Re: [OSM-talk] Survey about OSM communication behaviors
Courtney wrote: > Or is it going to keep doing the same old flame wars? To be honest, the mailing lists have been on the way out for a long time now, and talk@ is no exception. Some once busy lists are now basically dead (dev@, legal-talk@, talk-de@). Others are noticeably quieter (talk@, talk-fr@, osmf-talk@). A few local communities still prefer mailing lists but they're fewer in number every year. Generally, the vital new stuff in OSM doesn't happen on mailing lists. So I wouldn't suggest worrying too much about the lists. Theory and practice of community interaction elsewhere in OSM is absolutely a valid and interesting topic, but the lists belong to pretty much the same period in OSM history as IRC and Potlatch, and I say that as someone who still uses both. :) Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Public Rights of Way overlay missing
Jas Ranasinghe wrote: > Is anyone able to provide any information about the missing Public > Rights of Way overlay? It is still currently in the overlay list, but the > Rights of Way do not show up on the map. I'm guessing this refers to one of the tile layers I host at osm.cycle.travel. Unfortunately one of the hosts I use let me down (repeated outages and very little support), so I had to move a bunch of stuff at short notice on New Year's Eve. I haven't had chance to move a few of the tile layers yet but should be able to in the next few days. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Tagging bicycle on footpath laws Was: Re: HighRouleur edits
Andrew Harvey wrote: > Well your router would need to look up the specific default whether > that's something in the routing engine configuration, pulled from > the OSM wiki, or pulled from the Victoria state relation def:* tags. With the best will in the world, that's not going to happen. I can point you to a well-known bike routing app that has 75+ employees, was backed by a government funding office to the tune of seven figures, and has an install base of millions, and yet it still gets path access across the UK very very wrong because (basically) it applies German defaults. So the idea that every single router is going to write state-specific processing is unrealistic, I'm afraid, whatever you think _should_ happen. (Personally I do have a whole bunch of country, state and even county-specific adaptions for cycle.travel's routing, but I'm very aware that I'm the outlier. And I've never even heard of "def:*" tags.) Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Queensland railway stations
Hi folks, There appear to be a _lot_ of bogus rail stations on the map in Queensland: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/-21.0650/148.8397=T https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-23.5706/150.1838=T I think these are historic halts that haven't had service for many years but have mistakenly been added. They mostly seem to have been mapped by TheOldMiner who hasn't been active for four years. Any rail enthusiasts or Queenslanders on this list who fancy cleaning them up? cheers Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing
Robert Whittaker wrote: > On the basis that it's a required part of each address, I > would recommend that we do store the post town in OSM > addresses. There are significant advantages to storing it > in a consistent way, and the best existing tag to do this > would be addr:city. (We wouldn't want to invent a new tag > (e.g. addr:posttown), since as a UK-only term that > will simply be ignored by most international data > consumers. I quite strongly disagree with this. My address is x Market Street, Charlbury, Oxfordshire. My addr:city is therefore Charlbury. This suggestion would see my house tagged with addr:street=Market Street, addr:city=Chipping Norton, because Chipping Norton is the Royal Mail post town. If a letter is addressed to x Market Street, Chipping Norton, it will end up at x Market Street, Chipping Norton (and yes, there is one). Not x Market Street, Charlbury. You suggest using addr:town to get around this, but that seems to fall foul of your “ignored by most data consumers” point. A post town isn’t a required part of an address. It’s an occasionally suggested part of an address for customers of Royal Mail, useful only in circumstances where the postcode is omitted. Royal Mail themselves don’t make any reference to it in their own consumer-facing recommendations, they just say “the town” (https://personal.help.royalmail.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/81/~/how-to-address-your-mail-%28clear-addressing%29). Royal Mail is one privately-owned delivery business which is heading rapidly towards being a minority provider, and by some measures already is. Other providers are not beholden to PAF and are increasingly looking outside it to their own datasets. Post towns are in any case superfluous for addresses derived directly from PAF (e.g. via an autocomplete mechanism on a website), because you have the postcode in that case. And that’s just the delivery market - addresses serve other purposes, principally around geocoding/routing, for which post towns are irrelevant. More philosophically, post towns violate the “on the ground” principle. No one here writes their address as Chipping Norton unless PAF autocompletes it for them. No one has Chipping Norton on their letterhead. Trusting some remote third-party database in preference to local knowledge is not what OSM does, and particularly not OSM in the UK. By all means namespace it (royal_mail:addr:city) or use a bespoke tag for what is a bespoke concept (addr:post_town). But let’s not remove useful information (the actual town/city) in favour of it, and let’s not tag as if post towns are an intrinsic part of UK addresses, because they’re not. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways
Andrew Hain wrote: > What distinction would you make between this and the cycle > route over steps that was discussed recently or the > signposted cycle route past cycle barriers in Barnes, > London? "Cycle routes" as a distinct concept don't have any legal force, other than authorised forms of signage in TSRGD. It would be nice if they did (in my patch as an NCN co-ordinator there's two notorious sections where the council pedestrianised the route…), but they don't. Obstructing "free passage" along a PRoW is a criminal offence (Highways Act 1980). Installing a stile or gate can only be done with the consent of the highway authority (same act). Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways
Neil Matthews wrote: > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from > bridleways Um, no there hasn't? The changeset you've pointed to (which is one of mine) has a single stile moved to the side of a bridleway. I've done this a handful of times in the past, too, usually where the stile is clearly misplaced at a footpath/bridleway junction node rather than off to the side on a footpath, but occasionally at an isolated bridleway location like this. A barrier=stile on a long-established UK bridleway is 99.9% a mapping error. Bridleways are open to horses and bikes, and so stiles are forbidden - PRoW officers are pretty hot on this. You will sometimes see a stile placed to the side of a gate: in OSM this is usually mapped as a highway=footway through the stile and highway=bridleway through the gate, though of course there's no distinct public footpath PRoW in this case. OSM is an iterative process of fixup and improvement, and shouting "mechanical edit!" every time someone makes a change that hasn't been surveyed in walking boots and then manually etched onto the hard disc platters of a server somewhere in Amsterdam is not hugely helpful. I mean, just change it back and say "put back pending survey" if you feel that strongly, it doesn't need an entire mailing list thread. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
Blake Girardot wrote: > I will just point out a common pattern: Céline posted an eloquent opening statement that talks about "this dominant profile" and the thread has, true to form, largely descended into the same dominant profile arguing and "just pointing out" things. It might therefore be incumbent on us all to shut up and let women be heard. Their experiences do not need to be mediated through our mansplaining. In that spirit I'll post no more on this. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] British Waterways
Andy Mabbett wrote: > Should we have an automated edit to update all instances of "British >Waterways"? Scotland's canals are still run by the British Waterways Board (trading as Scottish Canals), so any edit would need to be geographically constrained. TBH there's only 170 operator=British Waterways tags according to taginfo, so it could be polished off pretty quickly with an Overpass query and a manual edit. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions
Michal Migurski wrote: > FB’s attribution approach in keeping with best practices > seen from other commercial users of display maps. In the spirit of Twitter footnoting one of Donald Trump's "I won the election" tweets, this is your respectful reminder that Google, Bing, Here, Tencent, ViaMichelin, TomTom, Mapquest, Esri, and Qwant all have on-map attribution. http://www.systemed.net/osm/attribution.png Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water
[cross-posted to talk-us@ and tagging@, please choose your follow-ups wisely] Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > It seems that we are increasingly doing things to simplify the > model because certain tooling can't handle the real level of > complexity that exists in the real world. I'm in favor of fixing > the tooling rather than neutering the data. I sincerely hope "I'm in favor of fixing" translates as "I'm planning to fix", though I fear I may be disappointed. More broadly, we need to nip this "oh just fix the tools" stuff in the bud. OSM optimises for the mapper, because mappers are our most valuable resource. That's how it's always been and that's how it should be. But that does not mean that volunteer tool authors should rewrite their tools to cope with the 0.1% case; nor that it is reasonable for mappers to make stuff ever more complex and expect developers to automatically fall in line; nor that any given map has a obligation to render this 0.1%, or indeed, anything that the map's creator doesn't want to render. The Tongass National Forest is not "in the real world", it is an artificial administrative construct drawn up on some bureaucrat's desk. It's not an actual forest where the boundaries represent a single contiguous mass of trees. Nothing is lost or "neutered" by mapping it as several relations (with a super-relation for completeness if you insist), just as nothing is lost by tagging Chesapeake Bay with the series of letters "c","o","a","s","t","l","i","n" and "e". Richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSRM-talk] OSRM does not use date restrictions in conditional access?
