Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

[Richard Mann]

My impression is that this mess arises because bus stops are
uni-directional and independent from the opposite direction. So we're used
to having them as separate entities to the side of the road.

Whereas tram stops are often in a single location for both directions (or
close enough), so we want a single entity on the way, so at low zooms we
can have a single symbol and single name label. Just like railway stations.
These nodes are just labels.

Me: I'd probably use highway=bus_stop for tram stops that are like bus
stops, and add highway=platform for stops that have them, and attach
whichever off-way entity seems most appropriate to the relation and let the
data user figure it out.

Richard
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-GB] Oxford Railway Station

[Richard Mann]

More correct than it was. I'm sure someone local will improve it ere long.

On 13 Oct 2017 12:46, "Dave F"  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Is there anybody familiar with Oxford Railway Station who could give it a
> check?  A user has made some amendments that don't appear correct. It's a
> few years since I've been & I'm aware there was some redevelopment in the
> area so feel ill-equipped to decide what's correct.
>
> Items I've noted:
> Is there still a short stay car park & a building?
> Buildings are duplicated
> Platform 2 is very narrow.
> Platform 1 drawing inaccurately & with unnecessary relation
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Richard Mann]

The classic shared space scheme in Haren:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.17312/6.60310

has no tags that I can see.

I'd go for something like shared_space=yes for the moment. It's a "special"
type of traffic calming.

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:

> Just like in the UK, the councils here make it up as they go along; a
> "shared space" has no special legal status, unlike a "woonerf".
>
> A general principle which has proved its worth is that to make things
> safer, you remove the safety features. Like white lines and kerbs. Everyone
> moans a bit, but in the mean time you slow down and watch out just that
> little bit more... Hence shared spaces, an apparent free-for-all that works
> well.
>
> On 2017-10-01 18:57, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> Not an answer, but a suggestion where there might be a bit more info...
>
> The Netherlands forum https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12
> might be worth a read, since the shared space concept was pioneered there;
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=54843 is directly about
> "shared_space" but a search for "woonerf" (aka "home zone") gets a whole
> bunch more hits.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[Richard Mann]

I'd stick to tags on the relations, and not super relations. Relations are
not categories. Relations are for things that are in spatial *relationship*
to one another, not just a collection.

Richard

On 10 Feb 2017 13:37, "SK53"  wrote:

> I'm really not sure that we should be trying to map these at all. If we do
> I think Colin's approach is best: a super-relation of other admin entities.
> Not easy to create in the online editors but easy enough in JOSM.
>
> There is very little on the ground to allow verification, and I suspect
> many will be rather ephemeral entities.
>
> There are numerous other boundaries which might be of more interest, but
> still perhaps not suitable for OSM : school and GP catchment areas; police
> authority areas and community policing areas; NHS commissioning areas; etc,
> etc.
>
> As ever the question is where do we stop. I think a useful questions to
> ask are: "Are these boundaries principally used internally to an
> organisation with little or no use outside it?"; "Do the boundaries impinge
> on people external to the originating organisation such that reference to
> these boundaries is likely to be made regularly?"; "Can people tell you
> where roughly where these boundaries lie?.
>
> I can at a pinch tell you the catchment area of my GP surgery because they
> have a big map on the surgery wall, and once upon a time knowledge of NHS
> DHA boundaries was something I need to know professionally, but for the
> most part I dont know anything about the others.
>
> Jerry
>
> On 10 February 2017 at 12:01, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> On 2017-02-10 12:36, Brian Prangle wrote:
>>
>> H - that's one way I hadn't thought of. I was thinking of just adding
>> a tag to each boundary relation to indicate membership status along the
>> lines of west_midlands_combined_authority= constituent_member or
>> non-constituent_member as appropriate. It should work just as well and
>> won't fry my brain in trying to build a relation of that complexity
>>
>> The relations shouldn't be complex, certainly not brain-fryingly so..
>> Also a single relation for the WMCA would comply with the principle of "one
>> object in real life is one object in OSM" and give a unique starting point
>> for users to find the extent and the membership of the authority. Is
>> "non-constituent membership" limited to LA's in the vicinity of the West
>> Midlands? Anything to stop e.g. Cornwall Council from joining, if they so
>> desired?
>>
>>
>>
>> Counties might not be officially required but trying filling in an online
>> address form and see where it gets you if you omit county!
>>
>> Not really our problem! What county would you enter for Uxbridge?
>> Middlesex? Or Greater London?
>>
>>
>> And what admin status should we give to Local Economic Partnerships?  My
>> inclination is not to bother mapping them as boundaries but to add tags as
>> above along the lines of LEP= name
>>
>>
>> LA's can belong to multiple LEPs so this might get messy. Again I would
>> apply the principle of "one object..." and create a relation for the LEP,
>> and make the LAs members. This allows the LEPs to overlap without any
>> ambiguity and "not a semicolon in sight"...
>>
>> //colin
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of layers

[Richard Mann]

I'm not sure Reading is good, it's just a different approach.

Buildings (and indeed most areas) are typically rendered below lines, for
various practical reasons. So maybe it is better to think of building as
the ground-coverage, rather than the usable floor (or roof).

You might want to put covered=yes on the lines as they pass underneath
(this is what is done for covered walkways between buildings, for
instance). But anything is likely to be a compromise. Look at other
stations and see what seems to work best.

Richard

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Stuart Reynolds <
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:

> Personally I think that Reading is cheating.
>
> The outline that is called the railway station “building” includes the
> ticket halls, the bridge, and the platform surfaces to the extent that
> these stick out of the bridge area. I don’t agree with this - the last time
> I looked, a platform wasn’t a building; it is a platform. I would expect
> this to be a site relation - and in fact, Euston appears to be mapped that
> way, so it doesn’t look like I’m a million miles out with that thought.
>
> Next, the individual “platforms" have been mapped as edges alongside the
> satellite-visible parts of the platform areas. The platforms in OSM don’t
> extend under the footbridge - when in reality they do. Again, at Euston the
> platforms are areas (split in half to allow tagging of each platform
> number). Yes the bridge at Reading is marked as a bridge, which it allows
> it to go over the tracks. But it really is a bridge at Reading. At Gatwick
> it is a whole building over the tracks.
>
> So, to me, Reading looks like it has been mapped for the renderer, rather
> than representing what is physically on the ground.
>
> Regards
> Stuart
>
>
> 
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
> On 21 Jan 2016, at 10:34, Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Compare Reading - are you mapping a roof or a groundplan, or a pedestrian
> bridge?
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Stuart Reynolds <
> stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I made a number of adjustments around the transport terminus at Gatwick
>> Airport South Terminal yesterday. When this was first mapped, what is
>> actually three buildings (the railway station, the covered travelators from
>> the bus station & car parks, and the southern stairs from the railway
>> platforms) were all mapped as one building, and the platforms were
>> “inserts” into the gaps rather than being the continuous entities that they
>> are. So I have separated those all out, and made the platforms a continuous
>> block. I also added internal escalators and travelators, although that is
>> immaterial to the question that I’m about to ask.
>>
>> The buildings are all mapped as layer=1, and the platforms without any
>> layer tag (which should default them to layer=0, AFAIK). So why are the
>> platforms and rail tracks (which I haven’t touched) been rendered over the
>> buildings, rather than under them?
>>
>> See http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.15634/-0.16124
>>
>> Thanks
>> Stuart
>>
>>
>> 
>> Stuart Reynolds
>> for traveline south east & anglia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] Unrepentant Vandal

[Richard Mann]

tracks=2, and the tags on the highway way was originally preferred if the
tracks were consistently in the middle of the street

To me, that single line veers implausibly from one side of the street to
the other, and I'd probably be more concerned to get the highway and the
tram tracks to line up properly (by whatever method).

The ideal nowadays is probably to draw the tracks (and the carriageways if
they are split by a pair of tram tracks) separately, but there isn't much
point doing one and not the other.

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Andrew Errington 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Here is a link to a random point on a light rail system:
> http://osm.org/go/546Jvddtd--?m=
>
> Soon after it opened I travelled on it from end to end, collecting gps
> data and photos of all the station signs.  There are two railway
> lines, one in each direction, and I mapped them both carefully.
>
> Recently I discovered that someone had helpfully deleted one of the
> lines and tagged the other with tracks=2.  I really don't think this
> is acceptable.
>
> I found the changeset and asked the user who did it why they destroyed
> my work.  They replied:
> "The OSM wiki implies that a single way with tracks=2 is the preferred
> way of showing rail lines with two tracks. This was the method used
> most in S. Korea, I was attempting to create consistency."
>
> This is not actually true (and I double-checked the wiki, just in
> case).  I pointed this out but the user did not acknowledge this was a
> mistake, or offer an apology.
>
> So, my question is, am I being unreasonable, or am I right to think
> this is unacceptable?  How can I guard against this?  I have no
> problem with people improving the map by improving the data, but I am
> starting to see a lot of deletions, incorrect tagging, and generally
> shoddy work appearing, especially in Korea where I have done a lot of
> original work.  Do I have to set up some kind of watch on all of my
> contributions and check them if someone edits them?
>
> Andrew
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts

[Richard Mann]

Goods-only and empty-coaching-stock lines can be markedly lower-spec (such
that they cannot be used by passenger-carrying services), and are
effectively a subsidiary system. There aren't all that many examples left
in the UK.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote:

> I'm unsure of the difference between passenger_lines=* & tracks=*.
>
> Reading the wiki page, it appears the writer is confused as well, stating
> in the last paragraph, that the 'passenger' bit is redundant as "all kinds
> of tracks connecting the same railway stations or junction should be
> counted with no regard to the train services running on it." & it's a
> "workaround" for tracks.
>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
>
>
> On 07/10/2015 09:24, Richard Mann wrote:
>
> Putting tracks=1 on multiple parallel tracks is also potentially
> misleading. It's a method of tagging that's been superseded by drawing each
> line separately.
>
> So I took to adding passenger_lines=N, to avoid a compatability conflict.
> I only did N=1 or N>=4, though.
>
> I'd suggest converting the tagging to tracks=1+passenger_lines=2.
>
> Richard
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Maarten Deen <md...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> I have asked WJtW about this in june this year but received no answer.
>> Then I saw user BAGgeraar remove the tracks tag so I asked him about it and
>> he too asked WJtW and received no answer.
>> On the german forum there is a thread [1] about it also indicating it is
>> a superfluous tag when all tracks are mapped.
>>
>> It borders on vandalism.
>>
>> [1] <http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=30099>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maarten
>>
>>
>> On 2015-10-07 09:20, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> User WJtW[1] has been making large numbers of edits to railways across
>>> Europe in the past few months, all with the changeset comment
>>> "Electrified". Most of them are adding tags like gauge=1435 which may
>>> well be right (although I have no idea of his source for this).
>>> However on many occasions he has added tracks=N to the individual
>>> tracks where they are already mapped as N separate tracks. According
>>> to the wiki this should now be interpreted as N*N tracks. For example,
>>> the Channel Tunnel Rail Link south-east of London, is composed of two
>>> tracks (see [2] for a sample way). They are now both tagged with
>>> tracks=2, saying that each way represents 2 tracks, suggesting there
>>> are 4 in total, which is wrong.
>>>
>>> I have sent two messages explaining as above and requesting that they
>>> review this tagging, but no response so far. I noticed that another
>>> mapper has also added a comment to at least one changeset with the
>>> same intent.
>>>
>>> Any ideas how we can stop this behaviour, and repair the "damage"?
>>>
>>> //colin
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/WJtW
>>>
>>> [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34574683
>>> ___
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing 
> listtalk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts

[Richard Mann]

If someone wants to continue this discussion on the public transport list,
feel free to start a discussion there. It's not appropriate for this list.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts

[Richard Mann]

Putting tracks=1 on multiple parallel tracks is also potentially
misleading. It's a method of tagging that's been superseded by drawing each
line separately.

