Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] New Birmingham canal bridge opens to the public

[Nathan Case]

From: 
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/21098-eyre-street-basin-bridge-eyre-street-birmingham-soho-loop


it seems that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/245524100 is the "Eyre 
Street Basin bridge".


However, I think we'd need a licence-compatible source.

Nathan

On 24/07/2023 16:24, Andy Mabbett wrote:

FYI:


https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/2076199-new-birmingham-canal-bridge-opens-to-the-public

"The bridge connects the 752-home Soho Wharf with the existing Eyre
Street Basin bridge,"

We have no "Eyre Street Basin" and no "Eyre Street Basin bridge"
mapped, but there is a note about a new bridge:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3729213



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

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Mapping of roads in Digbeth

[Nathan Case]

Hi all,

First time posting to this mailing list as I'm new (ish) to the area.

I've found that a lot of the roads in Digbeth (Birmingham) are tagged as 
residential roads. These roads, as far as I'm aware, are minor roads 
through a fairly industrial part of town. I'd have thought they'd be 
better tagged as unclassified.


An example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4928916/history

Streetview link: 
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4761302,-1.8821697,3a,75y,121.59h,95.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suTQd72R3sEPSM92JbYfjRg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DuTQd72R3sEPSM92JbYfjRg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D43.86864%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656


I can see many (all?) were changed from unclassified to residential 
about 4 years ago in a rather large changeset 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57843252) by a now-banned user 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1898).


I know there isn't a huge difference between these unclassified and 
residential in terms of route planning or rendering, but do you agree 
they should be reverted back to unclassified?


Many thanks,

Nathan


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[nathan case]

> Unless there is a sign saying "unsuitable for pedestrians, horses, and 
> vehicles", or similar, I would say "access=discouraged" violates "do not tag 
> for the renderer".  The wiki specifically says that an official sign is 
> required before using "access=discouraged".

There is a sign: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_Bay_Walk#/media/File:Cross_Bay_Walk_Warning.jpg
 though I'm unsure on how "official" that is. It doesn't have the city/county 
council logo on it, for example. But the city council does discourage the use 
of the route without a guide on their website: 
https://www.lancaster.gov.uk/environmental-health/health-and-safety/cross-bay-walks-guidance-for-walkers-and-organisers

(sorry - I seem to have derailed the original topic).


-Original Message-
From: David Woolley  
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 3:47 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote:
> I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very 
> dangerous to cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
> access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all 
> traffic in this case):https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676

In that example, "Cross Bay Walk - DO NOT ATTEMPT" violates "name is only the 
name".  It may or may not be possible to justify "Cross Bay Walk", but the "DO 
NOT ATTEMPT" is not going to be a valid part of the name.

Unless there is a sign saying "unsuitable for pedestrians, horses, and 
vehicles", or similar, I would say "access=discouraged" violates "do not tag 
for the renderer".  The wiki specifically says that an official sign is 
required before using "access=discouraged".

"warning" appears to be non-standarised, and also subjective.

___
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] Bridleway across field

[nathan case]

That's a fair viewpoint and I'm open to changing my method. 

But what would you suggest in the situation where a PROW runs through a 
building(s)? Map through it as a fully-fledged footway? Doesn't matter what 
your abilities are, you won't be able to go through there - well unless you can 
pass through walls...  At what point does a completely inaccessible, or even 
re-rerouted path (just not in the PROW data), become disused?

I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous to 
cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all traffic 
in this case): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676

-Original Message-
From: Dave F via Talk-GB  
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:10 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote:
> but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the 
> PROW route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new 
> buildings, or rivers).

IMO, this is bad mapping.
Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph taken 
thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.

Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.

Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it doesn't 
mean it's been declared disused.

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] Bridleway across field

[nathan case]

As a public right of way, the highway exists by law - regardless of any 
evidence on the ground or lack thereof.

I suggest not removing the section, but instead setting as disused:highway. 
This is what I tend to do when the PROW route is clearly inaccessible from 
aerial imagery (e.g. due to new buildings, or rivers). 

Of course, as has also been mentioned, if you do come across situations like 
this on a ground survey - then please do report to your local authority, who 
have a legal obligation to clear any obstacles or re-route the path.

