register as a food business even if it was only a

Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

On 02/10/16 15:06, Andy Townsend wrote: No - in England and Wales an unspecified access tag surely means just "don't know" especially as if (as seems to be the case for one of the ways here) it's mapped from aerial imagery. So HGV's may be permitted on the typical footway, without an access

Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

On 02/10/16 13:06, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Indeed - unless they have foot=yes, foot=permissive, access=permissive (etc) or designation=public_footpath, we are in no way telling them that they are public access. Whether or not there is a formal statement of this anywhere an unspecified access

Re: [Talk-GB] Autumn Quarterly Project

On 02/10/16 10:56, John Aldridge wrote: Would one be breaking rules to copy that information to OSM? After all, the text on the web site will be, AIUI, copyright.) The question would be whether or not there is a database copyright involved. The actual facts that you are likely to want will

Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

On 01/10/16 22:33, Frederik Ramm wrote: I know that property owners sometimes have different ideas about which paths are private than the law. I think OSM mappers tend to under-code private property. There are areas where every car park in a block of flats is implicitly coded as public.

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Postcodes

On 26/09/16 10:19, Owen Boswarva wrote: That could be done but it's not straightforward; you'll get a lot of overlapping postcode sectors and sectors with non-contiguous parts. GeoLytix produced an open dataset like that some time ago: http://blog.geolytix.net/tag/postcode-boundaries/ In my

Re: [Talk-GB] Summer quarterly project

On 14/09/16 12:47, SK53 wrote: I've taken FHRS data from Sept or early Oct from 2013 to 2016 and quickly done a year-on-year comparison to see which FHRS Ids are still on file from the previous year. I've posted an image of the s/s here . I

Re: [Talk-GB] Admin boundaries for unparished areas - how to handle?

On 20/08/16 13:33, Colin Smale wrote: So, ahow *should* they be tagged? What should be done with these unparished areas? Should the existing relations be reverted? Retagged to something else? Should we document this and encourage other admin boundary maintainers like me to replicate the pattern

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

On 17/08/16 00:57, Dave F wrote: As far as I can see is_in:* is used for the same things as boundaries, but is less efficient & prone to errors. Are you aware of any utilities that use is_in:*? To me, the value of is_in is that it allows for cases where there is n usable source for the actual

Re: [Talk-GB] Possible use of OS triangulation stations to determine aerial imagery offset

On 16/08/16 15:22, Greg wrote: There is also a FOI request with a full CSV file here: FOI responses don't remove any copyright and I don't think they even given any right to republish the data. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] Overpass API in English

On 26/07/16 19:59, Roland Olbricht wrote: DaveF has pointed out before that the word "attic" may be difficult to understand. Attic is a term that comes from the RCS revision control system. I would have thought that it was a well known Americanisation of loft. Possibly more of a problem is

Re: [Talk-GB] foot=permissive in 'paid for' attractions?

On 22/05/16 14:55, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Just noticed two local 'paid-for' attractions, namely Hillier Gardens and Mottisfont, both just outside Romsey, have had their paths tagged for foot=permissive which seems somewhat misleading given that an admission charge is required. My thoughts are

Re: [Talk-GB] New user renaming highway=cycleway with NCN references

On 13/05/16 11:17, Dave F wrote: I think you're combining two separate issues. Designated cycle route NCN4 was implemented along the K canal long before 2012. There a was short time when a free license was required to officially use it. Whether individual people had a license or not made no

Re: [Talk-GB] New user renaming highway=cycleway with NCN references

On 12/05/16 23:53, Andy Townsend wrote: It depends where you are, I think. Certainly the canal towpath nearest to me (Cromford Canal) is mostly public footpath. It's all been surveyed, and the designation has been added fairly conservatively, i.e. only where there's signage, and even on that

Re: [Talk-GB] New user renaming highway=cycleway with NCN references

On 12/05/16 12:30, Eric Grosso wrote: At the moment, the different tags (in link with this discussion) used for these ways are:highway=path, surface=paved, bicycle=designated, segregated=no, width=1.75, ncn_ref=754 (Tobi added yesterday a ncn_ref in addition to the associated relation). For

Re: [Talk-GB] New user renaming highway=cycleway with NCN references

On 08/05/16 09:39, Bob wrote: It sounds like there is passion but not enough direction Another concern I would have here is that they are probably importing a copyright database (or at least one that they haven't checked for copyright releases). Unfortunately using copyright restricted

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Chapter Directors' Powers

On 22/04/16 12:14, Brian Prangle wrote: *Full powers*. Standard boilerplate text. Easy to do. Downside is that removing powers may require alterations to AoA, and furthermore restricting Directors' powers is quite likely to end up being contentious. Any such process will appear

Re: [Talk-GB] Starting now: Next UK group call

On 20/03/16 20:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: In the current draft Articles, the directors' post is limited to do things (of classes of things) specifically authorised by resolutions of the members. Limiting the directors power in some way (rather than I need to get the AoA and spend

Re: [Talk-GB] [UK Chapter] Definition of OSM.

