Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Phillip Barnett]

“  any road that cars can use is also open to cyclists and pedestrians ”
Pedestrians? Are you sure about that? Yes, you can walk along country roads 
that lack pavements, but try that in a town and I’m pretty sure you’d get 
stopped quite quickly.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 10 Dec 2020, at 15:21, Mark Goodge  wrote:
> 
> any road that cars can use is also open to cyclists and pedestrians

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

Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512

[Phillip Barnett]

Could you not just ask the local mapper to knock on any doors in the street and 
ASK them the name?
And then use that local knowledge?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 15 Jul 2020, at 08:36, o...@poppe.dev wrote:
> 
> 
>> I've made an FOI request yesterday and am awaiting a reply. What we could 
>> also do is find a local mapper to answer what he knows about the street.
> 
> Getting back to something fun, this is what turned up yesterday:
> 
> ***
> Your request:
> In the ELTHORNE ward, SOA E01001248, there’s a small road-stub  between the 
> area ROYAL GDNS. and BOSTON GDNS., that runs approximately between the 
> WGS84-coordinates 51.4981160°N 0.3283307°W and 51.4984358°N 0.3273347°W 
> (OSGB36 between  516136/179011 and 516205/179048).
> As an editor in OpenStreetMap I am looking for the NAME of this street stub, 
> that is available under the Open Government License or any other 
> OpenDatabaseLicense-compliant form of publication.
> 
> Your request has been assessed and the following information is provided in 
> response:
> 
> We wish to refer you to the Adopted Roads map for this information.  
> This can found via:
> http://maps.ealing.gov.uk/Webreports/Highways/Adoptedroads.html
> You are free to use this information for your own use, including for 
> non-commercial research purposes. It may also be used for the purposes of 
> news reporting. Any other type of re-use, for example publishing the 
> information, issuing copies to the public or marketing, will require our 
> permission as copyright holder.   
> If you intend to re-use this information in this manner you must apply to us.
> ***
> 
> Firstly, that reply came mere hours after I changed the way to "noname=yes" 
> and closing the note so that StreetComplete wouldn't complain any longer 
> (adding ref:usrn=20602512 of course) after I had spoken to a local mapper and 
> he went to the street and thoroughly checked again, that there's really no 
> street name signed whatsoever. This adds to impecable timing in my life over 
> the last few weeks *sic*
> 
> Secondly, lookig at that map, the adopted road scheme REALLY thinks, that 
> this road is called "Fairfield Road". Darn.
> 
> So, now my question is this: The response said "If you intend to re-use this 
> information in this manner you must apply to us.". Is this a process that I 
> want to go through (given, I ever find out who "us" is) and then put the 
> answer under https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permissions?
> 
> K
> 
> ___
> 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] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

[Phillip Barnett]

I doubt the point of the exercise in the UK at all. As another mapper has 
noted, there are almost no roads unmapped here. Any new developments are 
invariably jumped on very quickly by local mappers, as a rare trophy almost! 
(Certainly by me)
In which case the number of false positives will be through the roof.
Better that they focus on other, less well-mapped countries. This is not a 
problem to be solved here.
Phil

Sent from my iPhone

> On 27 Mar 2020, at 14:23, ael  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 01:04:50PM +, Brian Prangle wrote:
>> I echo Richard's comments - best to confine yourselves to new roads in
>> recently constructed residential developments - and even here you need to
>> be careful  as on the ground some roads will be service roads and some
>> will  be living streets and there will also be gated communities (can you
> 
> Even then working from imagery can be very problematic. One of the
> Amazon mappers added a variety of roads to a construction site which
> were actually muddy tracks being used for the construction itself. A minority
> were destined to become highways or paths. I had to ask for a reversion.
> I doubt that an AI system would be any better than Amazon humans.
> 
> 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] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Phillip Barnett]

And in fact David Earl deserves recognition for pretty much single-handedly 
doing the original basic mapping of Cambridge at street level. (I did about 1% 
of it at the time, but had the excuse of very young children taking my 
attention)