-Original Message-
From: ael via Talk-GB 
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 12:01 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, 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. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to 
> have been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person 
> and I can't see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close 
> to a concrete

 I have come across some of these where it is no longer possible to  walk or 
ride. Especially when they cross rivers where there was  presumably once a 
ford. In at least one case that I surveyed, there  were large trees blocking 
access on the river bank, and absolutely  no sign of a ford in the river 
itself. Crossing there looked potentially  dangerous. These had been added by 
armchair mappers from a definitive  map.

 OSM should not direct users onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways.
 As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river  and added 
a note.

 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] Blocked / overgrown / inaccessible footpaths and bridleways

[nathan case]

> Gareth L
> If there's literally no trace of the path any more, I'd be more inclined to 
> report it to the local council RoW officer before mapping something that 
> doesn't exist on the ground.

Of course, just because *evidence* of it doesn't exist on the ground, doesn't 
mean the route itself doesn't exist. Public rights of way are highways in their 
own right and access is enshrined by law.

Agreed though - contact your council's PROW team if the PROW is blocked or 
inaccessible. It will either need clearing or (if permanently blocked, e.g. by 
a lake/river/development) re-routing.

Cheers,

Nathan


From: Gareth L 
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 2:29 PM
To: Andy Townsend ; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Blocked / overgrown / inaccessible footpaths and 
bridleways

Depends if that condition is seasonal?
I've prioritised tagging width values on canal towpaths in some locations 
where, whilst legal, it's precarious to try and cycle along as they're 
practically less than a metre wide.
I've come across the following proposed feature 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle which didn't 
seem to get traction - though could be useful.

I think I've just added a barrier node to cover off routing engines/some 
renders + as accurate a surface value as you can but they've always had a 
viable, not too out of the way, alternative route.

If there's literally no trace of the path any more, I'd be more inclined to 
report it to the local council RoW officer before mapping something that 
doesn't exist on the ground.

Gareth

From: Andy Townsend
Sent: 29 September 2020 13:51
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Blocked / overgrown / inaccessible footpaths and bridleways

Hello,

How do people normally map things like "I know there is a public
footpath that goes through here but it is currently inaccessible"?

A taginfo search finds a few candidates:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=overgrown#values

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=inaccessible#values

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=blocked#values

So far https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/overgrown seems the
nearest (it's undocumented but mentioned on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking ).  However, I'm sure that
there are examples that I've missed.  Most seem to be used within note
tags which can of course contain any old text - are there any actual
non-note tags and values that are used for this that I'm missing?

Best Regards,

Andy




___
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] Status of Potlatch 2

[nathan case]

Hi all,

Possibly not the correct place to raise this but I was wondering if anyone knew 
what the plans for Potlatch 2 are?

Adobe Flash will be unsupported from 31 December 2020 
(https://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/end-of-life.html) . On, or around 
this date, Flash support will be completely removed from Firefox 
(https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Plugins/Roadmap), Chrome 
(https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/saying-goodbye-flash-chrome/), and 
Edge 
(https://support.microsoft.com/en-in/help/4532571/microsoft-edge-turn-on-flash) 
 (where it is already turned off by default).

With the major browsers no longer supporting Flash after this date, and 
Potlatch currently relying on Flash, it seems like Potlatch will no longer be 
accessible?

Are there plans to transition from Flash, or to retire it completely from OSM? 
Where is best to raise this, if not here?

Cheers,

Nathan


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rockall

[nathan case]

I also note that the editor changed Rockall from “island” to “bare rock”, and 
that Colin has question this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86624262

For what it’s worth, I suggest the correct tag for Rockall is “islet”: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dislet This is supported by 
Rockall’s wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall) “Rockall 
(/ˈrɒkɔːl/) is an uninhabitable 
granite islet in the exclusive economic 
zone (EEZ) of the United 
Kingdom,”  and by the (not 
official!) definition of “an islet has little or no vegetation, and cannot 
support human habitation” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islet).