On 20/03/16 19:25, Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap) wrote: The most simplest phrase I can think of that isn’t as flippant as the Thameslink Programme would be “an open-access cartography service”. The service is not the main part of the operation. That is provided by the map database. The

Re: [Talk-GB] New users and P2

On 26/02/16 12:44, Chris Hill wrote: I disagree. GPS traces can only be found by being on the ground. Aerial imagery is useful but being there and seeing what is really on the ground is still the gold standard in my view. Aerial imagery is not guaranteed to be well aligned, is guaranteed to be

Re: [Talk-GB] New users and P2

On 25/02/16 17:04, Nick Whitelegg wrote: User can also enter relevant POIs like stiles, gates etc when they are encountered. When user returns home, track simplification algorithm used to make a way from the GPX trace and tags it with the tags equivalent to the ROW type. User downloads

Re: [Talk-GB] UK war office maps of Africa digitised

On 30/01/16 18:03, Jez Nicholson wrote: Andy, I respectfully beg to differ. Crown copyright does expire after 50 years but owners of scans claim 'sweat of the brow' grants them copyright of the images made. Even the people at NPE Maps claim it http://www.npemap.org.uk/tileLicence.html but they

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of layers

On 21/01/16 10:12, Stuart Reynolds wrote: The buildings are all mapped as layer=1, and the platforms without any layer tag (which should default them to layer=0, AFAIK). So why are the platforms and rail tracks (which I haven’t touched) been rendered over the buildings, rather than under them?

Re: [Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

On 02/01/16 12:51, Brian Prangle wrote: That gives a total of 32,318 schools. Taginfo shows 27,191 schools which is 84.1% coverage in OSM. One possible reason for the shortfall would be where an infants and junior school, or a middle and upper school share a site. When armchair mapping, it

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

On 07/12/15 13:11, Lester Caine wrote: what is now the highways agency Recently re-branded Highways England! ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] User dataone: "splitting into 2 way to tag restriction "

On 02/10/15 20:26, Philip Barnes wrote: On Fri Oct 2 14:47:05 2015 GMT+0100, Dave F. wrote: A new editor has started splitting roads in my locale, but from what I can see making no tagging amendments. Am I missing something? If not I'd like to halt him before there's too much damage.

Re: [Talk-GB] Rail maxspeeds being converted

On 05/09/15 11:47, Andy Townsend wrote: the train management system on the ECML was being changed to something* that would register in-cab speeds in km/h. I suspect that most of the visible signs are redundant and it is the electronic system that is the only thing that can carry any weight.

Re: [Talk-GB] Odd highway=primary_link changes in gyratory systems

On 09/08/15 14:57, Richard Mann wrote: Using _links on a simple roundabout is unusual, and unhelpful Gyratory systems aren't roundabouts. They may be traffic circles, but I'm not sure that is really true here, either. ___ Talk-GB mailing list

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Open Names

On 03/06/15 18:57, Chris Hill wrote: the new locations have decimal parts of metres which may make them a bit more accurate, possibly millimetre accurate. I think you mean precision, not accuracy. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] Snowdonia National Park Boundary

On 29/05/15 00:46, Colin Smale wrote: Thanks to the people who pointed me at helpful tools. I have fixed it up as best as I can for the moment - obviously erroneous stretches of coastline have been removed, missing segments have been added where a bridge has been inserted, that kind of thing.

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

On 23/05/15 13:41, David Earl wrote: I'm not sure about the UK company registration number as an ID I was suggesting the formal legal name. I just added the RC number for completeness. Of course this also means that references to University of Cambridge as operator, would need to be

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

On 23/05/15 12:02, David Earl wrote: There is a problem having 'operator=Magdalene College' and similar rather than operator='Magdalene College (University of Cambridge)' Although I think, where operator is used at all, it is largely used with a loose choice of name, in this case, if you

Re: [Talk-GB] Ottoman Map of England, Wales IoM

On 04/04/15 09:24, Andy Mabbett wrote: You might like this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ottoman_Map_of_England.jpg I think the upstream source http://lostislamichistory.com/the-cedid-atlas/ would be a better reference. Whilst the book itself is out of copyright, I suspect

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Projects Update

On 04/04/15 16:32, pmailkeey . wrote: start and end dates attached to each tag too. These are in the database, although they are the dates of being mapped and removed from the map. You can retrieve back versions of the map made up to any particular date.