Sent from my iPhone

> On 8 Feb 2020, at 14:30, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> 
> Dave F wrote:
>> CU wanted a new site map. They paid someone to provide it for 
>> them. Which is fine, but please don't suggest they're 
>> contributions are superior to those of any anybody else. 
>> Especially when they decided to knowingly go against accepted 
>> tagging procedures.
> 
> I think that's a little harsh - David Earl mapped the university in the
> _very_ early days of the project. There's stuff there dating back to
> 2006/2007. Cambridge was the first place to be mapped in great detail in the
> UK - even in 2011 I remember giving a talk at Oxford Geek Nights where I
> could still hold Cambridge up as an exemplar of how to do it. You can
> imagine how well that went down in Oxford. ;)
> 
> So it wasn't really "going against accepted tagging procedures", because
> tagging was still very much evolving back then. Fully in agreement that the
> time has come to update the tagging, but that's just a result of OSM
> changing - there's no need for any rancour against the original mappers.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html
> 
> ___
> 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] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Phillip Barnett]

And here is the email from the guy who did the original mapping, the last time 
this came up, including his reasoning for the amenity Tag rather than building 
tag https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017457.html

Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 Feb 2020, at 15:49, Brian Prangle  wrote:
> 
> 
> "OSM is not beholden to data consumers. 
> They take the data 'as is'. That includes any amendments
> 
> My planned amendment can always be reversed if there is a valid reason.  
> Upsetting CU isn't one"
> 
>  Not a great way to build a community when the data user in question put in a 
> lot of resource in order to create the OSM data in the firstplace
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 14:35, Dave F via Talk-GB  
>> wrote:
>> Hi Jerry
>> 
>> On 06/02/2020 10:19, SK53 wrote:
>> > Funnily enough this long-standing issue came up at our pub meeting last
>> > month. Although my reaction has always been to let sleeping dogs lie, this
>> > was clearly not the consensus.
>> 
>> It's detrimental to the quality of the OSM database. it requires sorting 
>> out.
>> 
>> > I've sent a message to University of Cambridge Information Services who run
>> > the map.cam.ac.uk site which consumes the OSM data
>> 
>> Is this their sole use? There was a hint in a university blog there were 
>> other sites
>> 
>> > , to warn them that a
>> > change is impending. It's probably worth holding off for a week or so to
>> > allow them to assess any impact on their map.
>> 
>> I was going to give it a week from my post to allow other OSM 
>> contributors to have their say. I don't want this to fizzle out as has 
>> happened on previous occasions. OSM is not beholden to data consumers. 
>> They take the data 'as is'. That includes any amendments.
>> 
>> My planned amendment can always be reversed if there is a valid reason.  
>> Upsetting CU isn't one.
>> 
>> >   Incidentally, knowing a
>> > specific contact point would help as university IT departments can be big
>> > beasts these days. It does show that having a good contact point is always
>> > a good idea for directed edits when data is in use.
>> 
>> It depends how the institution is set up, but I've found bursar/estates 
>> departments are the more interested in the map's appearance. IT 
>> departments focus more on 0 & 1s.
>> 
>> > As others have said there is a lot of inconsistency: particular with former
>> > houses taken into University or College ownership which sometimes get
>> > building=house/semi and other times building=university. There are other
>> > college buildings of this type which are not hit by amenity=university at
>> > all.
>> 
>> These are to assess what would bel eft after I make my planned amendment.
>> Note these are not all CU (ie Anglia Ruskin)
>> 
>> Buildings=yes, without amenity but have 'university' in the operator tag:
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QsU
>> 
>> Buildings that aren't '=yes', without amenity but have 'university' in 
>> the operator tag:
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QsT
>> 
>> Non building, amenity=university, Has 'University of Cambridge' in the 
>> operator tag
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt3
>> 
>> Non building, amenity=university, operator is not 'University of Cambridge'
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt1
>> 
>> Non building, amenity=university, No operator tag
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt4
>> 
>> > Other general points I noticed relating to  inconsistency/issues (largely
>> > arising because Cambridge got mapped earlier than many places or it just
>> > has a lot of things which are otherwise rare):
>> >
>> > - Theological Colleges are loosely associated with the university, and
>> > are equally loosely amenity=university in their own right. I don't 
>> > know if
>> > we have a regular way of tagging non-degree awarding religious training
>> > centres. These are something of an Oxbridge speciality. I see the 
>> > London
>> > Institute of Theology is tagged
>> >  as a college. Years ago I
>> > mapped Coleg Trefecca as a conference centre, but used old_ tags to
>> > indicate it's historical role as a college training people for the
>> > ministry. Fortunately some of the odder places
>> >  of former
>> > times have similarly changed their roles.
>> > - Sports facilities (especially isolated playing fields and boathouses)
>> > are just tagged with a ref and operator. Pavilions are often tagged
>> > building=university, as is the sports centre.
>> > - Cambridge colleges are independent corporations in their own right, 
>> > so
>> > probably should have separate amenity=university relations (although 
>> > the
>> > world is unlikely to end if not).
>> 
>> They maybe financially independent, but still stand under the umbrella 
>> of CU. Why can't they have separate college or faculty relations?
>> 
>> >   They mostly form discrete campuses.
>> > 

Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published - schema mapping

[Phillip Barnett]

Apart from on motorways!

Sent from my iPhone

> On 2 Oct 2019, at 09:37, Andy Allan  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 05:22, Wulf4096  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> in Germany we've got "Radfahrstreifen" (solid line) which are
>> additionally marked by bicycle signs. Only cyclists may use those, and
>> the sign forbids cyclists to use the main carriageway, unless they've
>> got a reason to.
>> 
>> And we've got "Schutzstreifen" (dashed line). Legally, from the view of
>> a cyclist, those marking don't exist, as they don't impose any rules on
>> cyclists (this has been ruled by court).  Other traffic may not use the
>> dashed lanes unless they've got a reason to.
>> 
>> So I guess it's similar markings and rules?
> 
> Similar markings, but different rules. There is no implication in the
> UK that a cyclist has to use a cycle lane, regardless of markings. You
> can ignore a solid-line-lane and ride in any other traffic lane,
> without needing any reason.
> 
> Thanks,
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging a named building now used for a different purpose

[Phillip Barnett]

Not sure how to tag it now, but are you sure the name is correct? JW’s place of 
worship has always been known as a Kingdom Hall, not Wisdom.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Hall

Sent from my iPhone

> On 23 May 2019, at 21:37, Mark Goodge  wrote:
> 
> Looking for some advice...
> 
> There's a building in the town where I live that was originally constructed 
> by the Jehovah's Witnesses and named, by them, "Wisdom Hall". It hasn't been 
> used by the JWs now for several years, ever since they moved to a new 
> location. The building is currently occupied by a jewellery company which 
> uses it as their workshop.
> 
> However, the building is still known locally as "Wisdom hall", and that also 
> still appears on the nameplate on the front of the building along with the 
> current owner's trading name.
> 
> I've edited it to change it from a place of worship to a commercial building, 
> as that's what it now is. (The previous tags were added in 2015, well after 
> it had ceased to be a place of worship, so I suspect the editor then was 
> working from historic information).
> 
> However, I'm a bit unsure how best to tag it. Normally, commercial buildings 
> have the owner's name as the value of the 'name' key. I could do that here, 
> and then move the building name into the 'addr:housename' key, but that seems 
> inappropriate. So I've left the building name as it was, which reflects 
> current local usage.
> 
> But then, where does the current owner's name go? For now, I've put it into 
> the 'operator' key. But I'm not really sure if that's the right place either.
> 
> This is the object in question:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/308217826
> 
> Any suggestions gratefully received.
> 
> Mark
> 
> ___
> 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] Common Land has stopped rendering

[Phillip Barnett]

That’s parkland, surely?

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 Mar 2019, at 14:32, Martin Wynne  wrote:

>> To me the simplest rule of thumb
>> is that a park is fenced, allowing the authorities to control access, while
>> a common is unfenced allowing anyone to access it at any time.
> 
> The local municipal park here is unfenced, just a row of low wooden bollards 
> to prevent vehicle incursions. Access on foot is uncontrolled.
> 
> An interesting conundrum is how to tag a private ornamental park, such as:
> 
> https://goo.gl/maps/2qPQEbJVeZD2
> 
> I recall reading an article from an OS surveyor saying that he knew one when 
> he saw one, but neither he nor anyone else had ever been able to put a clear 
> definition in words.
> 
> It's rather more than a "meadow" isn't it? But hardly a "garden"?
> 
> cheers,
> 
> 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] OpenRailwayMap