From: Andy Townsend 
Sent: 15 June 2020 13:53
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Rockall

In situations like this I'd invite the new mapper to discuss things more widely 
(which Colin has already done on 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86624359 ) and then revert the changes 
pending any discussion here.

The new mapper is already aware of the changeset discussion (they've replied) 
so hopefully won't then just change it back.

Best Regards,

Andy


On 15/06/2020 11:17, Gareth L wrote:
Probably? I am not familiar with the disputed territories process for Osm.

It’s a weird one as only the U.K. has claimed sovereignty. Others don’t accept 
the claim, but also haven’t made a sovereignty claim themselves. So at the 
moment, the U.K. is the administrator - and there is an absence of any others.

I’d say it should remain mapped as U.K. administrative boundary but also 
flagged as disputed.. if that can be done?

Gareth


On 15 Jun 2020, at 10:24, Colin Smale 
 wrote:


A new mapper has changed the status of Rockall, removing it from the UK admin 
boundaries. As I understand it Rockall is accepted as UK territory although it 
can't be used as a baseline to extend the EEZ. I contacted the mapper with a 
changeset comment and their motivation is based on "fixing the EEZ".

Wikipedia suggests that Rockall is considered (administratively speaking) part 
of the isle of Harris, in the Western Isles.

As Rockall has from time to time been the subject of a territorial dispute with 
Ireland, should we use the "disputed territories" process for Rockall?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86624359


___
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] Tagging showgrounds

[nathan case]

Hi all,

Just to drag this back up - I encountered an unmapped showground (Chipping, 
Lancashire) whilst adding PROWs and don't know the best way to tag. It appears 
to hold a several large shows each year (well presumably not this year!) but 
doesn't appear to be a recreational site.

I found this abandoned proposal for amenity=show_grounds: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/show_grounds It's a shame 
it never got traction as it might enable us to come to some consensus on these 
sites. Can an abandoned proposal be re-opened or does it have to be re-proposed?

Cheers.



-Original Message-
From: Andy Townsend  
Sent: 25 February 2020 00:23
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging showgrounds

Since I was going through these anyway to see what ought to be rendered at 
map.atownsend.org.uk, I thought I might as well list them here too. These are 
things "tagged a bit like showgrounds, excluding bus stops and car parks", 
sorted by one of the main tags.

I suspect that the ones tagged just "place", "landuse=grass" or 
"tourism=attraction" only probably need some other tag to say "this is a 
showground".   "events_venue" might be a misunderstanding of what that tag was 
for.  "recreation_ground" may be correct in some cases but I suspect isn't in 
many others. "park" I'd be similarly surprised if it was often correct.  In 
most or all cases it probably needs a local to make the call, though...

place:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2382298440
name     Mannsfield Showground
place     locality
source     OS OpenData StreetView

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3416147963
name     Great Harwood Showground
place     neighbourhood

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4347790541
addr:postcode     BS37 8QZ
addr:street     Westerleigh Road
name     The Windmill Fisheries Showground place     locality


events_venue only:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5849512782
alt_name     Royal Cornwall Event Centre amenity     events_venue name     
Royal Cornwall Showground

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6938439833
amenity     events_venue
name     Hertfordshire County Showground operator     Hertfordshire Country 
Council


tourism=attraction only:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/283445694
name     Devon County Showground
tourism     attraction

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/91401877
name     Kent Showground
source     Bing
tourism     attraction

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40942963
barrier     fence
name     Norfolk Showground
tourism     attraction

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/316706558
name     Great Yorkshire Showground
tourism     attraction

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104155888
barrier     fence
name     Royal Bath and West of England Showground tourism     attraction

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/239487854
name     Hennock Showground
tourism     attraction

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/178396540
addr:city     Newark
addr:postcode     NG24 2NY
addr:street     Lincoln Road
alt_name     Newark Show Ground
name     Newark Showground
operator     Newark & Nottinghamshire Agricultural Society phone     +44 1636 
705796 tourism     attraction website     http://www.newarkshowground.com/ 
wikidata     Q15262122