So I took to adding passenger_lines=N, to avoid a compatability conflict. I
only did N=1 or N>=4, though.

I'd suggest converting the tagging to tracks=1+passenger_lines=2.

Richard

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Maarten Deen  wrote:

> I have asked WJtW about this in june this year but received no answer.
> Then I saw user BAGgeraar remove the tracks tag so I asked him about it and
> he too asked WJtW and received no answer.
> On the german forum there is a thread [1] about it also indicating it is a
> superfluous tag when all tracks are mapped.
>
> It borders on vandalism.
>
> [1] 
>
> Regards,
> Maarten
>
>
> On 2015-10-07 09:20, Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> User WJtW[1] has been making large numbers of edits to railways across
>> Europe in the past few months, all with the changeset comment
>> "Electrified". Most of them are adding tags like gauge=1435 which may
>> well be right (although I have no idea of his source for this).
>> However on many occasions he has added tracks=N to the individual
>> tracks where they are already mapped as N separate tracks. According
>> to the wiki this should now be interpreted as N*N tracks. For example,
>> the Channel Tunnel Rail Link south-east of London, is composed of two
>> tracks (see [2] for a sample way). They are now both tagged with
>> tracks=2, saying that each way represents 2 tracks, suggesting there
>> are 4 in total, which is wrong.
>>
>> I have sent two messages explaining as above and requesting that they
>> review this tagging, but no response so far. I noticed that another
>> mapper has also added a comment to at least one changeset with the
>> same intent.
>>
>> Any ideas how we can stop this behaviour, and repair the "damage"?
>>
>> //colin
>>
>> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/WJtW
>>
>> [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34574683
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] User WJtW - railway track counts

[Richard Mann]

I added track_detail=yes, to achieve much the same end. I haven't looked at
railway tagging for a while, though.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Birmingham New Street station re-opens

[Richard Mann]

Had a look round. The main upper-level (ie Grand Central) footways are
mercifully fairly simple, but of course the proliferation of shops on
multiple levels is going to be very hard to display.

My suggestion would be to focus conventional tagging on the main street /
concourse level, with a minimalist approach to the other layers/levels. I'm
thinking maybe do the layer 1 footways as highway=footway+bridge=yes, and
the layer 1 shops as level1:shop=xxx+level1:name=yyy.

Richard

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Richard Mann <
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Issues with the rendering are here:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto
>
> I couldn't see anything about platforms (except as a side-issue on
> something else that had been closed), but I didn't search exhaustively.
>
> Richard
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jerry - thanks for the post in the 3D forum. Richard (Mann)  where do I
>> check to see if a ticket has  been raised on the platform rendering?
>>
>> Rgds
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On 21 September 2015 at 21:16, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Brian,
>>>
>>> I've put a couple of messages, one in the UK forum & one here in the 3D
>>> mapping forum
>>> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=548662#p548662.
>>>
>>> It's all fairly standard bboard software: I think OSM user name works.
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>>
>>> On 21 September 2015 at 13:34, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Jerry
>>>>
>>>> I'm not familiar with OSM fora - how do I find out? Or can you give me
>>>> list and where they're found ;-)
>>>>
>>>> On 21 September 2015 at 12:13, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems a very sensible request. It may be worth posting this to the
>>>>> forums. Marek who is very active in both 3D buildings & indoor mapping
>>>>> tends to be there and not on mailing lists. There are both 3D building &
>>>>> indoor mapping subfora too,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jerry
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20 September 2015 at 19:54, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everyone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've blogged <http://www.mappa-mercia.org/blog> about this and the
>>>>>> complexities involved with this multi-level and multi-purpose building. 
>>>>>> It
>>>>>> would be good if we can plan how to map this sensibly and co-ordinate
>>>>>> effort in an agreed way and not just have a  free-for-all accretion of 
>>>>>> POIs
>>>>>> and ways which will end up as an indecipherable tangle (it's pretty bad
>>>>>> already).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Grand Central, the shopping mall on top of New Street station opens
>>>>>> this week on 24 September
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assistance welcomed from railway, public transport and 3D mappers. If
>>>>>> there's any enthusiasm for helping local mappers I'll start a wiki 
>>>>>> project
>>>>>> page where we can record agreed protocols.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ___
>>>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Birmingham New Street station re-opens

[Richard Mann]

Issues with the rendering are here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto

I couldn't see anything about platforms (except as a side-issue on
something else that had been closed), but I didn't search exhaustively.

Richard

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jerry - thanks for the post in the 3D forum. Richard (Mann)  where do I
> check to see if a ticket has  been raised on the platform rendering?
>
> Rgds
>
> Brian
>
> On 21 September 2015 at 21:16, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> I've put a couple of messages, one in the UK forum & one here in the 3D
>> mapping forum
>> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=548662#p548662.
>>
>> It's all fairly standard bboard software: I think OSM user name works.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> On 21 September 2015 at 13:34, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Jerry
>>>
>>> I'm not familiar with OSM fora - how do I find out? Or can you give me
>>> list and where they're found ;-)
>>>
>>> On 21 September 2015 at 12:13, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>
>>>> Seems a very sensible request. It may be worth posting this to the
>>>> forums. Marek who is very active in both 3D buildings & indoor mapping
>>>> tends to be there and not on mailing lists. There are both 3D building &
>>>> indoor mapping subfora too,
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>>
>>>> On 20 September 2015 at 19:54, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone
>>>>>
>>>>> I've blogged <http://www.mappa-mercia.org/blog> about this and the
>>>>> complexities involved with this multi-level and multi-purpose building. It
>>>>> would be good if we can plan how to map this sensibly and co-ordinate
>>>>> effort in an agreed way and not just have a  free-for-all accretion of 
>>>>> POIs
>>>>> and ways which will end up as an indecipherable tangle (it's pretty bad
>>>>> already).
>>>>>
>>>>> Grand Central, the shopping mall on top of New Street station opens
>>>>> this week on 24 September
>>>>>
>>>>> Assistance welcomed from railway, public transport and 3D mappers. If
>>>>> there's any enthusiasm for helping local mappers I'll start a wiki project
>>>>> page where we can record agreed protocols.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Birmingham New Street station re-opens

[Richard Mann]

Well, it's going to be a struggle to get a good result while the default
rendering puts layer=-1 platforms on top of layer=0 footways. Has anyone
raised a ticket for that?

Richard

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:13 PM, SK53  wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> Seems a very sensible request. It may be worth posting this to the forums.
> Marek who is very active in both 3D buildings & indoor mapping tends to be
> there and not on mailing lists. There are both 3D building & indoor mapping
> subfora too,
>
> Jerry
>
> On 20 September 2015 at 19:54, Brian Prangle  wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone
>>
>> I've blogged  about this and the
>> complexities involved with this multi-level and multi-purpose building. It
>> would be good if we can plan how to map this sensibly and co-ordinate
>> effort in an agreed way and not just have a  free-for-all accretion of POIs
>> and ways which will end up as an indecipherable tangle (it's pretty bad
>> already).
>>
>> Grand Central, the shopping mall on top of New Street station opens this
>> week on 24 September
>>
>> Assistance welcomed from railway, public transport and 3D mappers. If
>> there's any enthusiasm for helping local mappers I'll start a wiki project
>> page where we can record agreed protocols.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift

[Richard Mann]

Purple motorways would be a problem in the Severn Estuary:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/51.5850/-2.6402

On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote:

 W dniu 22.08.2015 1:47, Richard Mann napisał(a):

 I'd be tempted to leave motorways as blue - it's not such a critical
 problem as the invisible green trunk roads. Adding one


 For me the problem is the same - blue looks like a river and I don't know
 why at least some of UK-ers likes to see the London area roads like this (I
 mean: having to spot two most important road types!):

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=9/51.3289/-0.0673

 Its not that UK style doesn't work for the rest of the world, it also
 doesn't work for UK on OSM, because we have much more data visible than
 other maps.

 That's not against this or any other local styling - I never underestimate
 the power of old habits and I'd like the people to have what they want on
 the output, no matter why they want it, but it's just not going to happen
 as long as default style has a mission to be universal.


 --
 The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags
 down [A. Cohen]

 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift

[Richard Mann]

I'd be tempted to leave motorways as blue - it's not such a critical
problem as the invisible green trunk roads. Adding one more shade of red to
the existing color-progression is probably achievable. Two seems to be
pushing it.

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote:

 W dniu 20.08.2015 3:16, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson napisał(a):

 Should this be a new, alternative style instead?


 Looks like New Hope is coming to fix The Great Tertiary Problem ;-} :


 https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1736#issuecomment-133529853

 However in my opinion more alternative styles on OSM.org are necessity
 anyway, as I have already wrote:

 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2015-August/073895.html

 --
 The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags
 down [A. Cohen]


 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] The Proposed Great Colour Shift

[Richard Mann]

I'm happy to support a shades of red/yellow road system for the default
map.

The UK colours only really work at small scale with heavy casing (with
landuse eg forests muted). The green for trunk roads used for OS 1:50,000
is only recent, much darker than the green used for OSM, and a
cartographical abomination (in my view), being much too dominant. Until a
few years ago, it was only motorways that were different. The colours at
1:25,000 have always been slightly different again.

As ever, if you want something done your own particular way, do it
yourself. Rendering isn't *that* difficult.

The default map needs to work at all zooms, and all* latitudes.