michael spreng wrote: > It currently does not. There is an update cycle of about 4 days. I think > such date ranges would make sense to use at the time of generation > (however day time ranges would still be ignored). But that is not yet > implemented as far as I know. It could be implemented in the lua > profile, so probably no deeper knowledge of osrm is necessary to > implement this. Implementing a full opening hours parser in Lua is probably not trivial though ;) There is actually a C++ OpeningHours class in OSRM, which is used for parsing conditional turn restrictions. It's not fully featured but might be enough. It could be given a Lua binding, I guess, to avoid duplication. Richard ___ OSRM-talk mailing list OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts
Could I suggest that, rather than second-guessing what some putative router might or might not do, people actually try these scenarios with one of the many real-world routers to see if they actually happen? I see an awful lot of "may" and "might" in this thread, together with a liberal sprinkling of unsourced assertions, but no actual evidence that any router has ever sent anyone round one of these roundabout flares. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-us] United States Bicycle Route System ballot(s) pending AASHTO approval
SteveA wrote: > With both of us in agreement about tag "proposed:route=bicycle" > (especially as it co-exists with "state=proposed") can we gain > some more consensus (here, soon?) allowing us to move closer towards > recommending in our wiki that we tag proposed USBRs with > "proposed:route=bicycle"? Honestly, please don't. state=proposed has been around since the very first days of route relations and everything supports it. proposed:route=bicycle is wordier and has no advantage other than some people appear to think tags with a colon in are automatically superior, because XML has namespaces and therefore we must too. Changing the tags will achieve nothing; will mean that data consumers have to support two schemes instead of one; and will needlessly break stuff. On the positive side, great to see all these USBRs going into OSM as ever! Richard cycle.travel ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-GB] NCN 231 and NCN 235 Isle of Wight
[apologies for broken threading, Nabble is still down] Jon Pennycook wrote: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2821036 and > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2821037 (claiming to be > National Cycle Network Route 231 and 235) have been listed on > OpenStreetMap for some time. They appear to mostly duplicate > Regional Cycle Network route 67 > (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2742) aka "Round The Island" > or "Taste the Wight". Around 10 years ago, most (but not all) regional routes were renumbered to become National Routes. NCN numbers 231 and 235 were assigned to the RR67/Round the Island route as part of this. As part of the NCN review underway, the route has now been dropped from the NCN entirely, due to high motor traffic levels on some sections. I'd suggest deleting these two NCN relations and keeping the RR67 relation, though with the expectation that the latter may need to be retagged if/when the Regional Route number is lost. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [talk-gb] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification
Robert Whittaker wrote: > Sustrans' NCN data is available from > http://livingatlas-dcdev.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/54a66fa3c15d4e118e085fbd9b141aae > as vector tiles under the ODbL. However, note that the "removed" > sections mostly won't be reflected on the ground yet. Also, the > dataset isn't perfect, as there's at least one bit near me where > the route Sustrans have is wrong. I think it's also likely that > some of the small gaps that have been created are inadvertent and > will quickly be filled back in as volunteers review the new network. It's in friendlier formats at https://data-sustrans-uk.opendata.arcgis.com :) Many of the changes are fairly unambiguous and could be made directly using this data as a guide. For example, the Wiltshire Cycleway is no longer NCN 254, so can be changed to network=rcn and the ref= tag removed. The parts of NCN 20 between Crawley and the outskirts of Brighton can be removed entirely from the relation. And so on. There are a few cases where it's not immediately clear what will happen to the route - in Shropshire, for example, where several routes are being reclassified or removed. In these cases then we can probably make tentative changes but will need to keep an eye on the ground for signage to see the future fate of both these routes and other nearby ones (which might be renumbered?). And, as you say, there may be some small gaps that have inadvertently arisen. I would also encourage people to look carefully at the sections that are being removed, and consider whether the way tagging is appropriate. It's plausible that there are some highway=unclassifieds in there that would better be highway=tertiary. It would also often be helpful to add a lanes= tag. > We also might need to think about our tagging, as there will now be > more levels of routes: Full NCN routes, other promoted named routes > that aren't on the NCN. How can we distinguish these in OSM? Precedent is generally that non-Sustrans routes are network=rcn, even long-distance ones like the National Byway. I'd suggest we continue to follow this for most redesignated routes. The alternative would be to retain as network=ncn and make use of the operator= tag, but (being blunt) this will probably not be understood by most mappers apart from the small hard core of us who really care about cycle route designation, so it will be broken repeatedly and end up as a maintenance burden. One slight nuance is what we do about redesignated sections of a long- distance cycle route. For example, Hartside will no longer be part of NCN 7 or NCN 68, but will continue to be part of the C2C and Pennine Cycleway. The answer is probably to maintain two separate relations, which is a bit of a maintenance faff but at least understandable. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch
mmd wrote: > I'm wondering if some of the changes that are now needed for AIR > would make it more difficult to switch to Ruffle later on. The short answer is (based on the POC work I've done so far) no. :) The slightly longer answer is that I hope, as part of this project, to make a number of changes that are not directly AIR-related but will make P2 maintenance more sustainable into the future. > I'm a bit worried about AIR being (too) difficult to install > and run for an average Potlatch user, but that's just a gut feeling. Couple of things here. One is that AIR isn't any more difficult to install than Flash Player, but with the difference that it doesn't break every time there's a browser upgrade and the browser manufacturer tries to get you to switch it off. The other is that 2020's P2 users, contrary to the cliche of 2010, are actually pretty skilled and experienced (by definition the beginner users use iD these days) - many of them have a four-figure number of changesets - so installing AIR shouldn't be beyond them. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch 2
Skyler Hawthorne wrote: > Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I think using any funds at all to > continue support for a tool that 1% of editors use would be wasteful. > Flash is, for all intents and purposes, a dead technology. This > money is better spent on other uses. The entire point is to move away from a dead technology (Flash Player) to a supported one (AIR). On the percentage stat, it's worth bearing in mind that the P2 project is by a long chalk the smallest sum (€2500) of the three that OSMF is proposing here. As a point of comparison, iD was initially developed with a $575,000 grant from the Knight Foundation in 2012, so roughly $646,000 now. Very conservatively estimating the cost of employing 1-2 developers to code on iD since then, you get a development cost of roughly €0.004 per (2020) changeset for iD vs $0.0002 for P2, which is kind of fun. (I'm actually pleasantly surprised that P2 still has so many changesets - 20 million last year, and I'm guessing high teens this year - given how difficult it is to get Flash Player running in most browsers these days. That suggests that P2's users are using it because they want to do so, not because they are magically unaware of the existence of other editors. I suspect if you could find another way of getting 20 million edits for €2500 then we would snap your hand off.) Looking forward, and continuing the theme of ROI, the other benefit of the project is that it enables development work to continue on P2. The reason I have bid for funding for this, for the first time in 14 years of developing editors for OpenStreetMap, is that it will take a solid chunk of sustained work to do the AIR conversion and a bunch of other stuff I believe will make P2 more sustainable into the future, and there is a hard deadline for that sustained work (i.e. Flash Player switch-off at the end of the year). It's not a project that can just be done in evenings here and there. That enables further, unfunded developments in the future, and in turn I hope the tradition of other editors taking inspiration from P2 can continue - it's not for nothing that JOSM has a Potlatch 2 style and a "Potlatch mode" for editing. But you are, of course, welcome to develop and put forward a project to OSMF which you believe will have more bang for the buck. "Other uses" is easy to type but doesn't actually mean anything until you identify what those uses are, and crucially, find someone who is prepared to do them. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Funding of three infrastructure projects : Nominatim, osm2pgsql, Potlatch 2
Sören Reinecke wrote: > So far as I understood Adobe dropped Linux support for its > AIR plattform. If that is right, then I am in doubt that > supporting the development of Potlatch 2 is not that in > a sustainable manner. AIR is not maintained by Adobe, but by Harman, a Samsung subsidiary. AIR for Linux is still supported at version 2.6 but not updated (https://airsdk.harman.com/faq): Harman is considering future updates. P2 will still run on 2.6 - there are explicit workarounds in the code (e.g. in net/systemeD/potlatch2/collections/Imagery.as) to ensure backward compatibility. Nonetheless, even if P2 didn't run on Linux, I'm not sure why this should be an issue for other users. No-one says Vespucci isn't sustainable because it doesn't run on iOS. mmd wrote: > Why aren't we porting Potlatch2 to WebAssembly, then? I'm not sure who the "we" is in this question, but assuming you're not volunteering yourself :), the difficult dependency with P2 is not ActionScript 3 but the Flash runtime, i.e. the Flash and Flex APIs. There are currently only two runtimes capable of running P2: Flash Player and AIR. Ruffle is showing promise (https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle) and is under very active development, but does not yet support AS3 or the Flash Player features that P2 needs. I would anticipate that P2 will be able to run as WebAssembly when Ruffle reaches feature parity with AIR 2.6. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification
Hi all, As some of you may be aware, Sustrans has embarked on a project to review and improve the National Cycle Network. As part of this, sections of routes which Sustrans thinks have no realistic prospect of being brought up to a minimum standard in the near future are being either removed from the network entirely, or "reclassified" - which in practice means that they might still be signposted as cycle routes, but not with an NCN number, and probably maintained/promoted by local authorities rather than by Sustrans. Generally, these are minor roads where the level of traffic is too high. For example, the Avon and Wiltshire circular cycleways (currently NCN 410 and 254 respectively) will be reclassified out of the NCN, while the routes in Rutland have been pretty much removed entirely. Sustrans' own website mapping has just been updated to take account of this, which you can see at https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn . The dashed lines are reclassified, while some sections have been removed entirely. It's not currently released under an open licence so not suitable for direct inclusion into OSM. I will see if I can get permission for the data to be used. I believe that "re-signing" will be starting imminently so you may start to see route signs removed, or the numbers being patched over, or replaced with route logos or names. At which point, of course, it's fair game for OSM. Where a section of route has been removed, it'll be a straightforward case of removing it from the relation (or on occasion deleting an entire relation). Where one has been reclassified, I suspect the tagging decision is less clear. Sometimes we might want to move it to a new relation with network=rcn or network=lcn; sometimes I suspect there could be a case for keeping it in the existing relation with a 'link' role; sometimes we may want to have two partly overlapping relations, one for the now shortened NCN route, another for the full named route (e.g. NCN 78 vs the Caledonian Way). There may even be cases where a route is removed from the NCN but remains as a EuroVelo route. cheers Richard [writing in a personal capacity only etc. etc.] ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route
[apologies for broken threading, Nabble appears to have fallen over] Chris Fleming wrote: > We also have copyright of the route itself, Cycling UK do seem > to assert copyright and therefore we probably do need them to > ask them. I did ask that very question at a recent Facebook webchat with CUK about the Great North Trail and King Alfred's Way (more with a cycle.travel hat on than an OSM one). They chose not to answer. ;) It's certainly worth pressing them on it, but I suspect the situation is the same as with the (also unsigned) Adventure Cycling routes in the US - they don't want to give explicit blanket permission because that could potentially remove one of their USPs as an organisation, particularly with regard to selling maps/guidebooks, but in practice they'll tolerate it. Andy Allan wrote: > Signed, or it should not be in our database. So much this. People often think in terms of "oh, I'll tag it as NCN/RCN/whatever so that it shows up nicely on OCM/WaymarkedTrails/whatever" and forget that there are routers out there, not just renderers. Routers use relations like this as a crucial component in their turn-by-turn directions. They tell people to "turn right onto route 5", which is no use if there are no signs here or anywhere for route 5. In extremis, if you were to follow the same algorithm that Google Maps uses for its turn-by-turn directions (follow route numbers above all else), then the directions would start at Wirksworth and say "Follow Great North Trail for 825 miles". That isn't helpful. > So please don't read too much into the "ncn" tag. The same > tag is used throughout the world for national cycling > routes in OSM. It's not entirely a coincidence that the tag > and the concept of Sustrans' National Cycling Network are > very similar …but don't break common expectations for the standard of a route. In other words, network=ncn routes in Britain are largely homogenous. They will be 95% low-traffic and 95% rideable on an average hybrid bike. If you tag the Great North Trail (or, at the other end of the scale, the Dave Brailsford routes in Snowdonia) as network=ncn, that breaks those common expectations. Someone will see the route and expect an "NCN" experience. That "someone" might be a human planning their route manually, or it might be a router that is using the presence of a route relation as a flag that the route is low-traffic and rideable. There will no doubt be someone at this point who says "but it's still a NATIONAL CYCLE route", to which I say (a) you are very boring, (b) fine, go tag all the Sustrans NCN routes with a distinct Sustrans tag and your preferred route with a non-Sustrans tag and report back what you've done, (c) personally... I don't actually mind, because I watch these things sufficiently closely that cycle.travel will only ever be one profile update behind whatever change in tagging there is. But bear in mind that no-one apart from me and CycleStreets takes this much interest in tagging subtleties, so you've just broken routing for Strava and Komoot and Mapbox and whatever. Actually, wait, you should totally do that. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution
Kathleen Lu wrote:
> OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources
> does not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first
> to the copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not
> acceptable under ODbL for a map that has multiple data sources, then
> OSM would be violating others' ODbL licenses.