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/274093728
name     Lincolnshire Showground
tourism     attraction


recreation_ground only:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/603746353
alt_name     Briscwm Fields
description     Normally farmland,  Used to hold events such as the Cardigan 
County Agricultural Show.
landuse     recreation_ground
name     Cardigan County Showground
note     Located from information on Coflein.
phone     +44 1545 570501
recreation_ground     showground
website     https://cardigancountyshow.org.uk/

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34993687
landuse     recreation_ground
name     Mirfield Showground

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/89151502
addr:city     Peterborough
addr:housename     Peterborough Arena
addr:postcode     PE2 6XE
addr:street     East of England Showground landuse     recreation_ground name   
  East of England Showground phone     +44 1733 363500 website     
http://www.peterborougharena.com wheelchair     yes

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/415636494
leisure     recreation_ground
name     Christow Playing Fields and Showground

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4587165
leisure     recreation_ground
name     Essex Showground
source     approximate

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/30813084
leisure     recreation_ground
name     North Somerset Showground
tourism     attraction

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/547075306
addr:postcode     LE15 7TW
addr:street     Burley Park Way
landuse     recreation_ground
name     Rutland Showground
note     The new county showground site.
source     EsriWorldImagery
website     https://www.rutlandshowground.com/

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/588128321
leisure     recreation_ground
name     Strithians Showground

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

[nathan case]

> Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make use of a 
> map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map at 
> https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright and 
database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's likely that it 
was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an Ordnance Survey base map -- in 
which case it certainly couldn't be used for OSM mapping. You might be able to 
get permission to use the overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the 
base map before using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details 
from the OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to 
be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful around them.

Understood but surely it is acceptable to draw the line in OSM making use of 
one's own GPS, or from visibility in the satellite layer(s) or OS OpenData, and 
then use the Council's map to get the prow_ref? Ordnance Survey do not have 
copyright on the prow ref and the LCC have made their prow refs open access. 

Or are you saying because one has to cross reference one's own drawing with the 
OS map, that OS own the copyright on the Council's data? Seems an over stretch?

I'm aware that this is somewhat diverging from the discussion. 

In the end, the council clearly doesn't seem to care - either approach is fine 
by them as they use both. We're the ones imposing a restriction on the data 
format for our own purposes. I will go with parish name, rather than ID if 
that's what's agreed, but unfortunately I cannot edit all the ones I have 
already added using the parish ID rather than name (happy for them to be auto 
edited using the lookup table Tony has shared).

Cheers.



-Original Message-
From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)  
Sent: 11 May 2020 15:49
To: talk-gb 
Subject: 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 
> path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s map.

Unless you've been given permission by the copyright holder to make use of a 
map like that, then it's off-limits for use in OSM. The map at 
https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/public-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-map/
is currently not working for me, but is does say "(c) Crown copyright and 
database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 100023320" below it. It's likely that it 
was showing lines for Rights of Way on top of an Ordnance Survey base map -- in 
which case it certainly couldn't be used for OSM mapping. You might be able to 
get permission to use the overlay lines, but you'd have to detach them from the 
base map before using them. Otherwise you might be inferring location details 
from the OS base map. Ordnance Survey are quite strict on what they consider to 
be derived data from their maps, so OSM needs to be very careful around them.

What we do have permission to use in OSM is the raw GIS files from Lancashire. 
As already noted, these contain both the parish IDs and names. It's up to 
whoever renders them what to show as labels.
Hopefully we can agree on a prow_ref format here, and then any tool authors 
will follow that in what they display to mappers.

> It is then complicated that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even 
> for me, parish IDs are the most straightforward way of adding prow_ref 
> data to OSM.)

Both myself (who runs PRoW Comparison tools) and Nick (who runs MapThe
Paths) intend to ensure our tools show whatever prow_ref format is agreed. So 
that should be two common sources of data for mappers to use.

Best wishes,

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

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

[nathan case]

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 
path to OSM, the primary source for the prow_ref is the council’s map. That map 
uses parish ID not parish name (i.e. it shows Label2). It is then complicated 
that other sources use an mix of formats. (Even for me, parish IDs are the most 
straightforward way of adding prow_ref data to OSM.)

So, as I said, my view is that Parish name and Parish ID should be both 
acceptable (though, of course, only one should be used per PROW). They serve 
the same function and can easily be crossed matched by third party services.