*excluding the tricky bits around the poles, obviously
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Richard Mann]

Rendering _links is a pain, and the default rendering isn't brilliant at it
(it renders all links under all non-links). So I'd definitely err on the
side of not using _links unless they are adding some real information.

A good use of _links is to distinguish between the main roads continuing
through at speed and the links between the main roads. If you don't have
flyovers/underpasses, _links aren't really adding anything (and just make
life hard for the data consumer).

Some people seem to use _links when a road divides in two approaching a
junction. This also causes problems, and I can't really see what value it
is adding.

Using _links on a simple roundabout is unusual, and unhelpful. What value
is it adding?

Richard

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Paul Bivand paul.biv...@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:

 Noticed some changes that I think odd that appear to derive from mapper
 urViator changing highway= primary to primary_link in a gyratory system in
 Strood. http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33203852


 As I understand the _link versions, these are for short parts of junction
 systems rather than substantial chunks of road in the sort of gyratory
 systems
 that traffic engineers surround town centres with.

 What's evident on the standard rendering is the odd overlaying on the _link
 roads of joining roads. I'd have thought that having joining roads was
 pretty
 much a sign that _link was not appropriate.

 What do people think?

 Paul Bivand (paulbiv)



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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] New road style for the Default map style - the second version. And thanks for rural test locations!

[Richard Mann]

Re central reservations on dual carriageways:

I did this for my local map:
http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/cyclemap/?zoom=2lat=51.7245lon=-1.24708layers=B0FF

by adding a barrier=central_reservation way (with a further tag saying what
it was dividing)

I'd be a bit wary of using a two-stage casing to achieve a similar effect,
because
1) it'll take a lot of fiddling to get it to look good at a variety of
zooms, and with a variety of carriageway-separations
2) it's hard to make links work (you have to interweave the casing levels)

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-transit] different interpretations of v2 PT scheme

[Richard Mann]

Your processing needs to be able to cope with these situations, using the
latlon of the features, if the relationships aren't explicit. Get the
computer to do the work, not the mappers.

Richard

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:

 2015-07-01 10:00 GMT+02:00 Éric Gillet gill3t.3ric+...@gmail.com:

 2015-07-01 7:38 GMT+02:00 Jo winfi...@gmail.com:

 In retrospect public_transport=platform was a misnomer. Maybe we should
 have used public_transport=pole.

 A platform can be a pole, or a shelter, or a dock, or a boarding
 platform for a train... It is meant to abstract differences between
 different means of transport.


 That's why I tought I was doing all right putting the details of the stop
 on those public_transport=platform mapped as nodes. When there is an actual
 platform, I map it separately as a way or an area, which goes into the
 stop_area relation.


 Anyway, the attempt to clear up the distinction between mapping stops
 next to the road and as a node on the road has failed utterly, now all
 seems to be done twice, which is a total waste of time.

 The stop_position is where the bus, train, etc. stop on their way, while
 the platform is where passengers will be waiting to board. Both features
 are distinct and serve different purposes in real life, so why not store
 both in OSM ?


 I don't mind having both. I do mind putting extra tags like name, ref,
 operator, network, route_ref, zone on the stop_position nodes. It's enough
 to have that information once.



 My problem is that when I'm adding stops as nodes in Germany and put the
 details on there, those nodes get cleared/removed. I can reinstate them,
 but it won't stick, so it's futile to do so.

 It seems to be more a problem with toxic mappers more than the PT scheme


 They moved the details to the stop_position, which I don't consider for
 processing.



 At some point I thought that starting to include the platform ways to
 the background database would help, but that's not the case if the details
 are mapped on the stop_position nodes.

 In theory, redundant details on the same stop should be put in the
 stop_area relation in order to reduce redundancy.


 That only works if there is one stop_area relation per direction of
 travel. At the moment the wiki states to use a stop_area relation for all
 PT related stuff that is near to each other. I need to relate the platform
 nodes to the nearby way, sometimes by means of a stop_position node,
 sometimes with help of a stop_area relation.


 The stop_area relations combine both directions, That's useless. I don't
 know who abolished stop_area_group, But what good are these stop_area
 relations if they don't help to relate an individual platform with a
 stop_position?

 See above.

 Éric


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



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


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

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

[Richard Mann]

A quick scan of Oxford shows the colleges (and a few multi-building areas
such as the Science Area) as amenity=university, with buildings within
colleges and odd departments as building=university. So we have a lot of
universities too.

Other big difference is that we haven't generally added (University of
Oxford) to the end of all the college names...

I'd tend to go for amenity=university for a contiguous site with a single
name, with the occasional split site (eg on two sides of a public road) as
a multi-polygon. Then I'd add a *tag* to show that the site was part of a
collection making up the University (probably operator, though that feels
wrong, since the colleges are independent entities). It's *not* a candidate
for a relation because there are no geographical relationships between the
components.

Richard

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com
wrote:

 Hi Dan,

 Yes, Philip's right - I developed and continue to maintain the University
 map at http://map.cam.ac.uk (as well as doing all of the original street
 pattern mapping for Cambridge back in 2006). The University has put a
 considerable investment and negotiated permission for college access into
 the map and contributed tens of thousands of pounds of survey data into OSM
 - it's not just some of its maps, it's completely central to the
 University map, not just a casual effort.

 The schema for tags that make the University map work is at
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge
 (I've just realised I haven't updated that page with a recent, unrelated
 new bit, I must do so).

 As it happens, I was also thinking about this the other day. The three
 main things are that is (a) consistent and (b) doesn't change under our
 feet and break the map, (c) it needs a way to distinguish these buildings
 from others. It possibly wasn't the best decision to do it like this,
 though I still don't think it is a terrible way to do it. Relations would
 be awful: they are very hard to maintain accurately, and incidentally they
 are hard to work with in consumers because they come at the end of the data
 so you have to do multiple passes or keep lots of data in memory, and I
 think you'd lose most of the distinctive renderings off the OSM map, though
 since that's such an opaque process it's hard to know.

 building=university would work, but only if done in a controlled way so
 that we don't break the map while it's being done. But do you really want
 to spend your days in front of a computer changing all the university tags
 in Cambridge though?! I can think of more productive and helpful things to
 do. I did consider building=university, but like all things OSM, there was
 a camp that only wanted building=yes, and that is what the Map_features
 page then decreed (it has more now, but university isn't among them). The
 more critical tags from my point of view are the operator ones.

 This raises some other points though...

 1. What about the sites and the colleges? These are also tagged
 University, and there isn't an obvious alternative that won't mean the
 ordinary OSM maps don't show them. Fundamentally, is a part of a
 university a university? I think it's helpful to do it like that. Did you
 know the University of Nottingham has a branch in China - would it really
 be helpful to link these with relations spanning the world? I think there's
 cases both ways.

 2. What is a University anyway? Almost no university is in one physical
 area. Even campus universities like UEA have outlying premises (in UEA's
 case in London too). Do you really not want the campus area to be tagged
 university just because it isn't the whole thing? You said Anglia Ruskin
 was one of the two universities in Cambridge - no it isn't, it's HALF a
 university, the rest is in Chelmsford. I don't think it would do any harm
 and would be helpful to group them with relations, if that were
 maintainable sustainably, but not at the expense of losing the tags from
 the outline itself. And the building thing only extends this further. Is
 a University a geographical thing at all? It's an institution, which may
 have some buildings but really it's a concept not a physical object -
 ultimately everything on the map is just a part, not the whole.

 4. Constantly changing tags creates a moving target that is extremely hard
 to maintain for data consumers, and is a major off-putting factor in using
 OSM, especially if you can't manage the process because things just change
 under your feet. For example, there is a thread on talk discussing
 completely changing the amenities altogether, without regard for people who
 want to use this stuff in the real world. My view is that tags are merely
 tokens and too much is read into the words. They are part of the API and
 the fact you can change them because you prefer some other structure
 doesn't mean you should. The flexibility means we can introduce new things
 easily, but constant 

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

[Richard Mann]

My inclination is to draw them in (just on main roads for the moment) but I
add an adjacent=yes tag so that there's a basic flag that they're part of a
bigger street structure.

I started to do this when I wanted to mark crossings as linear features,
rather than just as dots.

Richard

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Stuart Reynolds 
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk wrote:

  Looking for some advice in Bletchley, specifically, but to answer a more
 general point about footpaths.

  Please look at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.99530/-0.73751

  Bletchley Rail Station sits in the middle, and to the west is the main
 road, which is Sherwood Drive. There is also a footpath shown coming from
 the station and along the eastern side of Sherwood Drive, but not on the
 western side.

  This feels very wrong to me on a number of levels. For starters, the
 footpath doesn’t connect to Sherwood Drive except at the bottom, so it
 isn’t apparent that you can cross the road to go along Selwyn Grove, for
 example. Also, there is no footpath going north, nor is there a footpath on
 the western side of Sherwood Drive, despite it being quite clearly there on
 Streetview. In addition, Sherwood Drive already has the tag Sidewalk=both 
 which
 rather makes the footpath redundant, doesn’t it?

  My inclination would be to rip out the footpath and rely on the sidewalk
 tag, except that seems extreme and it isn’t wrong *per se.*

  So what is the guidance here? Ought the road have a distinct footpath
 both sides? Or not footpath, and use the tags on the road, or just
 connecting spurs from the footpath to the road at key points (e.g. opposite
 Selwyn Grove), or what…?

  Thanks
 Stuart


  
 Stuart Reynolds
 for traveline south east  anglia





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


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

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

[Richard Mann]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:22 PM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote:


 Usage of adjacent seems to be fairly localised in the UK:

 http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/6k7

 Yeah, probably just me (maybe nobody else feels the need to make the
distinction). I think there are some places in Germany where they have
separately drawn all the sidewalks, might be worth looking for/at.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Richard Mann]

I guess the problem is that quarter/suburb just isn't a natural-english
hierarchy, whereas we do know what town/suburb mean.

What is certainly clear is that distinct town centres in the London suburbs
are not the same as other suburbs, and deserve a separate place type.
place=town has served that function for a while, and appears to be the
local style. It can be changed, but affects-lots-of-users changes like that
are better discussed (by just doing it and waiting for the reaction, if by
no other means).

Someone should add a note to the wiki about the fact that sometimes
place=town is used for major centres in a conurbation. I can't actually see
a better alternative at the moment.Using place=quarter in London is just
asking for further misunderstanding.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Richard Mann]

I'd revert the changes.

The rule I worked to a couple of years ago, when I tried to iron out some
of the inconsistencies in London was to use place=town for places with a
sizeable retail centre (typically lots of clothes shops as well as food).