When data is imported from an attribution-required dataset, OSM takes the
view that a waiver from that requirement should be obtained. For example,
for CC-BY licences:
"...attribution to all such sources on an OpenStreetMap-based map or similar
visual display is impossible. Instead, we provide attribution (including
original license information) to major sources like [entity] on our
Contributors page. OpenStreetMap users are then required to attribute
'OpenStreetMap Contributors' in a collective fashion when using any
OpenStreetMap data... we just need you to confirm that you would consider
OpenStreetMap's attribution method to attribute [entity] in a 'reasonable
manner' in accordance with Section 3(a)(1) of the CC BY 4.0 license."
[linked from https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ ]
ODbL's core attribution requirement ("a notice associated with the Produced
Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses,
interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work") is not
materially different from CC-BY's ("any reasonable manner based on the
medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material"). In
other words, given that OSM believes CC-BY implies on-map attribution unless
a waiver is received, it also believes that for ODbL. OSMF has not issued
any such waivers.
> The key difference is between using a service (such as tiles hosted by
> a company, such as Mapbox), and using open data that originated with
> but *is not hosted* by an entity.
It really isn't. This has been introduced to the discourse in the last
(AFAICT) three months by Silicon Valley folks. I had never seen it suggested
before then. It certainly wasn't part of the discourse on attribution when
OSM adopted the ODbL and set out its current attribution requirements; you
can go back and ask the major SaaS map providers of the time if you like.
Every single major current webmap, with one exception[1], credits principal
non-OSM _data providers_ on-map on desktop. Google Maps has on-screen
attribution to their principal data providers. Bing does. HERE does (it's
themselves). ViaMichelin does. TomTom (MyDrive) does. Mapquest does. Tencent
does. Qwant does. The USGS National Map does. Esri's ArcGIS "My Map" does.
You can go and check these. I did.
The key word here is "principal". From your previous message:
> Check out HERE's webmap: https://mobile.here.com/?x=ep. It takes
> 3 clicks to get to this page: https://mobile.here.com/about/notices.
> And another 4 clicks to get to this page:
> https://legal.here.com/en-gb/terms/general-content-supplier-terms-and-notices
The three clicks take you to a page crediting the public transport authority
for Baden-Wurttemberg for contributing public transport info. Fine. It takes
two clicks on osm.org (Copyright -> Contributors) to get to the equivalent.
That's proportionate. It's not what we are talking about here. We are
talking about maps where 90%+ of the data comes from OSM, yet a credit to
OSM is either missing entirely or deliberately obscured. Please let's not
try to derail the issue of OSM-based maps missing all credit to OSM by
talking about bus timetables in Heidelberg.
Richard
[1] The one exception is Apple Maps, presumably because if you're Apple and
your market cap is $1.2trn you can do what you like. Even then, it's one
click away on mobile, and you could take the view that one click is larger
and more prominent than several other cases under discussion.
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM
Hi folks, You’ll remember that a couple of weeks ago I posted about the work I’m doing to look at getting the relevant bits of Transport for London’s openly licensed Cycle Infrastructure Database into OSM. I’ve now pushed the in-progress code to github: https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion It takes the TfL CID files, compares them against OSM (by making queries against a freshly loaded Postgres database), and outputs a series of files for each datatype, all categorised by the type of editing that will be required to get them into OSM. So, for example, there’s a script that takes TfL’s cycle parking data and compares it against OSM, then outputs three files: one of TfL locations that aren’t in OSM, one of those which are in both, and one of those which are in OSM only. It’s pretty in-depth stuff. The cycle parking alone is a 300+ line script. There are five separate scripts for different types of traffic calming, another 300-line script for cycle lanes, and so on. The matching logic is distinct for each type of data - because, for example, speed bumps aren’t at junctions, but raised tables often are. There’s a script (.rb) and a readme (.md) for each one at: https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/tree/master/readers But if you don’t fancy delving into complex Ruby/PostGIS scripts, then just have a look at the readmes there, and then go straight to the output data: https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/tree/master/output It’s all in GeoJSON format (for now) for ease of loading into QGIS or similar tools. Plus there’s a raster tileset of the cycle lanes/tracks for easy reference in your editor of choice - see https://osm.cycle.travel for details and a browsable map. So, where next? As you’ll see, I’ve generally split the output between simple, uncontentious additions which can go into OSM fairly simply, and those objects that will require more work to integrate. Much of the data can obviously only be integrated into OSM with serious manual editing work. This is particularly true of the cycle lanes and tracks, which will require adding extra tags to existing roads, splitting at start/end points, and so on. TfL have committed to some staff time to get much of this done (yay!) and Martin at CycleStreets has been training them up on OSM, but obviously work patterns are a bit disrupted at the moment so this won’t necessarily happen too soon. Some of it can go into OSM in a more-or-less automated fashion. This is particularly true of the cycle parking, and of most speed bumps. Some crossings, chicanes, barriers, and continuous pavements (sidewalks) at side-roads could potentially go in. I’ll be doing a bit more work on these to get them into a format which could perhaps form an automated edit and would welcome views. And, obviously, if you’d like to get involved in bringing the data into OSM, that’s great! I’m very happy to put more work in to get it into a format that’ll be useful for people (not really being a JOSMite myself ;) ). cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW
Andrew Harvey , wrote: > For these "routes" though there is no clear A to B, there will be short > segments which are obivously part of a route because there are arrows > directing cyclists, but sometimes these are just short segments to the next > intersection so it's unclear where the route goes from and to, hence why > someone has resorted to just dumping all the segments into one route relation. Exactly, so it’s not an A-B “route”, it’s a network, and should be in a network relation rather than a route relation. The other alternative is to just put lcn=yes on the way (and indeed that’s done in lots of other places). cycle.travel gives a small uplift to ways tagged with that. Richard cycle.travel ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW
On 25 Apr 2020, 09:53 +0100, Andrew Harvey , wrote: > > > On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 18:49, Richard Fairhurst > > wrote: > > > Relations with type=route are for routes, with a defined start and end. > > > Not > > > for networks. If you want to put them all in a single relation, then do it > > > with type=network or something: > > > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:network > > > > Do you have an example of that for cycle networks? I've seen it in the US a few times - can't remember where offhand. Ultimately there isn't really a whole lot of point - if you want all the routes in Cammeray, just get a bounding box for Cammeray and find the cycle routes within it. OSM is a spatial database after all. But people do like categorising things! Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Local bicycle routes in NSW
Tom Brennan wrote: > However, if I go over to Cammeray, someone has added all of the ways > to a single relation (named Cammeray Local Routes, tagged with > lcn=yes and network=lcn). Yeah, please don't do that. :) Relations with type=route are for routes, with a defined start and end. Not for networks. If you want to put them all in a single relation, then do it with type=network or something: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:network cheers Richard cycle.travel -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Australia-f5416966.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Since cc-by-sa 2.0 times, the suggestion to credit OSM was "© > OpenStreetMap contributors", but from the current legal situation > (all necessary rights granted to the OSMF) it wouldn't be > necessary to credit the contributors. When I wrote the /copyright page all those years ago, the reasons it required that particular attribution were: "©" because that's what copyright statements traditionally begin with. I take Kathleen's point (obviously I do, she's a lawyer and I'm not :) ) that the ODbL, of course, is not a simple licensing of copyright. But the "©" serves to say "hey look, here's the required credit, just like the credits that are required by other maps". "OpenStreetMap" because... yeah obviously. "contributors" because I wanted to communicate the nature of the project: this is an open map with (plural) contributors. Contrast with the attribution for other map data suppliers which just have a corporate brand: "TomTom", "Navteq" (as it was), "Ordnance Survey". By saying "OpenStreetMap contributors", we communicate that the map has many contributors - and, implicitly, you could be one too. So it serves as a recruiting sergeant for OSM, while conveying the democratic, grassroots nature of the project. To my mind the main driver for attribution has always been to get more contributors and make the map better. I'm past caring what it says now, but thought the original rationale might be helpful. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycling Infrastructure Database - conflation
Martin Lucas-Smith - CycleStreets wrote: > Richard will be doing the bulk of the scripting work, and is working > on converting each of the sections of data. This will naturally be > published on Github openly, as will the outputted data. This is > reasonably complex work given the number of attributes and the > data extent. We are keen to ensure the OSM community is > able to scrutinise the conversion easily and have input. Richard > will post to this list about the work, as it proceeds. A quick update on this one: Hoo boy, there's a lot of data! The good news is that it's consistently high quality, and lots of it isn't in OSM already. Our cycle parking and speed bump coverage, for example, will be massively enhanced by this. In a few of the datasets, particularly (traffic-free) cycleways, we already have most of the information but the TfL data has identified missing items - for example, a decent shared-use path (almost a mile long) beside Snakey Lane in Feltham, shared-use paths beside the A1 in Mill Hill, and so on. The line geometries (cycleways and footways) will require a fair degree of manual work to get into OSM, obviously to ensure connectivity but also for sanity checking. The point data (cycle parking, traffic calming) etc. varies, and I've been classifying the output as "easy new data" or "needs further review" accordingly. I'll push some code and output to Github in the next few days so people can have a play. The general approach is that the TfL data is compared against an OSM PostGIS database, which means we have the full power of PostGIS's spatial analysis to help match features. Don't underestimate how complex the matching is: I've been working for 8+ days on it (lockdown's not such a bad thing...) and it's not finished yet. Currently I'm outputting GeoJSON for easy visualisation, but depending on the conflation tools eventually used, there'll almost certainly be .osm files too. There is an elephant in the room, and that's the (on-road, painted) cycle lane data. Once again, this is really high quality data. It's all new tags on existing ways (because we have all the roads mapped), but because it'll mean splitting the ways to get the extents right, it'll be a challenge for conflation. I'm currently thinking through the best approach for this, but again, I think it'll ultimately involve classifying the data into levels of confidence: "this is already in OSM", "this can be added easily", "this will need further review", etc. etc. As Martin set out, TfL have dedicated some time to training up their staff and working on the data. That'll work well for cycle parking etc., but the in-depth work on cycle lane attributes is almost certainly going to be best done by experienced OSM mappers. Once I've got the first set of output up on Github it would be great to take a steer from interested people as to what they'd find most helpful. cheers 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections
Jothirnadh Guthula wrote: > With a team of mappers @Amazon we are planning to improve > missing roads in UK using Facebook detections as a source. Please > let us know if you have any ongoing projects using this data source. > While adding missing roads, we will be adding all the associated > access tags as per available on-ground resources. I'd urge extreme caution on this, particularly in rural areas, for two reasons. Firstly, as Martin says, there are virtually no public roads unmapped in the UK. New construction aside, I think in the last five years, I've spotted two, both in Powys. Secondly, UK access rights are unique and complex, and can only be discerned either by survey or by consulting Definitive Statements where these exist. You should not be adding access tags, nor adding highway types that imply access rights (for example, highway=unclassified implies general public access to all vehicle types), unless you've surveyed the location or consulted a Definitive Statement. For an example of the issues, please see this changeset discussion: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71668172 In this case an Amazon Logistics mapper added motor_vehicle=yes which was inaccurate. In this particular case I was lucky to find an openly licensed photo to demonstrate the real access rights on that way. If you're exclusively mapping new housing estates in urban areas, though, go for it. :) 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
Re: [OSRM-talk] OSRM Problems
> Item #1. > > If I go here: > http://project-osrm.org/ > and click on "View Demo", and put in 2 points > the route is not calculated and the GPX export > button is not active (it is grayed out). This > used to work. What happened? The OSRM demo server no longer has a TLS certificate and so any attempts to access it via HTTPS, which the demo UI tries to do, will fail. See https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/5655 . OSRM is essentially abandonware at this point. Great piece of software that it is, I would only suggest building anything on it if (a) you are happy with its current functionality or (b) you are prepared to maintain it (or a fork) yourself. Richard ___ OSRM-talk mailing list OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Piste à la fois pour les piétons et les cyclistes ?