From: Tony OSM 
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 10:56 AM
To: nathan case ; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - 
legal vs reality)


Hi

The data file  sent by Lancs CC contained the District Number, Parish Number, 
Type, District Name, Parish Name plus coordinates list.

The first entry in the kml file is


33
120
16470.
Footpath
18.
yes
BURNLEY
HAPTON
12.
7.
FP 18
12-7-FP 18
http://lccmapzone/mapzone/asp/prow/general.aspx?path=FP18dis=12par=7
FP
120
768.56943096600

  -2.27639184743805,53.772975749866191 
-2.276419499154496,53.773014353403141 -2.276473919958041,53.773056738569473 
-2.276547825688409,53.773102501481461 -2.276629364748936,53.773140809891281 
...

The data does contain the relevant information in this case Hapton FP 18. Some 
people used the LABEL2 field 12-7-FP-18 which is easier to grab for display - 
but the point is that Lancs CC have provided both formats.

I have shared a list of District & Parish names and numbers.

Rob has an experimental map & tool of Lancashire showing the format of Parish 
Type Number - which I have found to be very useful recently in labelling PROW's 
in my district 9. (Didn't know that Judge Dredd came to Chorley!). I understand 
that Rob will make that experimental map widely available if people agree to 
the Lancashire format, as his tool also checks for well formed PROW refs, 
correct lengths, and completeness of implementation of the PROW set per parish.

We have the data from Lancs CC - we need to agree the best way to use it, and 
only the ref is stopping that.

Regards

Tony Shield

TonyS999


On 11/05/2020 09:07, nathan case wrote:
I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).

At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in place of 
the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is what is used 
on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they released (and 
thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic to expect mappers 
to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially since that data is 
not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available.

Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert 
parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable.

The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.

Regards.


From: Tony OSM <mailto:tonyo...@gmail.com>
Sent: 10 May 2020 12:29
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - 
legal vs reality)


I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the 
written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order 
sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency.

Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and I have 
used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it.

Regards

TonyS999
On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:
Hi,

There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with Rob's 
preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and reflects how 
the routes are most commonly actually referred to in communication. As Rob 
noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references with any consistency even 
within its own electronic systems (with the format on the online map being at 
variance with the underlying dataset). I can confirm that neither the 
definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire use any such references.

Kind regards,

Adam




___

Talk-GB mailing list

Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality)

[nathan case]

I have a slightly dissenting view (assuming parish means parish name).

At least in Lancashire’s case, I think the use of the numerical ID in place of 
the parish name should be acceptable. The numerical parish ID is what is used 
on the council’s own PROW map – as well as the open data they released (and 
thus the easiest to import into OSM). It would be unrealistic to expect mappers 
to then cross-check the parish ID with a name, especially since that data is 
not (as far as I’m aware) easily (openly?) available.

Of course, if third party sites want to then use lookup tables to convert 
parish ID into parish name, then that would be perfectly acceptable.

The general format (parish ID/name, PROW type, number) I support.

Regards.


From: Tony OSM 
Sent: 10 May 2020 12:29
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Lancashire prow_ref format (Was: Public Rights of Way - 
legal vs reality)


I agree with Adam. In the published path orders fixed to lamposts etc the 
written description includes parish, type, number. Sometimes in that order 
sometimes type, number, parish. There is no consistency.

Parish, type, number is likely to be understood by every user of OSM and I have 
used it in communication with Lancs CC who appear to understand it.

Regards

TonyS999
On 10/05/2020 12:03, Adam Snape wrote:
Hi,

There was a discussion on this list about this not long ago. I agree with Rob's 
preference for parish, type, number as it is more idiomatic and reflects how 
the routes are most commonly actually referred to in communication. As Rob 
noted, the council doesn't use the numeric references with any consistency even 
within its own electronic systems (with the format on the online map being at 
variance with the underlying dataset). I can confirm that neither the 
definitive maps nor statements for Lancashire use any such references.

Kind regards,

Adam



___

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] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

[nathan case]

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.

> are you adding prow_ref=* tags to the Rights of Way, and if so what format 
> are you using? 