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Projects Update

On 03/04/15 13:43, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: Should everything be amenity=post_office, or would it be better to have different tags for sorting offices / distribution warehouses and also for parcel collection points? Different. In particular, if it is not open to the public, I would

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Projects Update

On 03/04/15 16:04, David Woolley wrote: On 03/04/15 15:29, pmailkeey . wrote: Delivery offices are open to the public. I was thinking of sorting offices, which are not, although may be co-sited with a delivery office. Also, the actual public amenity tends to be a small cubbyhole at one

Re: [Talk-GB] Unsigned road names (was Fix the road name!)

On 24/01/15 20:33, SomeoneElse wrote: However, there are names where the name in OSM is what the local authority uses, and what local people would agree that it is called, but there's no sign on the ground. How do we reflect that? It's useful to know from a I suspect the local authority take

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Underground services

On 20/01/15 13:06, Tim Waters wrote: I'm also interested in underground cables and mapping communications routes, in particular the major internet trunk cables. That information would be extremely valuable to terrorists. I suspect that it would allow a small group of people to disrupt

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: What are you mapping and have you fully though through the implications of bad data ?

On 13/01/15 22:23, Pmailkeey . wrote: Making large numbers of points all at once will almost certainly result in people latching onto just a few, even when you spread them over multiple postings. Also, many of these are not UK specific. It's annoying to add things to the database and find

Re: [Talk-GB] Totesport

On 21/12/14 13:56, SK53 wrote: There are still one or two unharmonised tags for bookmakers: I moved a few amenity=bookmaker to shop=bookmaker the other day. At least one was one I created I'm pretty sure it was because I copied the tags from a pharmacy node which already had relevant address

Re: [Talk-GB] Google Maps: the city of Avon

On 07/12/14 12:51, Ian Caldwell wrote: It also appears on Yahoo maps and Apple maps, in both cases as small place only visible at high zooms. At that level of details, all the mappers rely on OS Data. Google do allow some cloud sourced input, but the fact the other have the same

Re: [Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?

On 01/12/14 11:39, Stuart Reynolds wrote: road, which is Sherwood Drive. There is also a footpath shown coming from the station and along the eastern side of Sherwood Drive, but not on the western side. I think it can be difficult to justify undoing micro-mappings, like this, even though

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM University of Liverpool exercise (or 200 free(ish) volunteers)

On 27/11/14 14:09, Matthijs Melissen wrote: Nice initiative! I think adding building outlines is quite useful, and has relatively low risk that the students break things (an important The disadvantage, here, is that it is a vocational type exercise, not an academic one. An academic one

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMF Special General Meeting

On 26/11/14 01:43, Dave F. wrote: I'm pretty sure casting a vote via email isn't proxy. The notice isn't a request to vote. Requests for special meetings, and, I think any resolutions, from the members, are not binding unless there is support from a certain proportion of those with voting

Re: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits

On 19/11/14 22:37, Lester Caine wrote: The wiki only provides general guide lines and picking WHICH rules to use is much better discussed by a local group than being applied without any reference to the on the ground situation ... In that case, you should edit the wiki to either cover the

Re: [Talk-GB] Allegedly named motorways

On 19/11/14 08:32, Colin Smale wrote: must they have a postcode and therefore a street address Post codes don't have to have street addresses. Some are used for box numbers and there are, I think, two postcode regions, BX being one, that have no geographic locality. However, the service

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-2 mechanical edit: UK shop names

On 05/11/14 08:32, Stuart Reynolds wrote: To be honest I've never quite understood the obsession with mapping individual shops. Fine if it is done everywhere, but it isn't. Shops come and go, and if I was to do this in Southend High Street I'd have to walk up it on a weekly basis at present to

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-2 mechanical edit: UK shop names

On 04/11/14 17:19, Matthijs Melissen wrote: So the question is - what makes you think that 'Footwear' is part of the name, rather than a description of the products they sell? The 7,510 Google hits for '+site:brantano.co.uk brantano footwear', for as start, including their TCs page. The

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-2 mechanical edit: UK shop names

On 04/11/14 12:55, Philip Barnes wrote: ALDI, LIDL, ASDA and SPAR are all abbreviations of their full names, in the same way as NATO, AIDS, BBC, OSM or GNU are. BBC is an initialism, so should be in uppercase. The rest of treated as acronyms. To the extent that they are trademarks, they may