Florimond Berthoux a écrit: > Sinon la façon que je recommande de faire c’est le cas S5 > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle#Miscellaneous > highway=path > segregated=yes|no > foot=designated > bicycle=designated et aussi: surface=asphalt|gravel|... Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/France-f5380434.html ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk] Digital environmentalism
Kathleen Lu wrote: > I would not say this is true. Google maps has routing for walking, > cycling, and public transit, and their public transit information is > probably more complete than OSM's. It is, but on the other hand Google's walking and cycling routing is _much_ worse. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Web editors and lane rendering
Paul Johnson wrote: > Could we get some lane editing/rendering in these editors > to cut down on this kind of unintentionally erratic mapping? Sure, you're welcome to open a friendly issue at https://github.com/systemed/potlatch2/issues listing the base case for what you think is required. > > Not sure whatever Potlatch is still developed, > I would hope it is if it's still considered an available selection > on the website; if not, maybe it's time to retire that option. It's developed as and when it needs to be. I think it's likely that it will come off the Edit menu after December this year when Flash Player support is no longer available in browsers, although it will probably continue to be available as an executable app via Adobe/Harman AIR. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] For the sake of peace | Re: Cease use of OpenStreetMap/Antifa logo
Rory McCann wrote: > The existence of an OSM cycling logo doesn't mean all > OSMers have to be cycling activists! Wait, what? cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Freemap (free-map.org.uk) - potential shutdown
Nick Whitelegg wrote: > I am proposing shutting down my (very old) England and > Wales footpath mapping site Freemap (free-map.org.uk). Wow, there's a blast from the past! Freemap was of course one of the very first grassroots mapping sites (2004), together with my geowiki.com (2003 [1]), Jo and Schuyler's freemap.in (2005?), and OpenStreetMap itself (2004). We all converged on OSM sooner or later, but it's a worthwhile historical detail to remember the early days. Richard [1] http://www.systemed.net/blog/legacy/entry071107122332.html -- 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge
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
Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
DaveF wrote: > This OS map render only shows a selection of paths. Does anyone > know what criteria OS used to decide which to render? I suspect "only those which OS have got round to digitising". OS have digitised all paths in National Parks and appear to be gradually digitising others. But certainly they haven't done the full set of PROWs yet. 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
Re: [OSRM-talk] Bicycle routing, crossing large roads: how to get information on the roads crossed
Jeroen Hook wrote: > Is there another way to find out what type of road(s) I am crossing? I think the easiest solution would be to allow bicycles on your highway=primary, but set it to be a restricted access road (or just to have a really high cost). That way you’d still call process_turn, but in reality the primary road wouldn't be used for routing. My private cycle.travel fork does something like this in its equivalent of process_turn (e.g. https://cycle.travel/map?from=51.7546,-1.2612=51.7554,-1.2616), though it’s a (pretty extensive) fork of 4.9.x so not directly comparable. Alternatively, you could do some preprocessing to mark intersections, depending on the size of your source data. For a different project I wrote https://github.com/systemed/intersector which identifies junctions in an .osm.pbf. If you were to patch it to output node IDs, then look up those node IDs in process_node, you could assign crossing penalties that way. Richard ___ OSRM-talk mailing list OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,
Eric H. Christensen wrote: > The routing engine should be able to take into account > the road surface It can and often does. Your problem there is that only 2% of highway= ways in the US are explicitly tagged with surface; probably only 30% are implicitly tagged; and sometimes the implicit stuff gets broken, like when people start retagging gravel roads as secondary without adding a surface tag. (Numbers are estimates but I think not far off.) > Any idea why trunk was established in the first place? It's a word from the UK road classification system, because OSM was invented in the UK. But the letters in the word aren't really important. OSM has five broad-brush motor-road tags (trunk, primary, secondary, tertiary, unclassified), plus special-case ones at either end of the hierarchy (motorway for limited-access high-speed roads, residential for roads with the main purpose of providing access to houses on that road). If you don't think you need five, you don't need to use all five. If you need more than five, you are free to use additional tags to supply extra nuance, as the Germans do with motorroad=yes. I would say that 15 years is probably more than enough time to decide what roads you're putting in what category, but hey, this is OSM. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51
Peter Neale wrote: > I would love to amend the Route Relation, but have no idea how to > go about it. Brilliant. Thanks for taking this on! You can do it from iD - no particular need to use JOSM for this. Essentially the trick is, for each way that needs to be removed from the relation, select it, scroll down to the bottom of the tags panel, find where it says 'NCN 51', and click the rubbish bin. Then, for each way that needs to be added, select it, click '+' at the bottom, and start typing "NCN 51". Select it and the route will be added. Don't worry about ordering... the majority of bike routes in the UK aren't ordered. If someone desperately wants it to be ordered they can fix it themselves afterwards. It's more important that the route is unambiguous, i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary branches and loops. cheers 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Elections Online website - candidate for OSM?
Edward Bainton wrote: > Is there any reason why OSM can't set up a user co-op (for instance) > that would offer a paid tileserver service? It's an idea that's been thrown around now and then. In OSM, of course, "why can't OSM..." is usually best rephrased as "hey, let's...". First person plural. Thanks for volunteering! :) (Alternatively, if you want someone else to do it for you, then you can consider voting for OSMF board candidates who are likely to pursue this. I would really caution against this, though, because OSM infrastructure is currently run by volunteers and partly served by donated hardware; turning that into an, at least partially, paid-for service would probably necessitate rethinking the sysadmin and hardware situation from the ground up.) 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
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Restriction d'accès saisonnière pour les cyclistes sur des routes de montagne
Jean-Christophe Becquet a écrit: > Est-ce que cette combinaison de tags vous semble correcte ? > bicycle=yes > bicycle:conditional=no @ (Nov Fr[-1]-Apr Fr[-1]) et peut-être aussi: bicycle:seasonal=yes pour les routeurs qui ne parsent pas le (très compliqué) opening_hours? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aseasonal Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/France-f5380434.html ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [talk-au] Discussion K: Evaluation of ACT paths audit 2012 and the OSM ACT dataset
This is getting ridiculous. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Australia-f5416966.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-GB] Import UK postcode data?
Twopenn'orth and not particularly a reply to any single message: 1. I'm not against them being in the OSM database, mostly for the reason that it's unrealistic to expect every single app to do additional processing for all 195 countries in the world. Sure, it would be nice if Osmand and maps.me and Fred's routing app and Jo's OSM-based game were all smart enough to ingest CodePoint Open (and its 194 equivalents worldwide), but they won't. Expecting them to do so is akin to people expecting every single app to filter out C-roads in Britain, and even osm-carto doesn't do that. So it seems a reasonably pragmatic thing to do. 2. However... just blindly importing them seems to be a real missed opportunity. If you give me a nice interface with centroids for Charlbury, I will have a go at mapping them to actual, useful polygons, based on my knowledge of the street layout and Carla the post-lady's daily rounds (or I could ask her, but I'm not sure of the IP of asking an RM employee...). If you dump them into the database as-is I almost certainly won't get round to it. cheers 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
[OSM-talk] EuroVelo routes are out of date
EuroVelo routes are not in a great state in OSM. Many of them appear to have been armchaired years ago when routes were "in development", and not updated since to reflect the correct route. A handful of examples: [France] https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=12!49.2876!2.655 EV3 should follow the new cycleway along the Oise, not the busy D932a [Czech Republic] https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=11!49.9195!14.4621 EV7 is completely wrong in OSM from the south of Prague to Nahoruby, including unrideable tracks and a suggestion that cyclists use a “ferry” that in reality is a tourist boat that only operates at weekends [Spain] https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=13!41.9486!3.1467 EV8 now follows the Pirinexus alignment …and there are lots more. I realise people are preoccupied with tagwanking over relation tagging [1] and sorting [2] and editor snobbery [3], but there’s not a lot of point fretting over how pretty the tagging is on the route relation if the route is actually wrong in the first place. Could I encourage people to check the EuroVelo routes in their home countries and update them where necessary? Richard [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047790.html [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047258.html [3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/042154.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance
Roland Olbricht wrote: > > Changing to a github-like system of version management > I thought of Git, not Github. Again, there's no suggestion of "changing to"; it would be additional. As Christoph says, the challenge would be "finding, motivating, selecting and retaining qualified people to work on this". The choice of technology/platform for such a project would be down to those people and what they find comfortable. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance
Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Changing to a github-like system of version management would > require some people to serve as "maintainers" or "moderators" > of the new, curated list of Map Features / Tags, wouldn't it? While > this could be an improvement in the quality and consistency of > how decisions are made, it would also limit participation and > centralize decision-making. You misunderstand. I'm not proposing "changing to" anything, but rather, providing an _additional_ source of edited/curated documentation. The wiki would continue doing what the wiki does. Same principle as switch2osm. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging Governance
Roland Olbricht wrote: > Imperfect Flow of Information > > Although many parts of the OpenStreetMap project are well > translated, the tagging documentation has substantial deficiencies. Yep. Documentation is the biggest problem with tagging. I don't actually think it's the wiki per se that's the issue. The wiki is... wiki-like. It's an untidy encyclopaedia of people's preoccupations at the time they were moved to edit it. Yes, it does have problems: as you say, "tag definitions being changed after the tag is in widespread use" (remember the infamous edit that added access=no as a default for all barrier= values?). But the challenge is bigger than that. The main thing we're missing is curated, simple information on the main tags that are _used_. Just as switch2osm took the infinite pages of install docs on the wiki and boiled them down to one how-to, we need a simple guide to the common tags in OSM: if you are a data consumer, these are the tags you need to understand. Wikis don't work for this. It needs an editor/curator/whatever, to have clear editorial guidelines, and probably to run on the pull request model rather than open editing. We're also missing a single-page explanation of OSM tagging principles. One of the frustrations of watching this list is that there are quite a lot of plain bad proposals that betray a misunderstanding of basic principles (verifiability, rich meaningful tags, optimise for the mapper, no-one is obliged to parse your new tag, etc. etc.). Life is too short to explain this to everyone and, to be honest, the uber-keen tag proposer doesn't want to hear their proposal rubbished in the first five minutes so won't listen anyway. Writing down "this is how OSM tags work" would solve a lot of this heartache. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] Wales Coast Path almost finished
I was in holiday in North Wales last week and mapped the biggest remaining gap, east from Aberdaron: https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=13!52.8079!-4.6498 That leaves three smaller gaps around the central Cardigan Bay coastline, between Barmouth and Borth: https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!52.6483!-4.0907 https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=14!52.4981!-4.0189 https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!52.5799!-3.9411 plus one short one in South Wales near Gowerton: https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15!51.6472!-4.0787 Fixing these will mean not only that the WCP is complete in OSM, but also, as far as I can tell, that we have full coverage of National Trails in England & Wales. So if anyone's going on holiday to West Wales, or the Gower, please do map the missing bits and we'll be complete. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
Kathleen Lu wrote: > "reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean? > Well a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do others > in the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data sources, > after > a click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the time. It would be interesting to get some data behind this. OSM's position when the current attribution text was drawn up in 2012 has been exactly that: "reasonably calculated" means "what people would expect for other data providers". There are only three other geodata providers with a similar product to OSM, i.e. a worldwide street-level database used for display maps: Google, TomTom, and Here. In 2012 all three generally required direct on-map attribution and my impression is that this is still the case, but real data about current usage and practices would be great. > A court would also look at what OSM does. Does OSM list its data sources > after a link? Yes, sometimes two links (first to > https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, then to > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors). Some of this data is > also under ODbL! Why is this not reasonable? OSM expressly states that our "after a link" behaviour is not compliant with licences such as ODbL and the CC-BY family. Instead, we need to get an attribution waiver before using any data licensed under such terms. As per https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility : "Many sources simply require attribution of the source as a condition of use, however as we cannot provide attribution on works created or derived from OpenStreetMap data and our licence only requires attribution of the overall data source, permission for attribution via our central 'Contributors' pages needs to be obtained and documented." cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Just for understanding what second rate attribution is: For example
> the map on the bottom right of:
> https://www.zeit.de/politik/2019-07/strasse-von-hormus-bundesregierung-marinemission-usa-iran
> printing a prominent "Zeit Online" below the map (self attribution) but
> showing OSM attribution only on user activity.