Richard

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:

 Hello there,

 As somebody who dislikes change, I was slightly horrified to see these
 edits:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26783815
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26795471
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26567938

 The user has changed a whole lot of places within London and Birmingham
 that were tagged as town / village / hamlet / etc. to place=suburb. He
 appears to be following the advice now given on the wiki, that:

 Areas of a town/city should not be tagged with place=town, place=village
 or place=hamlet. These should only be used for distinct settlements.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb

 Apart from the fact that I cannot stand it when the work of self-appointed
 wiki editors leads to somebody making sweeping edits of others' work, I
 also really don't like losing the hierarchy of place implicit in Wimbledon
 being marked as a town, Forest Hill a village, Belleden a hamlet, and so
 on, and them all just becoming 'suburb'. Apart from the fact that many
 places in London were historically towns in their own right, they are often
 also regarded as town centres.

 But should we swallow this and move to the use of
 place=suburb/quarter/neighbourhood?

 If so, I'd like to do this properly, instead of the process that this user
 has gone through to just make everything 'suburb'.

 Regards,
 Tom



 --
 http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Stansted - cartography vs routing, and levels

[Richard Mann]

Layers are _relative_, so I'd use layer=0 (ie default) for the layer with
the most detail (probably the public area of the terminal building), and if
that has to use stairs or escalators to fit in with adjacent layer=0 areas
then so be it.

Richard

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Stuart Reynolds 
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk wrote:

  Can you help?



 I have a problem with Stansted, and don’t know how to go about sorting it.
 Fundamentally, it is drawn so that it looks nice cartographically, but
 there are no routeable connections between the rail station and the coach
 station, or up into the terminal building. So I need to add some in, but
 levels keep getting in the way.



 The coach station is at ground level. Really ground level. Currently all
 the bays are shown, but behind the coach station there isn’t a footpath,
 but there is a roof. Unsurprisingly, pedestrians cannot use roofs! I can
 put a footpath underneath that, though, so it isn’t really a problem. The
 problem starts to come when you go into the terminal building, which you do
 just behind the coach station in a number of places (where the
 north-projecting bits of roof are).



 For those of you who don’t know Stansted, the terminal building sits atop
 a built up bank. So the entrance has all the appearance of being at ground
 level, as it is just like a mini hill, but is really at level 1, as can be
 seen if you view the terminal from the air side, with all of the baggage
 handling areas on the true ground floor. The entrances from the coach
 station go in at true ground, there are then
 footpaths/ramps/lifts/escalators down to the rail station at level -1, and
 up to the terminal building. The terminal building, though, is currently
 set to level 0 and I am loath to change it in case that makes it appear to
 be up in the air - and as I said, the air side of the terminal really does
 sit on the ground, and it is mapped as one building. The only part of the
 terminal that is currently mapped as level 1 is a passenger air bridge,
 which really is a walkway over a road. But it is a flat walk out of the
 level 0 terminal!



 I don’t want to break it, but I need to reflect the routing options,
 lifts, escalators, ramps, etc. But how should I enter these? As “visible”
 elements, or as hidden elements? And how should I show the tunnels from the
 ground level coach station under the terminal building as tunnels, and…



 You can see why I am confused!



 Many thanks

 Stuart



 ---

 Stuart Reynolds

 For traveline south east  anglia



 email: stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk

 mob: 07788 106165

 skype: stuartjreynolds





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


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

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

[Richard Mann]

Block paving is very common for residential streets in the Netherlands, so
that's not really enough to distinguish a living_street.

I'd keep highway=living_street for (at minimum) single surface, no clear
distinction between where cars and pedestrians go, and no clear straight
route for cars.


On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all,

 By coincidence, I've just got home from mapping a home zone
 signposted area - first time I've seen one. I'm tagging it as
 living_street. Here it is:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4004201

 I would say do not use the tag just because of seeing block paving on
 the street. As far as I'm aware, there's no rule that motorists have
 any obligation to interpret block paving in a particular way. In
 practice, I guess it does influence them, but as a nudge not a rule,
 so it seems to me that highway=residential and surface=paving_stones
 (as you suggest, Rob) is a good fit for the merely block-paved.

 Best
 Dan

 2014-08-31 19:56 GMT+01:00 Amaroussi-OSM kurias...@gmail.com:
  As far as I know for minor roads, I always default to using unclassified
 or residential (depending on the surrounding area’s predominant land use).
 I only use “Pedestrian” where such sign exists, and “Living streets” for
 actual home zones with “home zone” signs, if I ever found one.
  ___
  Talk-GB mailing list
  Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Information board details in bus stops

[Richard Mann]

They get called a bus cage (because of the marking design) or more
officially Bus Stop Clearway (ie somewhere where you can't load/park) in
the UK.

road_markings=yes might be more appropriate


On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:

 In Belgium the letters B U S are painted on the asphalt. Hence we wouldn't
 call that strip, markings maybe.

 Jo
 On Aug 21, 2014 5:08 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
  On talk-be we were wondering what strip means.

 Good question. I guess it is the yellow lines marking the stop on the
 asphalt itself. But I'm not sure. I'll ask the contributor and forward
 his answer here.

 Pieren

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


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] City names translation

[Richard Mann]

This thread is already too long (though Fred's contribution was a classic).

If people want to add transliterations (or genuinely different names) by
hand, then let them. As long as no-one starts doing mass automated
transliterations, then it doesn't matter very much.

Richard (M)


On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Pavlo Dudka pavlo.du...@gmail.com wrote:

 I assert that it is much better to use a single service, because it is
 easier to add 100 osm-tags than implement communication with external data
 sources.
 Nominatim use osm-data, it should not(and I hope will never) use any other
 data from Wikidata or other projects.
 Mapnik allows to process .osm data without using any external data sources.
 There is also nice project Multilingual Map created as part of
 Multilingual maps wikipedia project(
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_maps_wikipedia_project).
 Can any of this services be easily modified to use Wikidata? No.

 I don't ask anyone to waste his time to modify UK place-nodes. That's how
 I want to spend my own time. But I want to be sure that SomeoneElse_Revert
 or someone else will not revert my changes.

 OSM-community tries to avoid any imports. I would like to check all cities
 one by one. I will check its spelling in ukrainian spelling dictionary,
 wikipedia, web articles.

 Note, half of UK cities don't have any reference to Wikipedia.

 http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=node[%22is_in:country%22=%22United%20Kingdom%22][%22place%22=%22city%22][%22wikipedia%22!~%22.*%22];out%3BR
 I can fill them too while adding name:uk=*.


 2014-08-05 12:42 GMT+03:00 Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk:

  Not, it is not a job for external services. It is much better to use
 single
  service(OSM) rather than multiple(OSM+Wikidata).
  OpenStreetMap supports multiple names - let's use it. If you don't like
  someone use some tags - just ignore those tags.

 You assert that it is much better  to sue a dingle service, rather
 than using linked open data as it is meant to be used; but you present
 no argument for that assertion.

 It is ot a case of not liking some tags, but of not wanting to
 squander vouneteer hours repeating work that has already been done -
 effectively and better - elsewhere.

 Even were your assertion true, the data is, in many cases, already in
 Wikidata and freely available for import.

 --
 Andy Mabbett
 @pigsonthewing
 http://pigsonthewing.org.uk



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import

[Richard Mann]

Just my tuppence, since I used the Naptan stop data to make a printed map.
Electronic version here: http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/busmap/

My memory is that I corrected a lot of minor positional errors, and the
occasional name/bearing. I had to add in a few stops that weren't in
Naptan. I wouldn't want to lose these changes, but I'd quite like to fill
in stuff from Naptan that has been updated/corrected. Perhaps we need a
viewer that does comparisons both ways, so both sides can accept changes
from the other side if they look better.

I created almost all the route relations from scratch (which was painful,
but would probably have been easier if I'd used the german editor). Anyway,
it basically only has to be done once, and needs human review, so I'd
probably recommend doing them by hand, rather than attempting to generate
them automatically from a timetable.

I used service to distinguish between city/country/express services.

I put frequency on the route relation (ie typical off-peak weekday
per-hour frequency), such as this one:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/143161

If it's less than once per hour I put journeys (ie per weekday) on the
route relation. Sometimes I put journeys on stops (as a flag for not
rendering them).

The frequencies can be summed/combined for particular ways, if required. I
had to bodge that a bit for my map, but I'll probably do it properly when
(if) I update it, since Maperitive now has a python capability.

Richard





On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Stuart Reynolds 
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk wrote:

  The TNDS data isn’t going to be based on what is already in OSM, if I’ve
 understood you correctly Oliver. Rather, in our bit, we import the GIS,
 route on it using proprietary (to our contractor) routing engines and
 manually adjust where appropriate, and then we can export the track
 coordinates as OSGR into the TNDS data.



 I haven’t looked at the service tags in any detail, so what I’m about to
 say may well be there already. But if we want to represent the complexity
 then we either have to capture the individual departures at a stop or, more
 likely, try and represent the frequency/regularity of a service on a link.
 Then renderers could show dotted/thin lines, or put the service number in
 different colours for infrequent services. Of course, there are plenty of
 issues around that as well!



 Stuart



 *From:* Shaun McDonald [mailto:sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk]
 *Sent:* 01 August 2014 3:57 PM
 *To:* Oliver Jowett
 *Cc:* Stuart Reynolds; Talk GB
 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import



 I see it as being better to put the right hints into the OSM data and the
 routing algorithm so that they can be automatically chosen from the TNDS
 data, rather than having the data in OSM, which is hard to represent some
 complexities such as a few journeys go via a school, some are part route,
 etc



 Shaun



 On 1 Aug 2014, at 15:32, Oliver Jowett oliver.jow...@gmail.com wrote:



   Right - I was just trying to understand which was the canonical source.
 One of the things I've been wanting to try (but never have the time) is
 repair the OSM bus route relations based on the TNDS schedule info - which
 sounds very much like your track-finding system. But that gets dangerous if
 TNDS is indirectly pulling data from OSM itself..



 Oliver



 On 1 August 2014 14:20, Stuart Reynolds stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk
 wrote:

  Oliver,



 TNDS data (Traveline National Data Set, for other’s benefit - national set
 of bus  coach timetables) does not currently have the route detail - known
 in TransXChange as tracks. This is because up to now there have been issues
 of IPR with OSGR coordinates derived from OS and/or Navteq data.



 Certainly from our point of view - and by “us” I mean the traveline
 regions of South East, London, East Anglia, South West, East Midlands and
 (shortly) West Midlands - we are all now on a merged system using OSM data
 so those problems have gone away. But I still won’t be exporting Tracks
 until TNDS asks me to.