Re: [Talk-GB] Post-processing shop values (was mechanical edit)

On 03/11/14 12:19, SK53 wrote: Bringing together bookmaker tags is harmless, but does little to gather Except, possibly that one of the big political issues about such shops is that they now get a lot of their money from fixed odds machines, which means there is no element of bookmaking

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-2 mechanical edit: UK shop names

On 02/11/14 13:24, Matthijs Melissen wrote: - 'Brantano Footwear' versus Brantano Some shops signs include the 'Footwear' text, others don't. I would argue that 'Footwear' in the logo is not part of the title, but a description of the shop's activities. For example, we also don't tag

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-2 mechanical edit: UK shop names

On 02/11/14 16:11, Andy Street wrote: What do people think about using upper case for names that are pronounced as a series of letters and mixed case for names that are pronounced as a word? Whilst not ideal (until the widespread adoption of the talking shop sign!) this would give us a rule of

[Talk-GB] Consolidated views of notes, fixmes, musical chairs, etc. (was: OpenStreetMap ten years on, and why it's time for a fresh slate)

On 27/10/14 21:52, Tim Saunders wrote: What would suit me is an Android app that allowed me to see what needs to be fixed in a particular area, so that I could check some things out if I had a spare half hour in the area…..so Notes, FixMes, Musical Chairs, OSM Inspector and other GB specific

Re: [Talk-GB] Consolidated views of notes, fixmes, musical chairs, etc.

On 01/11/14 20:08, Matthijs Melissen wrote: I in fact even proposed incorporating a system that makes this explicit in the notes API: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-August/070423.html Most people in the field who don't know how to map also don't know how to specify new

Re: [Talk-GB] addressing (was addr:place)

On 27/10/14 01:04, Andy Street wrote: On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 22:41:56 + Chris Hillo...@raggedred.net wrote: Addresses are allocated by Local Authorities, not Royal Mail. I use the address the LA recognise, plus the postcode which, AFAIK, Royal Mail do issue. I was aware that LAs have a role

Re: [Talk-GB] addressing (was addr:place)

On 27/10/14 10:38, Tom Hughes wrote: The entire postcode is split (by the space) into the outward postcode and inward postcode and the outward postcode combined with the leading digits from the inward give you a postal sector. There is an additional part of the post code, the delivery point

Re: [Talk-GB] Notes vs Fixme

On 24/10/14 14:06, Dave F. wrote: Specific Q lots of these notes in my area are 'Incorrect speed limit. Reported speed limit is 40 mph' from 'anonymous'. Where is it 'reported' from. Is it being compared with another database? There was a short burst of these a couple of months ago. They are

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names

On 24/10/14 14:44, Matthijs Melissen wrote: please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Math1985/UK_Shop_Names. Please let me know if you have any comments. If there are no further comments, I will invite list members to vote on this automatic edit. I will not proceed

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names

On 24/10/14 17:20, David Woolley wrote: Whilst I can't work out the branding concept difference between them, they are different brands. I think they tend not to include the Nisa when they are using the Loco brand. Nisa Local is for medium sized stores. Loco is for small ones

Re: [Talk-GB] Confused over access...

On 16/10/14 22:01, Dave F. wrote: Following on from what the others say, I think the Bus tag is redundant in this instance, as it's a subset of psv=yes I didn't think that bus was a separate category. Moreover, although taxis were previously mentioned, I don't believe they are legally

Re: [Talk-GB] Deletions and newbie editors

On 05/10/14 22:28, Lester Caine wrote: All achievable if the API monitors the constraints on relations and checks that what JOSM submits is complete. That would represent a radical change in design philosophy. At the moment, the code behind the API (I standards interface) implements very

Re: [Talk-GB] Deletions and newbie editors

On 05/10/14 21:31, David Woolley wrote: Whilst the archive exists and is accessible, what I'm not aware of is an API interface that allows one to retrieve the versions of objects that existed at a particular date. It has been pointed out to me, off list, that the overpass API can retrieve

Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London

On 05/10/14 09:49, Lester Caine wrote: there should be a block on the deleted element being removed until the 'damage' is repaired. Something that JOSM at least tries to help with, but iD ignores? Where the damage is the breaking of a relation, iD is not ignoring it, it is actively but

Re: [Talk-GB] Deletions and newbie editors

On 05/10/14 11:27, Spike wrote: On 05/10/2014 10:47, David Woolley wrote: A classic example is NaPTAN stop data, where the rule for one that has gone away is to invalidate the bus stop tag and add physically_present=no, but leave the node present. I think I've seen cases where a stop being