Right. The problem there is not that the "Zeit Online" attribution is too
big. The problem is that the OSM attribution is not compliant. Don't make
the issue more complex than it needs to be.
> The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how
> to comply with the license.
And if the guidance suggests something that is not in the licence, it will
be - rightly - ignored, and we will have made no progress.
Community Guidelines explain how to apply the ODbL to real-world situations
("ambiguity or grey area in the specific and practical context of the Open
Database License"). You say "it can of course suggest things that are not
strictly required by the license", and sure, it could. It could also tell me
what the weather will be like tomorrow and the relevance of Martin Luther to
21st century religious thought. But that's not what Community Guidelines are
there for. They are here to explain how to apply the ODbL. If you want
somewhere to post good advice that isn't in the ODbL, I believe you have a
blog.
> > Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I
> > was editing a magazine about inland waterways and has been on
> > osm.org/copyright ever since, so nope. :)
>
> You are free to disagree with me but i hope you do not consider
> this statement to be an argument on the matter.
>
> For better understanding: Point 2 refers to a certain pattern in
> the design of the document and lists a number of example to
> demonstrate that. You could argue the observation of there being
> such a pattern or you could argue the individual examples. You
> however did neither of these in your statement.
For better understanding, you claimed "this looks pretty much like
being written by corporate representatives", and I pointed out that one
of the items in point 2 that you object to was written by me in 2012,
so not a corporate representative, and has been at osm.org/copyright
ever since.
Richard
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: If you look at Apple Maps, and for example zoomed into some place in Denmark, there is an i-button which brings you to an overlay which has a TomTom logo and a link „and others“ while in Denmark the data is from OpenStreetMap. IMHO this second rate attribution clearly goes against „reasonably calculated“ because it’s misleading. I know this, but let's not confuse the matter by calling this "second rate attribution". It isn't. It's no attribution. These new guidelines say that, for 480px+ screens, hiding OSM attribution behind a click is not acceptable. That's unambiguous all we need. Fussing about what other logos might be on the map is a diversion and is not supported by the ODbL. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
Christoph Hormann wrote: > It does not in any way address the problem of second rate attribution > (i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of the map service > or the media outlet publishing the map) is being attributed more > prominently than OSM. That is not something that the ODbL requires. There are licences with an obnoxious advertising clause but ODbL isn't one. "Second rate attribution" is not a problem. If Mapco[1] want to put a big Mapco logo on their maps, that is absolutely fine and dandy according to the ODbL. The problem is when there is a big Mapco logo on the map; no OSM attribution other than the infamous "(i)"; and the latter is justified by saying "there's no room" when the former clearly disproves that. This is an infringement of ODbL 4.3 and our favourite "reasonably calculated" clause. But you can't start requiring that "the OpenStreetMap attribution needs to be at least on the same level of prominence and visibility as... other data providers, designers, service providers or publicists", because that's not in the ODbL. > Overall i think this is totally unacceptable and looks pretty much > like being written by corporate representatives Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I was editing a magazine about inland waterways and has been on osm.org/copyright ever since, so nope. :) Richard [1] let's be honest, we're mostly talking about Mapbox and Carto here -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update
SimonPoole wrote: > the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we > would appreciate feedback on. This is really good, and very much in accordance with both the text of the ODbL and the long-standing precedents set by the osm.org/copyright page. Thank you. Two small wording clarifications: "If OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part of the visible map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate page that is visible after user interaction is acceptable." This probably needs to be qualified to the "currently visible map rendering", and "50%" phrased as "50% of objects" or similar - just to clarify the (quite likely) scenario where a map uses OSM data in (say) Turkey, TomTom everywhere else, and Natural Earth for coastlines/land. "It is permissible to use a mechanism to collapse the attribution as long as it is initially fully visible" This would be better as "It is permissible to provide a user-activated mechanism to...". There are apps which flash up an OSM credit for under a second, after which it disappears (including one terrific iOS mapping app which I would otherwise recommend). cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
Tom Hughes wrote: > That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare > exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary > and trunk to the official status of the road. It's slightly more nuanced than that - we have always mapped secondary, primary and trunk to the _observable_ official status of the road. Where a road isn't signposted with that status, we don't have a strong precedent. There is at least one such road which has been highway=tertiary since 2009. It is not signposted as the A*** on the ground - indeed, traffic for the A*** is expressly signed another way - but legally it is the A***. And no I'm not going to say where it is or some Sabristo[1] will come along and "fix" it. Philip's example is the same: I know the road he's talking about and it isn't signposted as the A, it's signposted only for the little suburb along it. There is a very definite decision there on the part of the highways authority to not treat it as an A road. I don't have a simple answer, but I am tempted by the logic that where the highways authority has clearly made a decision not to signpost a road as (in OSM terms) secondary, primary or trunk, we should follow suit and tag something like highway=tertiary, designation=primary, ref=A***. cheers Richard [1] https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/ -- 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
Re: [Talk-us] Mapping rail trails
Minh Nguyen wrote: > As with the network tag on bus routes, what's important for both > network and cycle_network is that the route is intended to form > part of a coherent *network* (almost like a brand, but not quite). It's also useful for those of us writing routers, as it means we can avoid applying a route relation uplift in those states that send bike routes along entirely unsuitable state roads. (New York is a particular offender but there are others.) On my relationising travels, I spotted a couple of places where people had mapped a city cycle network as a single route relation, often with "System" in the title: Flagstaff Urban Trail System was one such. This is clearly wrong. As a quick fix I changed the relation tagging from type=route to type=network - which, interestingly, Waymarked Trails still renders: https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=2815833 - and created relations for some of the longer routes. But really it needs all the routes to be broken out into individual relations and given a common cycle_network tag. cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Mapping rail trails
Kevin Kenny wrote: > And route relations are important for sites like Waymarked Trails - > it totally ignores walking and cycling routes that are not indicated > with relations, which is why I wind up doing routes for even > relatively trivial stuff like > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4836600.(although > that certainly meets Richard's five-mile threshold). Ok. I've just finished a pass through CONUS relationising pretty much all the significant leisure trails I could find for which there weren't already route relations. HDYC is telling me that "recently" I've added 334 bike routes - I'm not sure what period that covers but it sounds about right. By and large I've tagged them with network=lcn - there's certainly a case for upgrading some to =rcn but I'll leave that to those with local knowledge. There's a bit of work still to do on smaller local trails that also form part of a longer route - e.g. parts of the Bay Trail, or the East Coast Greenway. It would be good to have a distinct C Canal Trail relation over and above the USBRS 50 relation, for example. cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[OSRM-talk] Visualising the hierarchy
Hi all, Is it in theory possible to take OSRM's CH graph and visualise, say, the "top 10%" of routes? In other words, I'm interested in creating a map which shows the highest order of contractions - the routes which are most likely to be followed. Obviously I'll have to write some code, but would appreciate a few general pointers. cheers Richard ___ OSRM-talk mailing list OSRM-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osrm-talk
[Talk-us] Mapping rail trails
Hi all, You might remember that back in March I wondered whether we could get access to the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy's data, which they've given to Google: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2019-March/019266.html Helpful people on this list followed that up with RTC (thank you!). Finally the answer has come back and it's no. The data is apparently "free as in Google" - sadly RTC aren't interested in having their trails appear in basically every single cycling app which uses OSM data. (In completely unconnected news, I note that RTC currently sells "TrailLink Unlimited" mapping for $29.99/year.) I find this a great shame as someone who loves cycling rail-trails - mostly over here in the UK, but I've ridden a few in the US: we don't have any single structure as cool as the Walkway over the Hudson, so I had to do that when I was at SOTM-US a couple of years ago! So... let's do it ourselves. OSM was founded in 2004 on the principle of "if they won't give us the data, we'll make it ourselves" and that still holds true. I've started on making sure all rail-trails of a reasonable length (say, 5 miles upwards) are actually mapped in OSM, using route relations. Often the trails are in there as ways, but no relation has been created. Sometimes a trail has been extended on the ground from when it was originally mapped. Other times there'll be a trail relation for a longer route (e.g. a USBRS route) of which this forms part, but not for the named trail itself. If we get the basic trail data in OSM, so the trails show prominently in apps and other renderings, then that will encourage cyclists to use OSM and then add the detailed info (surface, facilities, trailheads, connecting paths etc.) that is best acquired by survey. I've had a quick blast through several states so far (AR, IA, ID, IN, MA, MD, ME, MT, NE, PA, RI, SD, WA, WV, WY, plus a little bit of work in CA and OH). I may of course have missed some trails. I've been creating route relations with route=bicycle, network=lcn, and an appropriate name tag: I'm not a great fan of making up abbreviations for the ref= tag but if that floats your boat, go for it. So why not have a go? It's easy work and you get to see the routes appear on http://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org pretty much instantly. (Obviously don't copy any information from RTC's website or similar. Most trails have their own websites: factual statements on those sites can almost certainly be used as fair use.) cheers Richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-GB] OS Open Greenspace tileset
Hi all,
I've put together a simple tileset showing greenspace areas from Ordnance
Survey's recent OS Open Greenspace release. The data is released under the
standard OS open licence therefore suitable for tracing in OSM.