[Phillip Barnett]

Actually, it doesn’t work on a phone Browser. (iOS, Safari)

Sent from my iPhone

> On 20 Dec 2017, at 10:11, Paul Berry  wrote:
> 
> David,
> 
> Happily, nothing sinister. It's a url forwarder/shortener used by Twitter. 
> Will work on a phone browser, but may be blocked by desktop browsers.
> 
> Regards,
> Paul
> 
>> On 19 December 2017 at 12:14, David Woolley  
>> wrote:
>>> On 19/12/17 10:23, Steven Abrams (Brook Street) wrote:
>>> 
>>> https://twitter.com/MrTimDunn/status/942751174922555393 
>>> > 
>> The URL in the HTML doesn't match the displayed one at all.  At best I 
>> imagine it only works if you are subscribed to various services.  At worst, 
>> Firefox is right, and it is a scam.
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Strange changeset comment

[Phillip Barnett]

Looks like a game.

> On 16 Mar 2017, at 15:27, Matt Williams  wrote:
> 
> I've just seen some very strange edits from the user
> ExperimentalNarratives showing up in Coventry:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ExperimentalNarratives/history
> 
> I'm not sure whether the change itself makes sense (I no longer live
> in the area) but the changeset comment is odd. Could anyone from the
> are take a look and see if they can work out what's going on?
> 
> Cheers,
> Matt
> 
> ___
> 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] London, network=Barclays Cycle Hire

[Phillip Barnett]

+1 for simplifying name. Adding the name of 'sponsor of the week' adds nothing 
to the utility of the map, and just means extra work for no benefit. We are 
under no obligation to promote the sponsor.


> On 18 Feb 2017, at 12:43, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> I see no problem with this edit, however should we keep changing the
> name of the sponsor, or should we be even more bold and simply call it
> London Cycle Hire, or similar, in the same way the BBC refer to the FA
> Cup rather than the name of the sponsor it happens to have this year?
> 
> My 2 pence worth.
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sat, 2017-02-18 at 12:31 +, Dan S wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Exactly 1 year ago, Harry pointed out that most of London's bike hire
>> scheme was still tagged as "Barclays Cycle Hire" even though it's not
>> called that any more.
>> > London_Cycle_Hire#Santander_Cycles>
>> 
>> He said: "I think this is a case where (PROPOSAL) we Londoners should
>> be bold and swap them all over as a single edit."
>> 
>> I concurred back then, and I still do. I invite opinions as to the
>> best value to put in the network=* tag (see the discussion on the
>> wiki, for some suggestions). I've pasted at the end of this email,
>> the
>> current counts of values used.
>> 
>> I'd like to propose carrying out that edit, i.e. a simple edit to the
>> network=* values listed below, for amenity=bicycle_rental. (Note that
>> we'd avoid editing other network=* values such as "Brompton Dock",
>> different scheme.)
>> 
>> Best
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 422 "network": "Barclays Cycle Hire"
>>   1 "network": "Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme"
>>   1 "network": "Barkleys Cycle Hire"
>>   1 "network": "Santander"
>>  20 "network": "Santander Cycle Hire"
>>  42 "network": "Santander Cycles"
>>   1 "network": "TfL"
>>   1 "network": "TFL"
>>   3 "network": "TfL Cycle Hire"
>>   1 "network": "TFL Cycle Hire"
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] National Park extensions

[Phillip Barnett]

Can the written description be used as a source?

> On 17 Aug 2016, at 19:57, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
>> On 17/08/2016 16:42, jc...@mail.com wrote:
>> As a result much of what has been added is inaccurate, not least because 
>> many nodes are shared with highways etc. despite the written descriptions 
>> clearly stating "...it follows the edge..." (Yorkshire Dales was mostly 
>> clean of shared nodes but Lake District did have shared nodes/ways before, 
>> hence A6 road got broken - partially fixed by another mapper)
> 
> Before doing anything else I'd mention the issue (tactfully) to the mapper 
> who did the change, perhaps on a changeset discussion.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapbox imagery update

[Phillip Barnett]

Cambridge appears to be Summer 2011, sadly.