 Even then, it still has the issues of “is this right”. Most of the time it
 is, but we do get some routes which find a shorter path along a back street
 rather than down the main road.



 Cheers

 Stuart



 *From:* Oliver Jowett [mailto:oliver.jow...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* 01 August 2014 1:51 PM
 *To:* Stuart Reynolds


 *Cc:* Talk GB
 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import





 On 1 August 2014 11:17, Stuart Reynolds stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk
 wrote:



   In terms of bus routes, we also compute the most likely route between
 stops, and could use that to update the services on each link. But that is
 a whole different ball game - we have to make sure our data is good
 quality, and I will need to think what to do when a bus turns off halfway
 along a road that is mapped as one line, for example, - and I’m not about
 to get into that for now! Although I would like to, eventually!



 Where does TNDS fit 

Re: [Talk-GB] Life Ring - British English

[Richard Mann]

en-gb is probably lifebuoy

I've never heard it called a life ring - that's too vague a name. Most
people would probably refer to it by starting to describe it - one of those
red ring things that you can use to help someone who is drowning.


On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote:

 I'm trying to clean up the emergency tags in the Wiki and found
 emergency=life_ring as well as some less used other tag combinations with
 amenity and buoy.

 Is life ring how it is commonly referred to in British English. Just
 wanted to make sure it's not literal translation from German and isn't used
 in the UK at all. Wikipedia lists a lot of different names. I guess
 lifebuoy is more American? And is it written life ring or lifering? Both
 correct?

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dlife_ring
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifebuoy
 __
 openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Mapping intercity bus routes

[Richard Mann]

I added service=express to the coaches that we have locally, using a
similar model to that used for train services. As long as it's clear, it
doesn't really matter (it can always be standardised at a later date).

{Formally, coaches are quite distinctive - the wheels are attached to an
underframe distinct from the coach body, which is why they are more
comfortable than buses. But I'd tend to make the distinction based on the
service offered, rather than the technology}.

Richard


On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:

 In Belgium there are three operators, but in the region where they operate
 they each have both city lines and regional lines and then a few long
 distance lines operated with coaches. The regional lines are complementary
 to the city lines in the cities as well. And some city lines go 15kms
 outside the city in each direction, so the distinction is blurred.

 I agree that there are too many red lines on the transport map, but apart
 from using the official colours in a spiderlike representation, I don't see
 a good solution to that problem.

 Polyglot


 2014-05-25 11:26 GMT+02:00 Jan v...@freenet.de:

 Hi

 Am 25.05.2014 11:02, schrieb Janko Mihelić:
  I don't think we need a new tag. There would be a lot of gray area,
  where do coaches end and buses start? The line isn't clear.
  What would help is we should map the operator tag and then the renderers
  should show the route or not based on the operator. Or different
  operators could be rendered with different colors.
 
  I think this is more a render problem than a mapping problem.
 
  Janko

 Of course it is a render problem. But you could not find the solution in
 the operator tag. Why?
 Have a look to Dresden. There you can find different operators. Esp.
 RVD. The most lines from this operator are regional buslines around
 Dresden. But there are also longdistance lines to Praha oder Berlin.
 Or take a look at meinfernbus. Who is the operator? meinfernbus has the
 licens an make the marketing sold tickets and so on. But the busses from
 different small companys.

 What should be the different between the busroutes? I think in germany
 it is a little bit easier. You have lines regional or urban lines which
 are orderd by gouverment.
 The other ones are not orderd. the company have to earn the money only
 from passenger and the minimum amount is ristricted.

 Jan

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



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with May 2014 OS Locator data

[Richard Mann]

There's one like that in Oxford (for about 30 metres) - street addresses
different on the two sides. For the moment it has name=St Clements
Street, alt_name=London Place, and a separate footway with name=London
Place (plus a name:note).

So my suggestion - draw separate footways, and give them names. Use
name/alt_name on the road, or name = one name / other name if both seem
equally valid.

Richard


On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.comwrote:

 Hello,

 It's interesting and highlights a few problems local to me, some I had
 buried my head in the sand temporarily because I don't know how to fix them
 correctly. My biggest problem when tagging roads is what to name a road
 when either side of the road is a different street. For instance the
 analysis highlights Myrtle Grove as missing here:
 http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/map_browser?bbox=415474,536751,415809,537148referrer=area

 Myrtle grove is the South side of the road labeled Chestnut Grove and
 continues around to where the Road is labeled Elm Gardens. Almost all of
 the streets in the estate are like this, where it is very misleading
 because opposite sides of the road is a different named street. How should
 this be mapped, I have steered clear of fixing it because I couldn't find
 any guidance on how it should be labeled and technically is it even wrong.
 The actual building footprints I have added the correct addresses to.

 I use various OS products in my day job and interestingly OSM labels the
 streets exactly the same as Vectormap Local does, anyone looking at either
 OS or OSM maps would not be able to find Myrtle Grove. Another street where
 I have always though was labeled wrong in the village is Roddymoor Road,
 there is no street sign and I have near heard anyone refer to it as this.
 The street on part of this road is not labeled (buildings are) it is East
 Terrace and that's how anyone describing it or looking at signs would
 describe it. Again OS do this the same which is probably why OSM has it
 tagged like this.

 All of this highlights that while OS Locator may have a difference and is
 fantastic for finding potential problems, changing it so OS Locator
 comparisons are 100% may not be the correct solution?

 Any help appreciated and apologies if I should ask in a different list,
 surely this is an incredibly common problem that I have somehow missed the
 obvious solution to.

 regards,
 Steven


 On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk
  wrote:

 ITO’s OSM Analysis has been updated with the latest OS Locator data. Most
 places have dropped out of the 100% completeness compared to OS Locator.
 There’s now 18 places which have less than 95% completeness.

 http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main

 Shaun McDonald
 Developer
 ITO World
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




 --
 www.stevenhorner.com  http://www.stevenhorner.com
  @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner
  0191 645 2265
  stevenhorner

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Town v City

[Richard Mann]

I added a population tag to some of the dubious ones (primarily the larger
non-cities) to enable them to be identified by the renderer.

Rochester/Chatham is complicated (not least by the fact that Rochester
managed to lose its City status by accident).


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Andy Street a...@street.me.uk wrote:

 On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:13:59 +
 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:

  If anything, I'd like to amend the UK use of place=city to come up
  with a use of the tag that fits in with global OSM usage. We can add a
  tag for 'ceremonial status' or similar to indicate they are a 'city'
  according to the weird UK rules but aren't actually cities in the main
  meaning of the word. So long as it's all agreed and documented, I'd be
  in favour of a change.

 +1

 I see similarities between this and admin areas where I've tagged
 admin_level=* to denote place within a global hierarchy then
 supplemented it with designation=unitary_authority etc. to record
 regional intricacies.

 Perhaps we could use designation=GB:city in this instance?

 --
 Regards,

 Andy Street

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Possible vandalism? New Forth Road Bridge being changed to motorway from construction

[Richard Mann]

These users probably want a rendering. It's too easy to change the data,
wait for it to render then grab the result.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence

[Richard Mann]

You need to formally ask:  Any other dataset published under the OS
OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or
by OS if any).

is unclear: ask who?

Ask the organisation doing the publishing (eg Norfolk CC), or OS?

My impression of the Mike Collinson dialogue was that OS basically agreed
that *indirect* use of their mapbase in this fashion as the context for
someone else's data was OK, but that the someone else also had to agree,
not that OS had to be asked each and every time. Robert's interpretation is
that OS have to be asked every time.

Perhaps the wiki text could be made more explicit.


On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 24 January 2014 14:25, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote:
  By all means say OSMf/LWG consider that OSGB OGL data can be included
 in OSM, but
  I personally avoid doing so ...

 But as far I I know, that would be incorrect. According to Michael
 Collinson's post at
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-July/015028.html

 LWG view on use of data in OSM under OS OpenData License:

 Yes: OS OpenData product except CodePoint

 No:  CodePoint (a Royal Mail response to Chris Hill needs further
 investigation)

 You need to formally ask:  Any other dataset published under the OS
 OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or
 by OS if any).

 So unless something has changed since then that I'm not aware of, LWG
 consider that data licensed under the OS OpenData Licence *cannot* be
 included in OSM, unless it's either one of the specific OS OpenData
 products (except CodePoint Open) or you formally ask for permission
 from the rights holders.

 Robert.

 --
 Robert Whittaker

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

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Tagging of railway station

[Richard Mann]

The number of stations is quite small, so people will find a way to deal
with it. Probably by re-adding nodes until the area advocates give up.


On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Copro Grammes coprogram...@yahoo.frwrote:

 OK!
 Just one question: what do you mean saying Having separate node and area
 doesn't usually create too many problems ? Currently, either a node or an
 area is created to define a railway station, isn't it ? So there is never
 separate node and area in the same station. Is there something I didn't
 understand ?

 Zigeuner


   Le Mercredi 18 décembre 2013 10h49, Richard Mann 
 richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com a écrit :
  The label role would be a solution, but unfortunately it isn't supported
 by the major renderers (afaik). So for the moment we stick with having the
 tags on the label node. Since the label is usually fairly obvious, having
 separate node and area doesn't usually create too many problems.

 So the main reason for change would be to fit in with a some mappers
 desire for everything to be tied up neatly in relations. That's not really
 a good enough reason. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

 Richard


 On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Copro Grammes coprogram...@yahoo.frwrote:

 Thank you for your answers.

 I was also inclined to add railway=station tag to a node rather than to an
 area. But some French mappers advocate for the 'area' solution, contrary to
 the former version of the wiki, and I've begun to hesitate between both the
 approaches.
 So I was hoping this debate could be settled, but currently this is
 clearly not the case... Doesn't this matter interest anybody else ? Or
 doesn't anybody else have an opinion about this question ?

 This problem is not know (see place=*). We even already have an
 solution: role label.
 The role label could be interesting, but how can we use it ?
 Did you mean we could create a label relation [1] ? Or did you mean we
 should add a node with the role label to the stop_area relation which
 would be tagged railway=station (but the stop_area could also contain a bus
 station, a subway station, etc.) ?

 For new created objects I only use the new scheme but I do not delete
 the older tags if already tagged but only add the new ones.
 So I think it means you add the public_transport=station tag to the
 same node/area which was already tagged railway=station (as Roland
 did), doesn'it ?

 Cheers,
 Zigeuner

 [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Label


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



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



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


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

Re: [Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Richard Mann]

Simply rendering public_transport=platform+bus=yes (if that's correct) as a
bus stop is a matter of a few lines of xml in the tag-transform (to insert
a highway=bus_stop tag in relevant nodes, which the normal rendering
processes can pick up). Though since this is functionally the same as the
mappers adding a highway=bus_stop tag to the nodes then you do rather
wonder what is the point.