Many features are already in OSM, but not all, and in addition the names might
be helpful.
The tiles also include a few greenspace-related features from OSM and the basic
OSM road/path network.
You can add the tiles to your favourite editor using this URL:
http://osm.cycle.travel/greenspace/{z}/{x}/{y}.png
(The tileserver is a bit slow at small scales right now but I'll optimise it
later.)
cheers
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform
Andrew Hain wrote: > Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD. > Write a new online editor from scratch. > Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor. Please stop trolling. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to railway/public_transport=platform
Wiklund Johan wrote: > Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly > built > routing engines. Are there actually any such engines, or is this a post-facto justification? OSRM has routed over platforms since 8 September 2013. Valhalla does - it's multimodal and you can't do multimodal routing if you can't navigate the platforms. Graphhopper does. I could list about 20 editor tagging improvements that would make foot and bike routing better, and this isn't one of them. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] iD influencing tagging
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Now while everybody is free to use any tag she likes, I would not > expect the OpenStreetMap-Foundation standard editor to > introduce new tags through presets. It's been happening since Potlatch 1 came online in 2007, so you should have had a few years to get used to it by now... Writing software is an art, not a mechanical Turk where results of endless consultations are fed robotically into a Javascript editor. The iD developers are remarkably responsive to concerns raised about mapping standards, much more than I ever was as P1/P2 maintainer and, dare I say it, more than JOSM's maintainers have historically been. That they don't mindlessly follow bad tagging practices, but think about the impact and consistency of tagging, is all to their credit. I don't follow that iD has any particular status because of its default location on the edit tab: JOSM arguably has more "heft" because its bulk editing abilities allow people to impose new tags by force of number, not to mention you 'orrible lot forever bombarding the poor newbie to use JOSM or else. ;) cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edit - remove objects that are not existing according to source of GNIS import that added them
Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Please comment no matter what you think about this idea! I will > not make the edit without a clear support so please comment if > you think that it is a good idea and if you think that it should > not be done. I think it's an excellent idea. I've deleted these nodes when I've encountered them during general TIGER fixup but there are a lot, and often in completely untenable locations. The other automated edits you're proposing would be better done by adding the keys to editor blacklists because the tags aren't actually harming anyone. But the data in this case is actively misleading (it breaks, for example, "nearest post office"-type searches) so should be deleted. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-GB] Milton Keynes Redways - How to Tag Consistently
Peter Neale wrote: >So how should they be tagged for access? I believe it should be: > highway=path (but I see several tagged as highway=cycleway and both are > shown in the Wiki > at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=cycleway) > foot=designated > motor vehicle=permit (to allow the emergency vehicles and maintenance > vehicles) > moped=no > bicycle=designated > horses=not specified > segregated=no highway=cycleway, segregated=no achieves all that in two tags rather than seven. :) It's also more meaningful for routers/renderers, which can default to assuming "this was built to cycleway standards" (i.e. paved) rather than "this is just a path of some sort" (i.e. who knows). Though by all means do add surface=paved (or =asphalt) for clarity. 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
Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #450 2019-02-26-2019-03-04
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > How did you come to this conclusion? I counted 3 people not so > interested in attribution or OK with current state of things and > 16 agreeing either explicitly or implicitly with Richard's assessment > that there is a problem. I think WeeklyOSM were being very fair-minded and, mindful of Mikel's previous comments about them editorialising the news, decided to editorialise this one in his favour for once. ;) cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-us] Rails-to-Trails data
Hi all, I see that Rails-to-Trails Conservancy donated their GIS data to Google: https://www.railstotrails.org/our-work/trail-mapping-and-gis/ Anyone in the US fancy asking if they might do the same for OSM? Our coverage is good on the major trails (Katy Trail, Coeur d'Alenes, etc.), but often missing for smaller or less frequented trails, and I believe RTC have some metadata (surfaces etc.) it'd be good to have. Since most cycling apps and websites use OSM data it should be a win for RTC to have better data in OSM. I'm happy to approach them if no-one else does, but it'd probably be better coming from, you know, someone on the same continent. cheers Richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
Mikel Maron wrote: > We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation. > We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation > can only be formulated through the OSMF; a mailing list discussion > will not lead to a legal decision, though it's an interesting pulse on > the topic. afaik the LWG is actually thinking about updating the > guidance to modern day usage, and welcome that effort. How this works in practice (and I realise you know this, Mikel, I'm just writing this out for the wider audience) is that the Licensing Working Group puts together Community Guidelines: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines These, as the name implies, represent the settled will of the community through practical, example-rich guidelines, explaining how the Open Database Licence applies to the data that the community has created and owns the rights in. As the Community Guidelines page on the OSMF website says, "OSMF's role as Licensor and publisher of the database should not involve dictating policy." The existing (seven) guidelines focus on the applications of the sharealike half of the licence. There is clearly some ambiguity about how attribution is applied in practice, particularly in massive collective databases and in smaller-screen situations, and such ambiguities is exactly what the guidelines are intended for - "helping folks use OpenStreetMap data when there is a concern about ambiguity or grey area in the specific and practical context of the Open Database License, ODbL" to quote the LWG. Representing the "settled will of the community" through a guidelines requires determining the settled will. As the page on the Community Guidelines process explains (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines/How_We_Create_Community_Guidelines), such guidelines can be proposed by the community (no kidding, Sherlock). By starting the discussion here, we can begin to ascertain what the community would want to see in a Community Guideline. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] We need to have a conversation about attribution
Hi all, In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples: https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG (This should be obvious but I am in no means meaning to pick on Mapbox or Apple here - as anyone who knows me will testify, I have the utmost respect both for Mapbox's technical chops, their ability to iterate on a compelling product and their success in building the biggest mapping platform using OSM data; and I've been an Apple fanboy since my first Mac IIsi back in, erk, 1992. They're just the two that sprang to mind, bearing in mind that as someone that old, these social networks about photos and stuff are way too modern for me.) It should also be said that many providers - the majority - provide attribution in compliance with our policy at osm.org/copyright, i.e. showing attribution in the corner of the map, and in many cases generously going beyond with "Improve this map" pages; and that some providers will do great things like this much of the time and resort to "(i)" or "About" only part of the time. The policy, introduced with the changeover to the ODbL, says: "We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”... For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner of the map." There then follows an example screenshot of a map of Charlbury (woo) with a credit in the corner. The OSM Foundation Legal FAQ is pretty much the same (https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Where_to_put_it.3F). Historically the aim of requiring attribution has been partly to thank contributors, and partly because it's a virtuous feedback loop. If you see a map and it's wrong or incomplete, seeing "(c) OpenStreetMap" in the corner shows you where the data comes from, so you can go and improve it. That way we get more contributors, the map gets better, it's more valuable to its consumers, so more people use it, so more people improve it... and so on. The legal rationale is 4.3 in the Open Database Licence (https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html), and in particular "if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database". The key phrase is "reasonably calculated" and our view in 2012 was that, since the major mapping providers (Google, Navteq/Nokia/HERE, TomTom etc.) required and implemented on-screen attribution, "reasonably" meant that users would expect a credit to be provided in that way. The OSMF FAQ makes this explicit: "you should expect to credit OpenStreetMap in the same way and with the same prominence as would be expected by any other map supplier". Full mea culpa: the /copyright page says "should" rather than "must" purely because I wrote the page, I'm British and I, we, talk like that (http://termcoord.eu/2016/08/the-truth-behind-british-impoliteness/ , especially the "I would suggest" line). It used to say "request" rather than "require" for the same reason. In retrospect I should have realised not everyone is British and we should really have hired a lawyer to review the page. I think that months in the trenches of the licence change had probably given us trench fever for things like that. Entirely my fault and I take full responsibility for it (but you know, it's so great not to have to write 500 monthly mails to legal-talk@ any more). So we need to decide what our response is to web/in-app maps that do not provide attribution in the manner requested by osm.org/copyright. This response might be: a) we are happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so b) we will informally tolerate attribution being behind a credits screen but we do not intend to update our requirements c) we are not happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so d) we are not happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so, and we will proactively seek out data consumers that contravene these requirements e) or many other options... fill in your suggestion here :) Ultimately this decision has to come from the community. The rights in OSM data, as the Contributor Terms makes clear, are held by the contributors. OSMF is "using and sublicensing" it, under the terms that you grant to OSMF, but you own the rights. OSMF is not able to license away the rights of mappers. There has been a lot of chatter over recent years about this issue but the issue has never really broken through. Let's talk about it openly,
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK
I'm not quite sure what you've done with the quoting but you've attributed me as writing your reply, which evidently I didn't. :) Will Phillips wrote: > I really don't see what is outlandish about using post towns as a > guide for what goes in the addr:city tag. Royal Mail might be becoming > less important, but when most people are asked for their address, they > will give their address as defined by Royal Mail. > > Looking at the Companies House Registered Companies data for > Charlbury, I find 235 addresses of which 170 include Chipping Norton. > I find Registered Companies data useful because the addresses appear > unvalidated and therefore show addresses as people actually enter them. No-one in Charlbury describes themselves as living in Chipping Norton. Honestly, no-one. It's a separate town. Companies House data for my company shows a registered address of 11 Market Street, Charlbury, Chipping Norton. That is not because I think I live in Chipping Norton. That is because, when you register a company, the Companies House autocomplete thing takes your postcode and fills in the Royal Mail post-town and other details from PAF. (TBH, I'm not entirely convinced post towns help Royal Mail in any case, given the amount of mail mistakenly delivered to us that is actually meant for Mr G--- at 11 Market Street, Chipping Norton...) 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging post towns and other addressing issues in the UK
Colin Smale wrote: > As you will know RM have their own particular ideas of the > geography of the UK, all done for their own convenience. It > would certainly avoid some confusion if we used addr:posttown > instead of addr:city. Fully agree. The notion that I should tag addresses in Charlbury with "addr:city=Chipping Norton", a town 6 miles away, just because one private delivery operator[1] uses Chipping Norton as an optional part of their addressing is... one of the more outlandish ideas I've heard in OSM tagging circles, and that's saying a lot. Richard [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34514024 -- 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