> On 27 Apr 2016, at 14:40, Andy Robinson  wrote:
> 
> Mapbox imagery for the area around me in north brum is I think from 2014. 
> It’s a little more recent than BING but not buy more than a few months and 
> the resolution is poorer.
>  
> Cheers
> Andy
>  
> From: Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: 26 April 2016 20:08
> To: Talk-GB
> Subject: [Talk-GB] Mapbox imagery update
>  
> Worth checking your local area:
> 
> https://www.mapbox.com/blog/three-million-km/
> 
> Rob
> ___
> 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] ITO World - OSM OS Locator Analysis

[Phillip Barnett]

Sorry, my bad. I wasn't fully understanding the layout and was assuming the 
left hand column would disappear. Now I get it.

> On 11 Dec 2015, at 22:17, Shaun McDonald <sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk> wrote:
> 
> Hi Philip,
> 
> Do you have a specific example where the not:names are not working? The left 
> hand column on 
> http://product.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/area?name=Cambridge has 
> a list of the streets where the not name has been used, so that the Ordnance 
> Survey can use that information as part of the feedback loop, and to allow 
> later review.
> 
> I’ve looked at a few examples in the roads missing list, and for the road 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4076126 the comment on the last changeset 
> suggests that there should be a not:name added to the street. I’ve not seen 
> an example where there is a not:name which is not interpreted, and would be 
> interested in any such examples.
> 
> The daily updates are from the OSM data, so within 1 or 2 days any changes 
> that you make to OSM should show up in OSM Analysis. The updates to the OS 
> data are done manually, which I’ve just done for the November 2015 data, and 
> should be picked up in the next update. This will mean there will likely be a 
> little jump in the numbers of unnamed roads. (Sorry for the delay in 
> updating, I’ve been on paternity leave this past couple of weeks.)
> 
> Shaun
> Developer
> ITO World
> 
>> On 11 Dec 2015, at 20:36, Phillip Barnett <phillip.p.barn...@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm slightly confused - I fixed a lot /most of Cambridge with not:name a 
>> year or two ago but on looking again, find the same errors still there. How 
>> do I get ITO to refresh this? The site says it was refreshed today.
>> 
>>> On 11 Dec 2015, at 17:44, Jez Nicholson <jez.nichol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thank you. You've prompted me to renew my quest for 100% in City of 
>>> Brighton and Hove as long as the roads with/without apostrophes aren't 
>>> counted in the percentage.
>>> 
>>> - Jez
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 at 23:09 Steve Doerr <doerr.step...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think the URL may have changed. Try 
>>>> http://product.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main
>>>> 
>>>> Steve
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 10/12/2015 22:34, Robert Neil wrote:
>>>>> ITOWorld OSM / OS Locator missing street analysis has been off for a 
>>>>> couple of weeks with page not found.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anyone know what is happening with it?
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Robert
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>> 
>>>>This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. 
>>>> www.avast.com
>>>> ___
>>>> 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
> 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ITO World - OSM OS Locator Analysis

[Phillip Barnett]

I'm slightly confused - I fixed a lot /most of Cambridge with not:name a year 
or two ago but on looking again, find the same errors still there. How do I get 
ITO to refresh this? The site says it was refreshed today.

> On 11 Dec 2015, at 17:44, Jez Nicholson  wrote:
> 
> Thank you. You've prompted me to renew my quest for 100% in City of Brighton 
> and Hove as long as the roads with/without apostrophes aren't counted in 
> the percentage.
> 
> - Jez
> 
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 at 23:09 Steve Doerr  wrote:
>> I think the URL may have changed. Try 
>> http://product.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> 
>>> On 10/12/2015 22:34, Robert Neil wrote:
>>> ITOWorld OSM / OS Locator missing street   analysis has been off 
>>> for a couple of weeks with page not found.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Anyone know what is happening with it?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Robert
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> 
>>  This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. 
>> www.avast.com
>> ___
>> 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] Rail maxspeeds being converted

[Phillip Barnett]

I'm on a train in East Anglia at the moment and the signs next to the track 
still appear to be miles per hour.