Of course it's probably more complicated than that, which is why the people
who use these tags need to state what needs to be done, and in what
situations.

See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmosis/TagTransform


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote:

 On 12/11/2013 11:07 AM, fly wrote:

 If you keep on adding both schemes simultaneously you will not notice
 the problem and there will be no reason for developers to adjust the
 software.


  One of the problems in this situation is the map rendering developers
 have not taken an interest in the new scheme.

   If someone has submitted a 'pull request' that included the new tagging
 scheme but it was ignored, that is a different story.  OSM is frequently
 described as a do-ocracy - in which finished and coded solutions win out
 over what is needed.  And it's quite possible that we public transport
 mappers have been collecting and entering the information but have never
 gotten into CSS Map stylesheets, or whatever is the technology behind the
 renderers.


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

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Stop according to new PT scheme not rendered?

[Richard Mann]

tag-transform is an osmosis plugin. It happens before conversion to the
postgres database, so you can use any tags that exist in the wild


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:

 For a long time, public_transport was not transfered to the DB used for
 the rendering of Mapnik. At that time it didn't make sense to update
 stylesheets.

 Jo


 2013/12/11 Mike N nice...@att.net

 On 12/11/2013 11:07 AM, fly wrote:

 If you keep on adding both schemes simultaneously you will not notice
 the problem and there will be no reason for developers to adjust the
 software.


  One of the problems in this situation is the map rendering developers
 have not taken an interest in the new scheme.

   If someone has submitted a 'pull request' that included the new tagging
 scheme but it was ignored, that is a different story.  OSM is frequently
 described as a do-ocracy - in which finished and coded solutions win out
 over what is needed.  And it's quite possible that we public transport
 mappers have been collecting and entering the information but have never
 gotten into CSS Map stylesheets, or whatever is the technology behind the
 renderers.



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



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


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

Re: [Talk-transit] IFOPT-numbers for public transport platforms

[Richard Mann]

UK bus stops all have codes (taken from the NaPTAN import), for example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/533877725

If it's not displayed on the stop, any reference should be prefixed with
the source.

That stop also has a publicly-displayed code which is tagged as ref=69345648.
This is actually the numeric equivalent of the NaPTAN code (oxfgjmgt). Both
these codes can be used to look information up on the internet.


On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Andreas Uller a.ul...@gmx.at wrote:

 Dear list,

 First I'd like to say hello, my name is Andreas, and I consider it one of
 my main priorities in OSM to map things related to public transport
 (routes, stops) in my home city of Graz, Austria and beyond.

 The bus and tram lines in Graz are complete for quite some time now, so I
 started entering all the regional bus lines in Styria (a list of the
 current progress is here: [1]). Of course, I use the current tagging
 scheme, which can be quite tideous for regional buslines, because often
 there are many variants which each should get their own relation. My
 masterpiece so far are the bus routes 200/201 with a total of 62 variants
 (the timetable is so long, it's split into two files: [2],[3],
 route_masters in OSM: [4],[5]).
 So far the biggest problem was finding the correct position of bus stops
 in rural areas, where they often can't be seen on aerial images (no
 road-markings, no bays, no shelters...). Therefore, I'm very happy that we
 got the position of all public transport stops in Styria for use in OSM.
 The planned import is outlined here: [6] and a discussion has been started
 on the imports-Mailinglist: [7].

 The reason for my mail to you is:
 We also received a lot of attributes for each platform, including a unique
 ID per platform, which has been identified as the IFOPT-number, an
 internationally unique number. It appears unclear, if this number should be
 added to all the platforms in OSM, or if this is unnecessary/unwanted. Has
 there already been a discussion on how (if at all) to use this number? The
 most straigh-forward method that comes to my mind would be to include it as
 ref:IFOPT, but what is the opinion on this list?
 I think it could become important when timetable- or real-time-data
 becomes available, but I don't know if this is true.

 I'm looking forward to you answers,
 Andreas

 [1]
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Austria/Regionalbusse_Steiermark
 [2] http://verbundlinie.at/busbahnbim-auskunft/pdf/j13/stv_40200m_j13.pdf
 [3] http://verbundlinie.at/busbahnbim-auskunft/pdf/j13/stv_40200n_j13.pdf
 [4] http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/955209
 [5] http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2165551
 [6]
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Austria/Import_Haltestellen_Steiermark
 [7]
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2013-November/002428.html

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Upcoming changes to OpenStreetMap.org website

[Richard Mann]

At least they could have the grace to spell licence correctly.


On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote:

 +1 for a close button.  That box just screams at me to be closed - my
 brain wants to see what's behind it!  Not sure what communication went out
 about this notifying the community of the date of implementation - I
 certainly wasn't aware of anything. I saw lots of discussion about the
 design but the first I knew about implementation was when I saw it live.
 Surely we can do better than this?

 Regards

 Brian


 On 1 December 2013 18:03, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:

 
  In regards to the comment about wanting a [x] button on the welcome
 text,
  it does disappear for logged in users and small screen devices. As for
 non


 Now it has gone live, I have to say that it is a disaster and likely
 to turn me and others from OSM. We take all this trouble to create
 a beautiful and useful map and it is ruined by this stupid permanent
 window obscuring a large part of the map on small screen devices.

 It is a waste of time to login when I am not actively mapping and
 seriously unfriendly. Not to mention the bother of looking up my
 password (which is quite strong) each time.

 Now what was the fork of OSM called? Informationhighway?

 ael


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



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Primary or Trunk?

[Richard Mann]

At least we don't have the situation in Copenhagen, where route 16 goes
from being a motorway to a primary to a trunk to a primary to a trunk to a
tertiary. It's wider than Euston Road as it goes past the centre of the
city...

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/55.6940/12.5479
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Unclassified and Tertiary Roads

[Richard Mann]

If in doubt, unclassified. Use tertiary if it's consistently built to a
cars-can-pass-one-another-easily standard (which usually means a clear
through route between main roads, or the access route to a significant
village).

Might be different in parts of Britain where even main roads get to be
single track, though.


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.comwrote:


 Hi

 In Upper Hulme (Old Buxton Road and Roach Road) and on roads above (Back
 of the Rocks) and below (Blackshaw Lane) there seem to be odd changes
 between Unclassified and Tertiary Road tags.

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/53.1444/-1.9821

 I've no experience with regard to tagging highways so I was wondering what
 information there is available to check whether this is correct of whether
 it is a judgement call?  Roach Road is mostly single track and has a gate
 on it.

 Any assistance would be appreciated.

 Regards

 Dudley



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes

[Richard Mann]

IIRC a lot of those tags were added by Chriscf, without any local
surveying, and since the value was derived from the speed limit, there's
little added value in having separate maxspeed:type values. It's just
clutter. What matters to the data user is the maxspeed tag. The
maxspeed:type tag is probably only of use to mappers. And not much use to
them either.


On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:26 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.ukwrote:

  Hi Peter,

 Thanks for replying here.

 Peter Miller wrote:


  So...on the basis that we should tag what is there, we see a white sign
 with a black diagonal line on it then that is what we should indicate. We
 do of course interpret that by putting what we believe if the correct legal
 speed limit in maxspeed. As such a single carriageway national limit is
 coded as maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=60 mph. As dual carriageway
 is tagged as maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=70 mph. The motorway
 version is highway=motorway,maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=70 mph.


 I understand the potential problem (does a national speed limit dual
 carriageway slip road count as a dual carriageway or not?) but am concerned
 that changing e.g. GB:nsl_single to gb:national will:

 o potentially obscure any underlying data errors (imagine something tagged
 maxspeed=70 mph, maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_single)

 o make things more difficult for data consumers (if only by changing the
 data from something that they might be expecting)

 o confuse new mappers who see data that they've entered being changed
 because it's wrong, when in reality there really isn't a concensus on
 this.

 I fully accept that national speed limit tagging in the UK is a mess (at
 the time of writing 4 of the top 6 values for
 http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/maxspeed:type#values could mean
 the same thing) but any consolidation must proceed following discussion.

 With regard to the other point:

 For avoidance of doubt, all my edits have been fully manual.


 I don't believe that anyone has suggested otherwise, although I have
 certainly suggested that you may not have visited all of the places that
 you have been changing the speed limit for.  There is clearly a sliding
 scale between I've surveyed an area, and everything that I've edited is
 based on the results of that survey, aided by e.g. Bing, OSSV, and other
 named sources and I've changed a bunch of tags worldwide based on who
 knows what information without even looking where I've changed them.

 The wiki's mechanical edit 
 policyhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy
 (as currently written) suggests that changes of this type may be covered
 (search-and-replace operations using an editor... unless your changes are
 backed up by knowledge or survey) - I guess that it depends on what you
 mean by knowledge **.

 Clearly no-one's going to object to some tag-changing edits
 (designation=public_fooptath to designation=public_footpath for example)
 but in this case there's enough doubt - other mappers have said I think
 the changes should reverted and This tag is vital in the replies to my
 original mail.

 Based on that, where you've changed e.g. GB:nsl_single to gb:national
 would it be possible for you to revert your changes?  There's clearly a
 discussion to be had going forward about which one of GB:blah, UK:blah,
 gb:blah and uk:blah we need to keep, but based on the replies so far there
 doesn't appear to be a concensus to support merging of everything into
 gb:national.

 Cheers,

 Andy

 ** In which case quite possibly mea culpa for the changesets that I refer
 to 
 herehttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-September/015227.html-
  it's not black and white.


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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Who interprets semicolon in tag values?

[Richard Mann]

Similarly, I parse route_ref to identify which stops are served by a
particular bus route. Maperitive can't pick out the nodes from the relation
directly, so I was glad of the alternative/duplicate method.


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:

 When standing in front of a bus stop, it's easy to see which bus lines are
 served by it. I add this information to

 route_ref

 This enables me to check later on when trying to add the stop to the
 proper route relations.

 In the mean time I have a database file with all the bus stops in the
 region and which buses pass by at what time . The script which creates an
 OSM file based upon this also populates route_ref.

 It is then very easy to find all stops served by a given line:

 RR route_ref=(^|.+;)17(;.+|$) inview

 This is a regular expression search.

 Jo


 2013/5/31 Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org

 Hi!

 We have had an informal convention for a long time to use a semicolon
 (;) in tag values to separate multiple values, for instance
 ref=I 70; US 40 to denote that there are two numbered roads on a way.
 But most software out there doesn't actually interpret this in any
 special way.