Re: [Talk-GB] OS National Grid References
Brian Prangle wrote: > Are these covered by copyright? The National Grid per se is not covered by copyright. The newer transformations used to produce highly accurate grid references may be, but in fact OS has licensed the most recent (OSTN15) under the permissive BSD licence: https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/navigation-technology/os-net/formats-for-developers.html 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
Re: [OSM-talk-fr] Opencyclemap : absence des relations network= icn
Mathias Vadot a écrit: > Après plusieurs test, je me rends compte que le fond de carte > OCM n’affiche pas les itinéraires internationaux, relations > taguées de cette manière : network = icn. https://cycle.travel/map :) Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/France-f5380434.html ___ Talk-fr mailing list Talk-fr@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-fr
Re: [OSM-talk] Ground truth for non-physical objects
Tomas Straupis wrote: > Ad absurdum argument: can you invent your own street name or even > placename and expect post, police, ambulance, firefighters, taxi to > arrive (on time or at all)? Sure, in the UK, you could do that and I know people who have done so. If you invent a street name here in Charlbury and then post a letter to it, Carla the post-lady will ask around until she finds out where the street is (or until she sees the sign you've erected), and then she'll deliver you the letter. A working postcode will speed the process up but isn't absolutely necessary. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] cycle.travel's OSM bike routing now covers Scandinavia and Eastern Europe
Hi all, I've just added coverage of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe to the OSM-powered bike routing at https://cycle.travel/map . New countries are Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, (North) Macedonia, Albania, Greece. Added to the existing countries, that makes full coverage of Europe and North America. cycle.travel's route-planning loves quiet roads and cycleways; takes account of elevation, signposted cycle routes, and surfaces; and parses lots of OSM tags in order to get good results. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Network tag on railway stations
TonyS wrote: > Lot of the obscurity is caused by the contracts from Department > For Transport. Merseyrail is both a train operating company > and a commuter rail network in and around Liverpool City Region Indeed, and it's actually even more nuanced than that. Merseyrail is not a franchise like, say, Chiltern Railways or GWR or Virgin. It's a concession. In other words, the operation is directed by Merseytravel (the publicly owned transport authority); day-to-day running is carried out by the concession holders, Serco/Abellio; and the publicly owned Merseyrail brand is used. This means that there is a distinct identity to Merseyrail stations and services, just as there is with London Overground (the only other such concession). They are not, primarily, directed by the Department for Transport. With this in mind, I agree that network=Merseyrail is entirely justifiable. (For Lime Street you'd probably want the high-level station as network=National Rail, the low-level as Merseyrail; for other stations where non-Merseyrail services also call, you might want semicolon-separated values.) 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
Re: [Talk-us] Population during mandatory evacuations
Minh Nguyen wrote: > Following some discussion about this changeset in OSMUS > Slack [2], I started a discussion on the wiki about preferring > more stable population figures over supposition about > temporary circumstances. [3] It's roughly analogous to a situation we had a few months ago with road closures due to Hurricane Florence: https://twitter.com/richardf/status/1040931194999898114 I think the answer is that temporary situations need temporary (i.e. lifecycle-bounded) tagging. Tagging temporary situations with unbounded tags is ok for those browsing osm.org or another online slippy map with minutely updates, but not for anyone using offline maps, sites with less frequent updates, and so on. cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import
Mike N. wrote: > As one who grew up in a rural area, a country road lined with 4 > houses in a mile would feel "residential" and I would tend to set > it as residential in OSM. That describes most of the rural parts > of this county also, except for roads that don't happen to have > a house. Absolutely, not disputing that - it's simply that tiger:reviewed=no is a good signifier that "the surface type on this road might not be what you'd expect", and for developed countries that's traditionally a paved surface for residential roads. As long as there's some way of discerning that, I'm happy. cheers Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Spartanburg County SC road centerlines import
Mike N. wrote:
> This is a proposed import of road centerlines for Spartanburg County
> SC, based on county GIS data. This will include a systematic review of
> all roads in the county and qualify to remove tiger:reviewed tags.
Looks good!
Browsing through the code and the wiki page, you have:
>else:
>if hwy != '':
>print ('Unknown highway type: ', hwy)
>tags['highway'] = 'residential'
and
> Add surface type as paved if it appears paved in imagery.
Could I suggest that you act cautiously wrt the tiger:reviewed tag in these
two cases?
If it's an "unknown highway type" it should probably remain as
tiger:reviewed=no. Likewise, if the surface isn't clear, then either
tiger:reviewed should continue to be =no, or there should be some other
tagging to indicate this (surface=unknown, or surface:reviewed=no, or
something).
cheers
Richard
--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database
Stuart Reynolds wrote: > I propose that we refer this to the OSM UK Directors and ask > them to review the arguments for both sides and come to a > firm decision. That’s what we elected them for, after all. Then > they publish it, and that is what we all agree to accept, > whether it matches our personal views or not. Whoa. Nope. There is no precedent in OSM for local chapters dictating what can be mapped in a country. None. The Local Chapters agreement (https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Local_Chapters/Template_agreement) doesn't admit any such possibility. 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
Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database
Frederik Ramm wrote: > But we are not fundamentalists, and we do allow exceptions. One > obvious exception is current administrative boundaries; they are > not easily verifiable on the ground but we're making an exception > because of their undoubted usefulness. From 1974 to 1997, the county of Rutland didn't exist. It was gone. Kaputt. It was subsumed into Leicestershire, because a county with just 30,000 inhabitants is patently ridiculous etc. etc. Except for those 23 years, pretty much every one of those 30,000 inhabitants (including me, from 1984) still put their postal address as "Oakham, Rutland" or "Cottesmore, Rutland" or whatever. As far as they were concerned they lived in Rutland. If OSM had existed back then, they would have typed "Oakham, Rutland" into the search box, and expected Nominatim to give them the correct response. Not Oakham in the Black Country, or Rutland VT, or whatever. In fact, so strong was the local attachment to the idea of Rutland that in 1997 the national Government brought it back. Rutland became a county once more.[1] It still is one today.[2] It was an admission that for 23 years, the situation on the ground - i.e. what people called the place - had been the historic county boundary, not the present-day one. In terms of geocoding, if not in terms of who collected the rates, the official admin boundary was... I hesitate to say wrong, but certainly partial. I'm sure it's different in other European countries where things are more regulated and where you have fancy shit like official registers of streets and a written constitution and all that. But placenames in Britain don't always accord with present-day official documents. London suburbs are the classic example: shifting, amorphous areas, often named at the whim of estate agents. "Newham" is an artificial construct with an entire borough council behind it, whereas "West Hampstead" is a property speculator's construct (the original speculators being, of course, the Metropolitan Railway and their ever-advancing Metroland) with little legal standing.[3] But that doesn't stop us mapping West Hampstead as place=suburb, and that's good, because thousands of people think they live there, and over on the other side of town, precisely no-one thinks they live in Newham. So: Historic counties can and often do represent genuine, attested, useful geographic information. If you're proposing to delete them, you need to come up with a solution that will retain that information. Or, alternatively, you could stop faffing with Wikipedia-like deletionism and focus on making the map better. OSM would be a better, and nicer, place if people went out and did mapping, rather than staying at home and doing deleting. I might have said that before.[4] Richard [1] Though legally it's a unitary district council with the faintly hilarious title of "Rutland County Council District Council"... go figure [2] And it was one of the first places we mapped in its entirety! https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Rutland_England/2006_Rutland_Mapping_Party [3] It belatedly became an electoral ward in 2002, I think. [4] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2015-August/074009.html . Fans of Groundhog Day may wish to reread the whole railroad thread. -- 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs
Toby Speight wrote: > That's why we have > rendering rules - if you don't like the rendering, change the rules. What you're suggesting would imply that every worldwide site using OSM data to display a consumer-facing map, or provide routing, needs to write a special exception for Great Britain. With the best will in the world, that doesn't and isn't going to happen. (I think only one such site does so, and it's the one I run!) Dave's edit (minutiae about highway_authority_ref vs unsigned_ref vs official_ref aside[1]) brings this country into line with how most of the rest of the world does it: the ref= tag is for signposted references. See how https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref#Examples_on_ways refers to "on the ground", "on the signs", "the usage on the signs". Richard [1] Personally, I honestly don't mind whether it's unsigned_ref or admin_ref or official_ref or highway_authority_ref or one of the many other things that have been suggested over the years. It might be worth having the conversation here to see if there's something that people can coalesce around, and then no doubt a further edit would be possible. At that point, though, I would be tempted to bow out and redirect my energies to the intriguing question of how an entirely bogus pub appears to have survived in an allegedly well-mapped urban area for eight years. ;) https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/678796800/history -- 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
Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland
Brian Prangle wrote: > I suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI. The edit did not take place in Northern Ireland, as Dave stated unequivocally in his original mail: "Note I didn't include Northern Ireland" (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/021690.html) > The last time I checked NI was still in a union with the UK and therefore > suggesting that NI OSMers form a separate discussion is very insensitive. I suggested the separate discussion on this topic _because_ Northern Ireland, as Dave had explained (and as I had reiterated to KDDA one minute previously), was not included in this edit; and therefore was not germane to the discussion of this edit. I'd therefore ask that you please withdraw your accusation of being insensitive. 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
Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland
webmas...@killyfole.org.uk wrote: > As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include > Northern Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself. No-one told you to keep your opinions to yourself; I simply suggested you start a separate Northern Ireland-centric discussion (beginning with comments on any offending changesets) if edits were being made contrary to the wishes of the community there, rather than derailing a discussion about a tag change in Great Britain. 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs
Toby Speight wrote: > Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software - > editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required? I > see no sign of any of this having started. No changes are required to core OSM software, but if your own niche requires a map on which C-road refs are displayed (and I recognise you from the SABRE forums, so I guess that might be the case ;) ) I'd be more than happy to help you and/or others set up a server to do that. I'm sure there are other people here who'd extend the same offer of help. 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Is it technically and legally possible to add the Open Location Code to the OSM search?