> On 5 Sep 2015, at 09:18, Dave F.  wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> A user has been converting the maxspeed tag of railway line from mph to kph:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/278060675/history#map=17/51.42363/-2.72120
> 
> It appears to be a straight conversion ie 100mph = 161. Which seems a bit 
> silly. I'm sure the limit wouldn't be exactly 161.
> 
> I thought that mph was valid as long as it was labelled as such.
> 
> Are the signs next to the rails still in mph?
> 
> His edits appear to be country wide.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/308866549/history
> 
> I've sent him a message asking why he's doing it.
> 
> Dave F.
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Kettering area: request

[Phillip Barnett]

At a guess I'd say the old ironstone quarry to the east visible on NLS OS map 
layer at some point extended further westwards and cut into the landscape at 
that point to produce the cliff. It's obviously farmland below now, with the 
easternmost part being the landfill site. Bing maps Birdseye view shows the 
cliff nicely.



 On 7 Jul 2015, at 13:37, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
 
 Possibly this:
 
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/359163363
 
 from Bing imagery and nearness to the parking bay on the A14
 
 
 On 7 July 2015 at 13:19, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
 I passed there again recently, on a coach, so had a better view; it
 looks like a natural cliff rather than recent digging.
 
 On 4 September 2014 at 10:14, Phillip Barnett
 phillip.p.barn...@gmail.com wrote:
 I drive past there occasionally - I don’t recall a quarry next to the A14. 
 Do you mean the Cranford Landfill site, which is further back, and I have 
 now added from Bing imagery. Might look like a quarry on a drive past?
 Phil
 
 On 3 Sep 2014, at 18:01, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
 
 Do we have anyone near Kettering/ Trapston (A14 J10), who could survey
 this quarry:
 
  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/180325130
 
 which I roughly sketched two years ago, based on what I could see from the 
 A14?
 
 --
 Andy Mabbett
 @pigsonthewing
 http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
 
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
 
 
 
 --
 Andy Mabbett
 @pigsonthewing
 http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
 
 
 
 -- 
 Andy Mabbett
 @pigsonthewing
 http://pigsonthewing.org.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] too many universities in Cambridge

[Phillip Barnett]

I'm a Cambridge mapper, but I'd advise doing nothing until you've spoken with 
David Earl who was contracted by Cambridge University to actually map the 
university - see this link
http://soc2012.soc.org.uk/node/16.html
Thanks



 On 21 May 2015, at 22:39, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Hi all,
 
 I don't relish bringing this up since it's a bit of a tangle, but I
 noticed Cambridge has a lot more universities than I thought!
 Apparently 1219, judging from the number of amenity=university tagged
 objects. In real life I'm aware of two: Cambridge Uni, Anglia Ruskin
 Uni.
 
 I think someone mentioned Cambridge Uni was using OpenStreetMap for
 some of its maps,* so I'd be nervous about proposing anything radical
 right now. But is there anyone on this list who is a Cambridge mapper,
 or connected to the university's use of mapping? It's possible that
 some team decided to use the tag to mark every college building (etc),
 when really amenity=university is supposed to mark a university, not a
 piece of a university.
 
 To do it properly it might need some neat relations to group these
 things. (Might be fun for someone who loves relations - various
 multi-site and hierarchical connections among the buildings scattered
 across town!) Alternatively there are tags in use such as
 building=university which might be good drop-in replacements...
 
 Best
 Dan
 
 
 * They use OSM for their basemap: http://map.cam.ac.uk/ - I wonder if
 they're getting their POI info from it too
 
 ___
 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] GB postcodes

[Phillip Barnett]

Yes, round here in Cambridge too! At least my local box now has a last 
collection at 9am - which rather caught me out when I was trying to catch the 
former 17:30 last post



 On 26 Mar 2015, at 11:46, John Aldridge j...@jjdash.demon.co.uk wrote:
 
 On 26/03/2015 10:20, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
 Collection times are increasingly meaningless, thanks to the dear old
 Post Office replacing them with “there will be a collection here before
 5pm” (rather than at X pm) type of notices (at least around here,
 anyway, and I believe that it is generally true)
 
 Not round here (Cambridge). The wording is Last collection time -- Monday to 
 Friday 6.00pm ... Saturday 12 noon ... Additional collections may be made 
 throughout the day until the last time shown., i.e. if you get your letter 
 in the box by the stated time, it'll be collected today.
 