 If you know of any software that actually does interpret this specially,
 please tell me. I am trying to get an idea where and how this is used in
 the real world. You can answer here on the list or write to me
 privately, I'll summarize for the list later. Thanks!

 Jochen
 --
 Jochen Topf  joc...@remote.org  http://www.jochentopf.com/
 +49-721-388298

 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Permalink with marker

[Richard Mann]

Easiest of all would probably be to include the marker by default, and let
people edit it out if they don't want it.

Richard


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi,

 I think that's slightly different to what I had in mind.  My suggestion
 was to make a very simple way to make a map marker.  For example, if a
 friend asks me where a restaurant is, or a park, I want to go to the map
 and quickly create a link with a marker to send to my friend. I can paste
 the link into email, or Facebook, or any chat program.

 I can do this right now, but I need to edit the long permalink (or add
 ?m to the short permalink).  I'd like to skip this step.

 Thanks,

 Andrew



 On 23 May 2013 15:40, christian.pietz...@googlemail.com 
 christian.pietz...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi
 this would be really great. Another good thing would be if you could
 generate a permalink for searched areas.for example: if you search
 vor Berlin and click on the first entrance the border Berlin city will
 be shown on the map
 Maybe it would be possible to have a small Link symbol next to the search
 results.

 greetings
 Christian


 2013/5/23 sabas88 saba...@gmail.com




 2013/5/23 Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com

 Hello,

 On the main map at osm.org there is a 'permalink' hyperlink, which
 generates a URL encoding the current view of the map.  It is easy to change
 this into a marker link by editing the URL and changing lat and lon to
 mlat and mlon.

 Would it be beneficial to add another hyperlink which will do this
 automagically?  Maybe called markerlink, which produces a URL containing
 mlat and mlon.

 I know it means work for someone, but if it's a good idea then
 hopefully it can be implemented easily.  I don't know if it's been
 suggested before, but if such a feature were available I would use it a
 lot.  I often make my own OSM marker links to send to people by editing the
 permalink URL, so I'd appreciate a one-click function to do this.

 Comments please.  If it's a good idea I will submit it to OSM trac.


 I like it, but should be considered also into the url shortening part
 (now if you add marker via mlon and mlat and  make a shorturl it transforms
 it in lon and lat..)


 Thanks,

 Andrew


 Regards,
 Stefano



 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Trunk vs green-sign routes in the UK

[Richard Mann]

the wiki is the long-accepted approach: use highway=trunk for green signs -
ie the primary (sorry) route network


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 2:44 PM, David Fisher djfishe...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 This is kind of a tagging question, but is UK-specific and pretty
 straightforward so I thought I'd post it here -- apologies  happy to
 re-post if felt inappropriate.

 I've noticed a couple of roads in the UK being downgraded in OSM from
 trunk to primary on the basis that they are not trunk in the County
 Council / DfT maintenance sense.  They are, however, green-sign primary
 routes and are clearly of greater importance than your average white-sign
 route.  The ones I've noticed are the A354 (Salisbury-Blandford) and A22
 (Greater London boundary to E Grinstead).

 Strictly speaking these changes are correct, as trunk in the UK implies
 being run by the DfT rather than local councils (N.B. a large number of
 former trunk routes have been devolved in the past 10 or 20 years).  But
 the OSM Wiki says to use the trunk tag for primary A road (green
 signs), and this would certainly make more sense from the road-user
 perspective.  Is there a consensus on this?  If not, might it be a good
 idea to introduce a new tag signifying a UK green-sign route, and for
 these to be rendered as such in Mapnik (i.e. in green, the same as trunk
 routes)?

 Thanks,

 David.




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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ambiguous restrictions sign

[Richard Mann]

You probably want one of these: http://goo.gl/maps/2K3XR at the closed end
and one of these at the access-for-loading end: http://goo.gl/maps/AVJ8h


On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:04 PM, David Fisher djfishe...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Shaun,

 I take it you're referring to Ipswich?  In which case, I can sort of see
 the logic.  It's not one-way, it's no entry, so when the excepting
 conditions are satisfied it becomes two-way.  In Croydon's case there's
 that no motor vehicles sign at one end, with a no entry sign at the
 other with no excepting conditions -- so presumably the intention is for
 the street to be one-way even for cyclists.  (which is odd, given that
 there's nowhere else obvious to go coming southbound on a cycle.)

 I'm now in contact with the local cycling advocacy group, so will see if I
 can get a (more) official position on Croydon in the same way as you have
 for Ipswich.

 Thanks,

 David.



 On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Shaun McDonald 
 sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.ukwrote:


 On 31 Oct 2012, at 16:02, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:

  On 31/10/2012 15:29, Andy Robinson wrote:
  Shaun McDonald [mailto:sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk] wrote:
  Sent: 31 October 2012 15:21
  To: Matt Williams
  Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
  Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ambiguous restrictions sign
 
 
  On 31 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:
 
  On 31 October 2012 14:37, David Fisher djfishe...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi all,
 
  The pedestrianised main shopping street in Croydon has a sign with
  the following wording: Pedestrian Zone.  No vehicles except cycles
  and for loading 6pm-10am.
  How would you interpret that?  I see at least 3 possibilities:
 
  (a) Cycles permitted at any time; loading only permitted 6pm-10am
  (this is what I guess is the correct one)
  (b) Cycles and loading only permitted 6pm-10am (this would also make
  sense; i.e. cycling only outside shopping hours)
  (c) Restrictions apply 6pm-10am (clearly ludicrous!)
  (d) Something else?
 
  I'm guessing it's meant to be (a), but just thought I'd canvas
  opinion before tagging.
 
  I think I agree with (a). I would find it a little strange to
 disallow
  cycling just during the day (why not just ban it entirely?).
 
  The centre pedestrianised bit of Ipswich has cycling banned from
 10:30am -
  4:30pm. It does get pretty busy during that time.
  http://goo.gl/maps/ouha1
 
 
  I'm not sure that's correct? Is it not just banning cyclists from
 cycling
  against the traffic flow during this period? The sign at the other end
  suggests its open to cyclists at all times in the direction of normal
 flow.
 
  (from your corrected link http://goo.gl/maps/SM2y9 )
 
  The key thing here is the sign it is underneath. The reference to
 cyclists in the text is superfluous (and presumably not authorised by the
 DfT) because the 'low flying motorbike' sign means no MOTOR vehicles, and
 a bike isn't a motor vehicle. That's not just pedantry: there is a separate
 sign for banning ALL vehicles, a simple red roundel with nothing inside it.
 There is no restriction on bikes at any time according to that sign.
 
  Their traffic engineer needs sending back to sign school.
 

 So some more info on this situation.

 The intention was to allow cycling in both directions between the hours
 of 4:30pm and 10:30 am. With vehicles for loading and service access in one
 direction only during those hours. However it's more recently turned out
 that it's not possible to legally sign a road like that.

 Unfortunately there are a few cyclists who are spoiling it for everyone
 else, by cycling dangerously during the busy period, thus the probable plan
 is to not allow cycling all the time in terms of signage. (The police are
 happy to allow sensible cycling even if not allowed).

 Shaun


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



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere)

[Richard Mann]

I'd use alt_name. At least it's an established place to look for
alternative stuff.


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:

 Rovastar wrote:
  Fos­ton Hat­ton Hilton Bypass, etc  don't as far I I know appear on
  the ground however I think the some record should appear in
  OSM. I am worried about the trend in this case of placing them
  as the name of the road as what reference point would people
  use for these.

 Having lived near there (part time) for six years, certainly I never heard
 anyone call it that.

 I tend to tag C-roads with admin_ref rather than ref, on the basis that
 it's
 a reference for administrative purposes rather than general usage. By the
 same token, maybe admin_name would work here, or something like it.

 cheers
 Richard





 --
 View this message in context:
 http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/road-names-along-the-A50-and-elsewhere-tp5749880p5750003.html
 Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Fowey estuary coastline problem

[Richard Mann]

Best advised to leave the natural=water in place (with a fixme note) until
the coastline re-renders (which could be a few weeks)

Richard


On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Jason Woollacott wool...@hotmail.comwrote:

   This relates to some work I did on the Cornish county boundary a while
 back,  the same also has happened at Newton Ferrers, just south of Plymouth.

 Whilst remapping the boundary, I also pushed the coastline further up the
 channel.The new boundary has rendered,  and the removal of the original
 ‘water’ tag has gone,  but the planet file doesn’t seem to have generated a
 new coastline yet.

 Does anybody know if a new coastline will be generated soon?  as this
 should address the problem.

 Jason (UniEagle)

  *From:* cotswolds mapper osmcotswo...@gmail.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:17 PM
 *To:* talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 *Subject:* [Talk-GB] Fowey estuary coastline problem

 Just been looking at Fowey on OSM and noticed (well it was hard to miss)
 that there's something wrong with the coastline in the Fowey estuary.  I
 don't have any experience of coastlines, so I trust someone else can fix
 this.

 Rob

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


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of disused railway stations

[Richard Mann]

One in London has had disused: put in front of the tags

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1528661184


On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Bogus Zaba bog...@bogzab.plus.com wrote:

 Has anybody else noticed / been annoyed by the way that disused railway
 stations are rendered just like regular railway stations on the cycle map,
 transport map and MapQuest open views of OSM?

 Mapnik seems to know the difference and renders the disused stations with
 a smaller symbol and grey label, but viewing the other three layers leads
 you to the conclusion that these are all regular stations.

 For an example see this (http://www.openstreetmap.org/**
 ?lat=53.43943lon=-2.96918**zoom=15layers=Chttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.43943lon=-2.96918zoom=15layers=C)
 in North Liverpool where I was cycling using the cycle map recently. Bank
 Hall and Kirkdale are regular stations which are both useful landmarks for
 a cyclist and offer a potential ride home whereas Spellow and Walton 
 Anfield do not exist.

 I understand that there are enthusiasts out there who are interested in
 historic maps, but the features which are important for that type of
 mapping can just get in the way of useful everyday find-your-way-around
 maps.

 Anybody know where should this be reported as a rendering bug?

 Thanks

 Bogus Zaba

 __**_
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Overlapping ways

[Richard Mann]

Consider slightly offsetting each level. Add a note saying
slightly-offset-from-level-below.

Sharing nodes between vertical layers is certainly wrong.

Richard


On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:31 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.ukwrote:

 Rob Nickerson wrote:


 Am I doing something wrong? Is the fixer tool flagging something up
 incorrectly?


 In cases such as this I normally say to the other mapper that I was last
 there on so-and-so date, and when I was last there it looked like X; and
 ask whether perhaps he's been there more recently and the geometry's
 changed?