I am. However, I can spot two issues: 

1. (my fault) I'd not been including "LA" prefix to the prow_ref number. I had 
assumed it stood for Lancashire but now realise it is actually for Lancaster. I 
will do so from now on and will try and go back and edit my edits (though there 
are a lot of them), unless there is another way?

2. (kinda my fault) the map data I'd been using (the Mapbox overlay) does not 
contain the public right of way type (i.e. the prow ref is simply given as LA 
|1-2| 3). Tony's email has pointed me to the county's right of way map which 
does contain this information (i.e 1-2-FP 3) so I will have to cross check the 
data as I copy it over (an annoying additional step!). 

Many thanks.



-Original Message-
From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)  
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 12:41 PM
To: talk-gb 
Subject: 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 be useful to 
map (c) any required deviations from the definitive line in order to use a 
Right of Way, whether or not there's a physical path in evidence there, in 
order to maintain a route-able network or ways.

Further details of the tagging I use in various cases can be found at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging#Routes_not_following_the_Definitive_Line

By the way Nathan, are you adding prow_ref=* tags to the Rights of Way, and if 
so what format are you using? If you're mapping Rights of Way in Lancashire, 
you might be interested in my tools at 
https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/lancs/

Best wishes,

Robert.

On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 11:29, nathan case  wrote:
> I’m using the very helpful work Mapbox tiles (from Rob Nickerson’s email on 
> 11 Nov 2019) to map Lancashire’s public rights of way (PROW) under the 
> council’s open data licence.
[snip]
> In cases where the mapped route deviates substantially from the PROW – should 
> I keep the mapped route or edit to fit the PROW?
>
> The mapped route could be an error (even with GPS trails) as the original 
> mapper may have taken the incorrect route. Quite often this is the original 
> mapper being polite and walking around the edge of a farmer’s field even when 
> the PROW is straight through the field. Legally, the route is through the 
> field and not around it. Or it could be that the way is not well signposted 
> and the mapper has had to guess the way (a big issue across Lancashire’s 
> moorlands/heathlands for the not so well trodden paths).
>
> Equally, the mapped route could represent the actual “on the ground” route 
> i.e. the route shown by PROW vector may be impassable. It’s also not 
> guaranteed that the vector files are correct (as they’re only copies from the 
> definitive map).
>
> Where the PROW goes through a building/object – should I map the route as 
> defined in the PROW, or re-route the PROW around the object?
>
> Unless there is an error in the PROW vectors, the building shouldn’t be built 
> on the PROW – though it does seem to happen a lot, especially with farm 
> buildings. Obviously the path can no longer run through the building – 
> despite it’s legal status. When arm chair mapping (as is only practical with 
> such a large data set) should we instead show the best alternative route? Or 
> go with the legal route and allow people following the route on the ground to 
> find the best route and edit in future?

--
Robert Whittaker

___
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] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

[nathan case]

Hi all,

I'm using the very helpful work Mapbox tiles (from Rob Nickerson's email on 11 
Nov 2019) to map Lancashire's public rights of way (PROW) under the council's 
open data licence.

Generally, any existing paths already marked on the map fit quite well with the 
vector files of the PROWs. So if the already mapped route lies near enough to 
the PROW line in the vector file, I leave the route as is and just add the 
missing tags (e.g. designation and prow_ref).

However;


  1.  In cases where the mapped route deviates substantially from the PROW - 
should I keep the mapped route or edit to fit the PROW?

The mapped route could be an error (even with GPS trails) as the original 
mapper may have taken the incorrect route. Quite often this is the original 
mapper being polite and walking around the edge of a farmer's field even when 
the PROW is straight through the field. Legally, the route is through the field 
and not around it. Or it could be that the way is not well signposted and the 
mapper has had to guess the way (a big issue across Lancashire's 
moorlands/heathlands for the not so well trodden paths).

Equally, the mapped route could represent the actual "on the ground" route i.e. 
the route shown by PROW vector may be impassable. It's also not guaranteed that 
the vector files are correct (as they're only copies from the definitive map).


  1.  Where the PROW goes through a building/object - should I map the route as 
defined in the PROW, or re-route the PROW around the object?