 -- 
 Cheers,
 John
 
 ___
 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] Disclaimer

[Phillip Barnett]

So all shopkeepers are liable if they sell a hedge trimmer to someone who then 
cuts off their fingers? I would be very surprised if that was the case



 On 28 Jan 2015, at 13:52, Pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 On 28 January 2015 at 12:10, Ed Loach edlo...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 28/01/2015 01:13, Neil Matthews wrote:
  Do we need an OSM disclaimer
 
 The copyright page does include:
 Inclusion of data in OpenStreetMap does not imply that the original data 
 provider endorses OpenStreetMap, provides any warranty, or accepts any 
 liability.
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
 
 Ed
 
 
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
 
 They would say you made information available to others for the purpose of 
 them using that information, you cannot deny some liability for when people 
 use that information (whether rightly or wrongly) 
 
 In UK law, if you lend a neighbour your ladder and hedge trimmer, if he cuts 
 his fingers off as he falls from the ladder, you can be held liable for 
 lending him the gear. Basically, on doing the lending you have a duty to 
 assess whether he's capable of using the gear safely.
 
 -- 
 Mike.
 @millomweb - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
 via the area's premier website - 
 
 currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property  
 pets
 
 TCs
 ___
 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] Disclaimer

[Phillip Barnett]

That's because Companies House are the official legal arbiters of who is, or is 
not, a legally trading company and thus have the ultimate responsibility.



 On 28 Jan 2015, at 14:44, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On 28/01/2015 01:13, Neil Matthews wrote:
 [snip]
 
 I guess we might need to be a little careful: 
 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/one-spelling-error-costs-companies-house-up-to-9-million-after-being-sued-for-ruining-business-10007372.html
 
 -- 
 Steve
 
 ---
 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
 http://www.avast.com
 
 
 ___
 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] Disclaimer

[Phillip Barnett]

And car manufacturers are legally responsible for 4 deaths every year? 
They'd soon be out of business if so. I can't believe that lending your 
neighbour a piece of equipment in good working order would make you responsible 
for injury. If you knew it was damaged, however, and did not make your 
neighbour aware of this fact, then yes, you most likely would be liable.



 On 28 Jan 2015, at 14:24, Pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote:
 
 A 10 year old who buys cigarettes might conceivably accidentally smoke them.
 
 On 28 January 2015 at 14:21, Phillip Barnett phillip.p.barn...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
 So all shopkeepers are liable if they sell a hedge trimmer to someone who 
 then cuts off their fingers? I would be very surprised if that was the 
 case
 
 
 
 On 28 Jan 2015, at 13:52, Pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 On 28 January 2015 at 12:10, Ed Loach edlo...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 28/01/2015 01:13, Neil Matthews wrote:
  Do we need an OSM disclaimer
 
 The copyright page does include:
 Inclusion of data in OpenStreetMap does not imply that the original data 
 provider endorses OpenStreetMap, provides any warranty, or accepts any 
 liability.
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
 
 Ed
 
 
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
 
 They would say you made information available to others for the purpose of 
 them using that information, you cannot deny some liability for when people 
 use that information (whether rightly or wrongly) 
 
 In UK law, if you lend a neighbour your ladder and hedge trimmer, if he 
 cuts his fingers off as he falls from the ladder, you can be held liable 
 for lending him the gear. Basically, on doing the lending you have a duty 
 to assess whether he's capable of using the gear safely.
 
 -- 
 Mike.
 @millomweb - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
 via the area's premier website - 
 
 currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property 
  pets
 
 TCs
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
 
 
 
 -- 
 Mike.
 @millomweb - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
 via the area's premier website - 
 
 currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property  
 pets
 
 TCs
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Kettering area: request

[Phillip Barnett]

I drive past there occasionally - I don’t recall a quarry next to the A14. Do 
you mean the Cranford Landfill site, which is further back, and I have now 
added from Bing imagery. Might look like a quarry on a drive past?
Phil

On 3 Sep 2014, at 18:01, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:

 Do we have anyone near Kettering/ Trapston (A14 J10), who could survey
 this quarry:
 
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/180325130
 
 which I roughly sketched two years ago, based on what I could see from the 
 A14?
 
 -- 
 Andy Mabbett
 @pigsonthewing
 http://pigsonthewing.org.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