Re: [Talk-GB] Deletions and newbie editors (was: Vandalism in London)

On 05/10/14 11:25, Andy Street wrote: Simply refusing to delete seems rather unhelpful. I'd much prefer the user to be presented with a dialog box that explains the problem in simple terms before allowing them to either continue with the delete or seek assistance. If the user requires assistance

Re: [Talk-GB] Deletions and newbie editors

On 05/10/14 17:58, Stuart Reynolds wrote: On NaPTAN, deleted stops are those that have been removed and should correspondingly be removed from OSM If that is the new policy, you should change

Re: [Talk-GB] Deletions and newbie editors

On 05/10/14 18:20, David Woolley wrote: On 05/10/14 17:58, Stuart Reynolds wrote: On NaPTAN, deleted stops are those that have been removed and should correspondingly be removed from OSM If that is the new policy, you should change http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN

Re: [Talk-GB] Deletions and newbie editors

On 05/10/14 21:00, Lester Caine wrote: and historic material would have an end date set which the renderers would also respect. A view of the data with any out of scope material suppressed is easy to implement, but at present we still don't have a reliable method of archiving material even if

Re: [Talk-GB] Deletions and newbie editors (was: Vandalism in London)

On 05/10/14 14:11, Lester Caine wrote: Which sort of ties in with my constraints on relations. If an edit is breaking something it's easy enough to say unable to proceed because ... but ideally the API should be able to find a new missing bit and add it into the relation? Only blocking

Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London

On 04/10/14 01:47, Antje (OpenStreetMap) wrote: Even the Inner ring road is damaged (3124618 http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3124618). This is the only specific one you identified. I assume you are referring to http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/25784400 which has the blank

Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London

On 04/10/14 09:57, David Woolley wrote: This was done with iD which has a bad reputation for collateral damage, and without a sensible commit comment, it is difficult to work out what was intended, but I suspect that this relatively new editor is not actually malicious. That might have

Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London

On 04/10/14 21:58, Roger Calvert wrote: Perhaps the principle OSM editors could emit a warning whenever an edit is undertaken which could invalidate a relation, also noting how many other ways would be affected. This at least would give mappers a chance to consider carefully whether they really

Re: [Talk-GB] Lloyds TSB

On 02/10/14 09:30, Ed Loach wrote: It has been over a year now since I first mentioned http://www.loach.me.uk/osm/LloydsTSB/ here, and there are still lots of branches that haven't been remapped, so I thought I'd mention it again. The basic problem you have is that there are a lot more

Re: [Talk-GB] Lloyds TSB

On 03/10/14 12:29, Andy Robinson wrote: Use of the Notes feature is good for this sort of thing. Notes can also create maintenance problems as businesses requesting vanity entries never generate a note when they go away. Not mapping such notes results in the map getting cluttered with such

Re: [Talk-GB] UK use of highway=living_street

On 31/08/14 13:30, SK53 wrote: It is sometimes worth ascertaining if the block-paved sections are adopted highways, where they only occur at the ends of streets. In some cases these may just be a shared-access driveway. Not always easy to do of course. My impression is that councils are very

Re: [Talk-GB] UK use of highway=living_street

On 31/08/14 13:47, Rob Nickerson wrote: The one I saw the other day was a reasonably long loop road. It would expect it to either be maintained by the Local Authority or the Housing Association, In my experience, housing association roads, created in the last decade or so, are most unlikely

Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian Countdown crossings in London

On 31/08/14 21:28, SK53 wrote: Dont know, but I have pictures of a few. They also exist in Caceres, Spain and Tallinn, Latvia. I first encountered them in China about 13 years ago. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] Bus routes and names

On 20/08/14 20:45, Antje Maroussi wrote: Whereas I use London Buses route 24 Northbound” to help editors each variant so they can put it to the right bus stop, max93600 has been changing them carelessly with the comment Modifications diverses”: in this editor’s recent edits, so that both

Re: [Talk-GB] Bus routes and names

On 23/08/14 14:12, David Woolley wrote: I think that giving both to and from destinations is going to be wrong, unless there is are route variants that have different combinations. However, except that the wiki example uses a clearly directed =, this is basically the format used

Re: [Talk-GB] Bus routes and names

On 23/08/14 14:50, Amaroussi-OSM wrote: Maybe I could try “London Buses 38 → Victoria”? I don't think you need the network. The number should be locally unique without that. People don't qualify bus numbers by London bus in real life. I just wanted to reduce the time it takes to find

<    1   2   3   4   >