Unless there is an error in the PROW vectors, the building shouldn't be built 
on the PROW - though it does seem to happen a lot, especially with farm 
buildings. Obviously the path can no longer run through the building - despite 
it's legal status. When arm chair mapping (as is only practical with such a 
large data set) should we instead show the best alternative route? Or go with 
the legal route and allow people following the route on the ground to find the 
best route and edit in future?

Thanks for any insights!


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?

[nathan case]

I’m fairly sure Potlach (assuming you want to tackle this via a browser editor) 
allows you to delete larger areas in one go – rather than deleting point by 
point.

Cheers.

From: Peter Neale via Talk-GB 
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:43 AM
To: Talk-GB ; Jez Nicholson 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?

I think that I understand the issue.  A solution may be to delete individual 
points until the whole way is small enough to be shown on a screen at editable 
zoom.

I am happy to spend a while trying this, but it is probably best if only one of 
us is stirring the pot at once.

Regards,
Peter



On Monday, 27 April 2020, 10:32:44 BST, Jez Nicholson 
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:


A new user has created a new way in Brighton to indicate the Hollingbury 
residential error https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785162533 They freely admit 
their error but are unable to remove it, as am I. Would anyone be able to 
assist please?

I only have anecdotal evidence (like this one) but it seems that a 'new user 
thing to do' is to 'correct my local area'. Might be another reason to lock 
boundaries from new user changes?
___
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] Town Greens

[nathan case]

Thanks both - as it currently stands the whole town green is outlined by 
"boundary=protected_area & protect_class=21 & protection_title=common" (as 
town_green wasn’t an option, though, I actually added 
protection_title2=town_green). 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area

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 designation tag 
and name (etc.) can be shared across the separate land uses?

Again, I know this is a rendering issue, but the two problems are: the name of 
the town green (which has been added to the boundary) now doesn't show at all 
on the default map and nor does the boundary of the protected area (like one 
might expect considering this is the approach used for, e.g., nature reserves). 
I think this is because protect_class=21 just doesn't get rendered.




-Original Message-
From: Russ Garrett  
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 2:35 PM
To: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
Cc: talk-gb 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
 wrote:
> What I would do with these is to separate the legal status from the 
> physical and usage characteristics. First I would tag the legal 
> status, using the designation=* tag (which was set up for such
> purposes) i.e. designation=town_green. Once that's done you can add 
> whatever other tags you think best describe the actual land and the 
> way it is used. That might be leisure=park, landuse=recreation_ground, 
> or whatever, depending on the nature of the Town Green in question. By 
> using two (or more tags) you can correctly capture the UK legal 
> status, while also ensuring the area renders in an appropriate way 
> based on it's on-the-ground characteristics.

I was just about to suggest this. The legal status should be tagged separately 
from the landuse.

We created designation=common for common land. However it looks like town 
greens and village greens are legally identical under the Commons Act. Maybe 
designation=green might be best, although it looks a little weird.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:designation=common

--
Russ Garrett
r...@garrett.co.uk

___
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] Town Greens

[nathan case]

> But village greens and public open green spaces are normally managed, or at 
> least mown, by the local authority. They are not left in a wild or natural 
> state.

Indeed, that’s why this is not a traditional village green - otherwise  I would 
have used that tag ;-).

This is an area of mixed land cover (wood and open field). It is not managed 
(or even owned) by the local authority and is in a semi-wild state. However, 
what has changed is its legal status. It is now legally a town green and so the 
public has a right to use this land for recreational purposes without 
hinderance from the land owner. 

It seemed like this was something I should update and record in OSM. 
Unfortunately it's now no longer rendering.

-Original Message-
From: Martin Wynne  
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 1:53 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

On 03/04/2020 13:40, nathan case wrote:
> I ruled it out because, from the same wiki:
> 
> "This tag is intended for (usually urban) parks with managed greenery" and 
> "parks not so designed and manicured, but rather left in a more wild and 
> natural state should not get this tag, instead, use another tag like 
> boundary=national_park"
>

But village greens and public open green spaces are normally managed, or at 
least mown, by the local authority. They are not left in a wild or natural 
state.