Blake Girardot wrote: > Also: No one is getting paid for anything related to this at this > point. I personally would like to see Google donate to the OSMF > and let the OSMF grant it out to help OSM core and eco system > tools implement OLC native in code as it should be. That's done. Tom has coded it. Months ago. It's 20 lines of code (plus tests), which is a fraction of the bandwidth spent on this thread. https://github.com/tomhughes/openstreetmap-website/commit/2e0a2c67caf64df732f1e14160d5ead96c73a656 Everyone in this thread appears to think that what Tom has done - i.e. implementing it in the osm.org client rather than in tags - is a good idea, apart from Simon, and even Homer nods sometimes. Tom, understandably, doesn't want to push it live without consensus that it's a good thing (https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/1818#issuecomment-380695939). I reckon this thread is consensus enough and I'm sure Simon can indulge us on this one little thing if we promise to uncockup some editor presets in return. :) Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] New Ghosts Set and Survey Me Auto-Location Feature
Philip Barnes wrote: > Recently new blue branded co-op shops have started to appear, > some have changed and at least one has opened in direct > competition with an existing Mid-counties. Midcounties are also adopting the "new" cloverleaf Co-op logo in many places, while their Chipping Norton shop, curiously, uses the Co-operatives UK logo. There's so much overlap (particularly between Midcounties and the Co-operative Group) that they really need to be surveyed to find the operator, which I agree would be useful information. Shipston-on-Stour has two Co-ops literally three doors away from each other - one Midcounties, one Co-operative Group (ex-Somerfield). 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
Re: [Talk-GB] New Ghosts Set and Survey Me Auto-Location Feature
Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > Perhaps an operator=* tag would help, if we knew which > Co-Op groups still had pharmacies... A quick flick through their various websites suggests only: Midcounties: https://www.midcounties.coop/stores/ Lincolnshire: https://www.lincolnshire.coop/storefinder Channel Islands: https://www.channelislands.coop/je/opening-hours/ East of England are selling theirs: https://www.thenews.coop/128610/topic/business/east-england-co-op-sell-off-pharmacy-opticians-businesses/ 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
Re: [Talk-GB] New Ghosts Set and Survey Me Auto-Location Feature
Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > First there's a new set of objects in my "Ghosts" tool at > https://osm.mathmos.net/ghosts/. There are 162 still-mapped > "Co-Op Pharmacy" branches, which should have been rebranded > to become "Well Pharmacy" branches now. Not necessarily! As you say, "The Co-operative Group sold their pharmacy business to the Bestway Group in October 2014". However, as you no doubt know, the perpetually crisis-stricken (Manchester) Co-operative Group is one of several retail co-ops in the UK to use the Co-operative name. Other co-ops continue to operate stores branded Co-operative Pharmacy. I live almost opposite one such, operated by the Midcounties Co-operative, and can testify it's still called that! See https://www.cooppharmacy.coop/ . (It looks like the East of England Co-op also operates a few pharmacies. I haven't investigated further.) cheers 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
Re: [Talk-GB] 'D' class roads references.
Martin Wynne wrote: > Google publishes a map for profit. > Worcestershire County Council is paid for by me. And a few others. Sure. The point is that copyright automatically subsists unless expressly disclaimed. WCC has not expressly openly licensed this data. You can't just say "it's publicly funded therefore I can copy it", as the Ordnance Survey would be at pains to remind you. If you want to copy C-road numbers from WCC (into a sensible tag, please, not ref=) then you can approach WCC to license the information openly. In all my dealings with them, albeit in a cycling rather than an OSM context, I've found them to be a very forward-looking authority so I have no reason to think they'd refuse. But until this or any other data is published under a licence compatible with OSM, you can't just use public funding as sufficient grounds for copying. Copyright doesn't work like that. 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
Re: [Talk-GB] 'D' class roads references.
Martin Wynne wrote: > Worcestershire County Council publishes PDF text lists (no mapping) > of classified and unclassified roads. Google publishes a map, but that doesn't mean it's an admissible source for OSM. :) 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
Re: [Talk-GB] 'D' class roads references.
Rob Nickerson wrote: > Dave can you do the D class roads too. Someone has added these - > e.g: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.21554/-1.87663 That reminds me - there's some weird ones in Hillingdon too: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.5603/-0.3943 Can anyone think of a location in mainland GB where tertiary/unclassified/residential roads _should_ have a (non-A/B[1]) ref? Milton Keynes has its (signposted) H and V numbers for Horizontal/Vertical, but other than that I can't remember any. Richard [1] there is the very occasional example of a tertiary A road, notably Oxford High Street which is normally closed to through traffic but still the A420 -- 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
Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.
Killyfole and District Development Association wrote: > So I hear a urgent traffic update on the radio that there was a forest > fire > on the C425 Eshnadarragh Road and that the Fire Service have closed > the road due to the pumping equipment needed to fight the fire. Dave originally wrote "Note I didn't include Northern Ireland" so I'm not quite sure what your issue is here. C road numbers are not public-facing in mainland GB and this edit refers to mainland GB only. 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
Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.
Dave F wrote: > However this task was never undertaken. I decided to grab the bull by the > horns. Bravo! Killyfole and District Development Association wrote: > Surely we map for what is there on the ground, not how it renders? Right. C road numbers are not on the ground. (With the exception of the 20 or so listed here: http://www.cbrd.co.uk/photo/c-roads .) David Woolley wrote: > Even if that is not true, the correct solution would be to test > the reference in the renderer and suppress it if within the UK. No it wouldn't. First, C road refs break the on-the-ground rule as per above. Second, "don't [mis]tag for the renderer" does not mean "make things gratuitously difficult for the renderer". I think there's precisely one international OSM renderer in the world that has different rendering rules for the UK compared to other countries, and it's the one I run, cycle.travel. (Mapquest Open used to in its previous incarnation.) If you think renderers are going to implement a whole host of country-specific rules because people in the UK are determined to misuse the user-facing 'ref' tag to hold non-user-facing refs, I have a bridge to sell you. This is long overdue. Thank you, Dave. 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
Re: [OSM-talk] Scientific paper on "Information Seeding"
Greg Morgan wrote: > Let's compare Germany[8], the state of Montana[9] and the > United States[10]. We see that the size of Montana matches the > size of Germany. Yet, we see the population density is roughly > 82 million people in Germany to 1 million people in Montana. I see a lot of varied mapping practice in the US while engaged on TIGER fixup (trying to make it routable for bikes), much of it very good, which is leading me to the conclusion that the density argument is mostly a red herring. Anywhere with a population of 3k+ should be able to support an OSM volunteer or two[1]. Most people in the US, and most people in Europe, live in such places. Indeed, the US has hundreds, thousands of such local mappers: there are great examples of small-town mapping all over the US and it always cheers me up to stumble across them. 55% of Montana's population lives in urban areas, compared to, say, 67% in Wales. It's less (and there are differences in methodology) but it's not _that_ much less. There is no density reason why Billings need be less well mapped than Bangor, Kalispell than Carmarthen, or Missoula than Machynlleth. That leaves the rural areas, which are big and empty. But, and you'll excuse me stating the blindingly obvious, the thing about empty areas is that there's not much there to map. The TIGER A41 issue continues to be a running sore but, by and large, this can be (and is being) armchaired. Richard [1] other than issues with socio-economic and educational characteristics, which is a whole different story -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*
Florian Lohoff wrote: > Have you ever dealt with OSM data from a software development > standpoint? > > There is no such thing as "database quality". Its a big spaghetti > mess and data consumers take whats documented and ignore > misspellings. Users have to fix it with discipline noticing the errors > in data consumers products. Thats been OSM for more than a > decade. This is absolutely spot on and perhaps the best summary I've read of how real-world products deal with OSM data. Thank you, Florian. I'd add one postscript: for cycle.travel I take what's used, not "what's documented", and I believe many other consumers do the same. The surface values I parse are those which show up most highly at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/surface#values , not whatever might be listed at the wiki. The same goes for numerous other cases where wiki documentation differs wildly from real-world mapping practice (there are a couple of notorious examples around access which I won't bore you with here). Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] About OSM social implications and what can/should be displayed on the map (or not)
Carlos Cámara wrote: > Willing to read your points of view on that matter. There is a whole lot I could say on this (writing "Eurocentric" in a discussion about casinos seems really weird, and I'm not sure Native Americans would thank you for it) but ultimately it's a little academic at the moment. At present we are prisoners of the technology we use. That is raster tiles and they simply don't scale to offering multiple views of the world. So unless you believe there is one true map (there isn't) then this issue is always going to come up. Moving to vector tiles will bring OSM's true potential front and centre: a million different views of the one dataset.[1] The barrier for creating your own map view of the world moves from a seriously difficult toolchain and an arcane styling language, to a simple "bring your own style" with a friendly WYSIWYG editor[2]. It's not even infeasible that, one day, individual OSM users could save their own stylesheets somewhere on osm.org, fork and share them with others. The possibilities are endless, and endlessly delightful. That is where to focus our energies - not on mithering around the dying technology of raster tiles. Richard [1] assuming a comprehensive selection of tags is encoded into the tiles at large scale, but that's entirely plausible [2] https://github.com/maputnik/editor -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Road name abbreviation exception?
Warin wrote: > I expand these out to Saint. I think that is correct in the English > language. It is expressly _incorrect_ in British English and if this were a UK discussion you would be asked to put them back to St. I can't speak for Australian English but it wouldn't surprise me if it were the same. https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/19609/saint-or-st-is-there-an-official-osm-policy Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Australia-f5416966.html ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-GB] Has someone just given us (the start of) access to the crown jewels?
Mike Thacker wrote: > Yes, a threshold on getting the data via an API, but true Open > Government Licence doesn't limit the amount of data used (as > far as I know) so it should be possible to build up a fill picture > as open data. The transaction-limited versions don't appear to be being released as OGL; OS is simply offering a free starter tariff for them. OS draws a distinction on their product page between "for free up to a threshold" and "completely open under Open Government Licence (OGL)" (it's that old free speech/beer thing again). So the property extents are the only new data being released as OGL for now, with the possibility of UPRN/USRN data later on. 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones
Nick Whitelegg wrote: > I realise this is going a bit OT for OSM but wondering if this data, > together with the newer historic maps from the earlier part of the > 20th century, could be used to build a platform for the purpose of > finding these lost paths? Had a quick look yesterday and there > doesn't appear to currently be a web platform for this purpose. > > We could have a base layer of an OOC OS Map from the earlier 20th > century (up to 50 years ago) with both OSM data and the location of > these "F.P"s superimposed for the purpose of users searching for these > lost paths. I experimented with something like that earlier this year: https://twitter.com/richardf/status/948578070692290560 Would be great to do it properly but I'm pushed for time at the moment. cheers 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