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] Town Greens

[nathan case]

I ruled it out because, from the same wiki:

"This tag is intended for (usually urban) parks with managed greenery" and 
"parks not so designed and manicured, but rather left in a more wild and 
natural state should not get this tag, instead, use another tag like 
boundary=national_park"

Thanks.

-Original Message-
From: Martin Wynne  
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 12:31 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens

What is wrong with Park?

 From the wiki: "A park is an area of open space for recreational use, usually 
designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and bushes. Parks 
are usually urban"

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] Town Greens

[nathan case]

Thanks, I’d ruled out village green because of the Wiki description: “a 
distinctive area of grassy public land in a village centre”. This is not that. 
In fact using that tag in that way is listed under “incorrect use”.

But maybe the legal status overrules the Wiki description!

From: Colin Smale 
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 12:03 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens


Considering that it is legally and functionally the same as a Village Green, I 
would say use the same tag i.e. landuse=village_green. It may be *called* a 
town green because it belongs to a settlement that is a town (who decides that 
is a whole other discussion) and/or has a Town Council (which is, again, 
legally and functionally the same as a Parish Council with the addition of a 
Town Mayor).

Village greens, town greens, designated commons etc all suffer from the same 
problem in OSM: they have a certain legal status, but both the landuse to which 
they are actually put, and the landcover (grass etc), vary. So actually 
landuse=village_green is a misclassification in the taxonomy because it is not 
(always or by definition) "the use to which the land is put".




On 2020-04-03 12:48, nathan case wrote:
Hi all,

I made a recent edit to a local area that has recently been designated a “Town 
Green”.

Edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329
News: 
https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancasters-freemans-wood-looks-set-become-town-green-after-eight-year-battle-1357617

For those that are unfamiliar with a Town Green – it is, legally, the same as a 
village green. It is a legally protected area of land that is for the enjoyment 
of the public (Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration Act 1965).

But I ran into some problems mapping it.

The “village green” landuse tag doesn’t seem appropriate (as it doesn’t fit the 
characterises described) – despite being legally the same.
Park and/or recreation landuse tags don’t seem appropriate either – it isn’t 
either of those, despite the leisure connotations the land holds.
Nature reserve didn’t seem appropriate as, although the land is now protected, 
it isn’t formally a reserve.

So I’ve opted for the boundary=protected_area schema. From the protect_class 
options, 21 seemed like the most relevant: “Community life: religious, sacred 
areas, associative locations, recreation”.

Unfortunately, this now means the land (specifically its boundary and name) is 
not being rendered. Of course I know not to tag for the renderer but I wanted 
to check the validity of my approach.

Is there an agreed upon approach for town greens in the UK? Is there anything I 
could do, within the correct schema, to show this important local area on the 
default map?

Cheers!




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Town Greens

[nathan case]

Hi all,

I made a recent edit to a local area that has recently been designated a "Town 
Green".

Edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82973329
News: 
https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/lancasters-freemans-wood-looks-set-become-town-green-after-eight-year-battle-1357617

For those that are unfamiliar with a Town Green - it is, legally, the same as a 
village green. It is a legally protected area of land that is for the enjoyment 
of the public (Commons Act 2006 and the Commons Registration Act 1965).

But I ran into some problems mapping it.

The "village green" landuse tag doesn't seem appropriate (as it doesn't fit the 
characterises described) - despite being legally the same.
Park and/or recreation landuse tags don't seem appropriate either - it isn't 
either of those, despite the leisure connotations the land holds.
Nature reserve didn't seem appropriate as, although the land is now protected, 
it isn't formally a reserve.

So I've opted for the boundary=protected_area schema. From the protect_class 
options, 21 seemed like the most relevant: "Community life: religious, sacred 
areas, associative locations, recreation".

Unfortunately, this now means the land (specifically its boundary and name) is 
not being rendered. Of course I know not to tag for the renderer but I wanted 
to check the validity of my approach.

Is there an agreed upon approach for town greens in the UK? Is there anything I 
could do, within the correct schema, to show this important local area on the 
default map?

Cheers!



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