 Personally I believe that the various QA tools do an excellent job, but
 it'd be simply impossible to miss all the false negatives and not catch
 some false positives - it has to be up to the mapper to decide what's a
 real issue and what's not.

 (begin rant)

 I wish more of the people doing these remote corrections would actually
 talk to the person who did the original mapping in the first place.
  Perhaps the way was drawn by a new mapper who actually has lots of
 questions about how to do things, but doesn't know who or where to ask.
  Maybe it's a mistake by someone who's been mapping for a while (we all
 still make them!), in which the best person to correct the error is surely
 a person who's been there rather than a person who hasn't.

 In some cases it does make sense to correct remotely (perhaps
 non-connecting footpaths that match GPS traces that were drawn by a mapper
 who hasn't been seen since 2009 would be an example), but in many cases I
 would argue that it doesn't.

 (end rant)

 As an interesting aside, what I've found myself doing more frequently
 recently is revisiting places that I'd mapped previously that had been
 subsequently armchaired.  In almost all cases what resulted from a
 resurvey wasn't exactly the same as from the original, but slightly more
 nuanced and with a lot more detail - revisiting isn't necessarily a bad
 thing.  Still, it can be annoying to have to go back and resurvey an area
 because someone has corrected it to look like an old Bing photo, prompted
 by a false positive on a QA site.

 Cheers,
 Andy



 __**_
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Aaaaaaaaaaaaargh

[Richard Mann]

There are no prizes for guessing why this node caused an interpretation
error.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/241783950

If there's a way of stopping the API from storing/returning very small
numbers in scientific notation, I'm sure it'll save someone (else) some
heartache in future.

But in the mean time, be warned.

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Queen Elizabeth II playing fields

[Richard Mann]

Ha - we've already got a King George's Playing Field. Might have to add
the designation tag!

I suspect prone_to_flooding=yes might also be appropriate...


On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.comwrote:


 http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10086205.Tribute_to_Queen_safeguards_Oxpens_Meadow/
 
 I've added the name of the meadow mentioned in this article, but does
 anyone
 have a suggestion how to tag that it's been designated a QEII Field?  I'm
 not actually sure what it means, even after reading
 http://www.fieldsintrust.org/QEII.aspx and following links, but it looks
 like there's quite a few.
 
 s

 --

 Hi

 Good spot. I read the Fields in Trust (FIT) website with interest. In
 summary, FIT is the new operating name for the National Playing Fields
 Association, which is the trustee of the King George Fields Foundation.
 This foundation was responsible for establishing playing fields as King
 George's Fields where the landowner entered into a Deed of Dedication
 declaring that the recreation ground shall be preserved in perpetuity. As
 such these playing fields are legally protected and as such I believe that
 the designation tag is suitable:

 * designation = King George’s Field

 It looks like a similar legal designation will be made for the Queen
 Elizabeth II Fields, so I suggest a polygon be drawn around these and
 tagged with:

 * designation = Queen Elizabeth II Fields
 * and any other appropriate tag about the landuse/landcover (if any)

 Regards,
 Rob

 p.s It may be worth someone contacting FiT to see if we can get a database
 of the fields for use in OSM (i.e. permission to use the data under an open
 licence).

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] public_transport=platform not rendered

[Richard Mann]

There are a million highway=bus_stop nodes, they are rendered, and there's
no very good reason to change them.

There are 118,000 public_transport=platform nodes, of which 67% also have
highway tags.

I'd just put highway=bus_stop on the public_transport=platform nodes (if
they are bus stops), and be done with it.


On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote:

  From: Ed Loach [mailto:e...@loach.me.uk]
  Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] public_transport=platform not rendered
 
   I'd rather deprecate platform for busses if anything.
 
  One of the problems with the bus stop tag, and hoping I don't reopen old
  arguments, is that due to a mistranslation in the wiki in the dim and
  distant past many people have tagged bus stops as nodes on the way where
  the bus stops, when they are meant to be nodes beside the way where
  people wait for the bus. The public_transport tags at least clearly
  separate the place people wait (using the word
  platform) from where the vehicle stops.

 As of this afternoon there are 1020807 highway=bus_stop total and 123578 of
 those are in a way.

 So about 7.25x as many not as part of a way as in a way.


 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] importing house shapes

[Richard Mann]

That's pretty much entirely a relation-as-category, though, isn't it?

I'm wondering whether there'd be a case for a very small number of
high-value (in terms of processing speed) relations to be created
automatically, available to data consumers in the normal way through the
API, but _not_ shown in editors? These relations really just make things
more complicated.

Richard

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:

 On 19 October 2012 10:05, thomas van der veen th.vanderv...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  I have used the terraced house plug in a few times and have found it very
  useful, but I don't quite understand the difference between addr:street
  (which is what I do at the moment) and adding a relation?
 
  Could you please explain this a bit more (and if possible in other
 contexts
  then the postcode finder)

 Sure. All this addressing is based on the Karlsruhe Schema [1] which
 was devised as a way of tagging streets by some Germans who wanted to
 try out tagging a whole city. The original schema was a series of tags
 you put on each house such as house number, post code etc. The way
 they originally specified which street a house is on was by the
 addr:street tag where they would put the name of the street in that
 tag on each house.
 During the process of this schema evolving and being used, some people
 felt that this was redundant and so decided to start using relations
 to group these houses together (along with the street). I have a
 feeling this was in the early days of relations when many people
 weren't sure how to use them and so adoption of this method was slow.

 So, for adding in data as a mapper, it a difference between adding an
 'addr:street' tag to every house in the street or selecting all the
 houses and roads in the street and adding them to a single relation
 (with the correct roles). For many people, creating a relation like
 this is seen as unnecessarily burdensome when for them, the
 addr:street method describes what they mean just fine.

 For data consumers (Nominatim, postcode finder, routers etc.) I would
 argue that it's conceptually simpler to use the relation method since
 it's explicit about that's in the street and what's not. With the
 addr:street method, the programmer has to, upon finding a node with an
 addr:street tag on it, search 'nearby' in the database. This means
 that they must have a georeferenced database set up and these querys
 are not as fast as simply node/way lookups. Also, to assemble a full
 street (from many ways and houses) would require an iterative building
 process. For me as a data consumer, the advantage of the
 associatedStreet relation comes from explicitness and speed.

 What I think we need (and what I've started to look at) is a plugin
 for JOSM (or built-in for Potlatch) which allows you to simply select
 the houses and the street, press a button and the relation is
 magically created. If some of the selected items are already in a
 relation then the rest of the items are added to it.

 Some of this is just my (biased) opinion so feel free to do whatever
 works best for you (of course, you could always do both). For
 information on exactly how I tag addresses with relations, see [2]
 (which I'd like to announce is up and running again).

 Cheers,
 Matt

 [1]
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Karlsruhe_Schema
 [2] http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/tagging/

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] importing house shapes

[Richard Mann]

Strangely enough, you press Q in Potlatch as well

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Kevin Peat k...@k3v.eu wrote:


 On Oct 16, 2012 9:15 PM, Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com
 wrote:
 
  Hi Talk-GB,
 
  Sorry if I'm posting on the wrong list.
 
  ...I have a huge preference for Potlatch over JOSM...

 You can get therapy for that :]

 In JOSM you can press Q after drawing a building to cure the wobbles, not
 sure if Potlatch has something similar.

 Kevin

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] DfT Cycling data - cycle lanes

[Richard Mann]

I'll include opposite_lane; there are enough of them.

I'd probably tag the one by the Jeremy Bentham as cycleway:right=track (and
indeed that is how it is tagged). You can determine its unconventional
usage from the oneway tag(s), if you so wish.

I'd guess most of the cycleway=opposite_lane tags are situations where
there's a contraflow lane in a one-way street. I'd probably tag that as
cycleway:right=lane (+oneway:bicycle=no) myself, since otherwise you're
prevented from specifying what's happening in the forward direction. But
clearly cycleway=opposite_lane is still being used.

Richard

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 9 October 2012 17:34, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
  Gregory,
 
  I thought that cycleway=opposite_lane was the equivalent of
  cycleway:right=lane.

 no - opposite_lane is useful in a one-way road to indicate cyclists
 can go both ways. There's nothing in cycleway:right=lane to suggest
 whether or not that cycle lane is with or against the traffic flow on
 a one-way road. Outside the Jeremy Bentham is a one-way cycle lane in
 the same direction as cars on the right hand side of a one way road,
 for example.

 Cheers,
 Andy

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

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

[Talk-GB] DfT Cycling data - cycle lanes

[Richard Mann]

As you may recall, DfT has made available a lot of cycle facility data.
This was processed and snapped to OSM geometry, and has been available for
some months for importing (subject to local review) using the Snapshot
tool. Further details here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/England_Cycling_Data_project

I've reconciled the data for my area, but I found it a bit hard going.
Progress in other areas has been variable.

I'm particularly interested in cycle lane data, so I've produced a
rendering that compares DfT (Red) with OSM (Blue) data. Note that the DfT
data is not clear which side of the road cycle lanes are on.
http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/dftcyclelanes/

Quite a lot still missing.

So I've also generated tiles of the DfT cycle lane data (down to z17), for
use as a background in editors. In Potlatch, you can create a new
background by clicking on the Background drop-down, then Edit, then Add.
The URL for the tiles is:
http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/dftcyclelanes/tilesDfT/$z/$x/$y.png

If any of you care to add cycle lanes in your area, that'd be most welcome.
It will also be interesting to see whether providing a background proves to
be an effective way of getting data reviewed and into OSM. If it's
successful, a similar approach can be used for other parts of the data.

Feedback welcome.

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

[Talk-GB] Updated GB cycle lanes map

[Richard Mann]

I've updated my map of GB cycle lanes (and quiet cycle routes). Rendered
using Geofabrik/Osmosis/Maperitive. Now with OdbL data...

http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/DualCycleNetworkMap/

It looks to me like there's quite a lot of cycle lanes missing. A lot of
cycle lane data is available from DfT for review and copying across, but
doesn't appear to have made it's way into OSM yet:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/England_Cycling_Data_project (and yes
this is a bit complicated, but it's quite easy once you get going)

A major part of the update to the cycle lane map has been identifying urban
main roads based on the presence of residential side roads. This was done
using a python algorithm in Maperitive. The results look pretty accurate
(not many false positives). In good share-alike style, I can do three
things with the output:
1) put the output back in the database, by using existing keys (eg
maxspeed=30 mph + maxspeed:source=inferred from presence of residential
side streets)
2) put the output back in the database, using new keys (eg
maxspeed:inferred=30 mph + maxspeed:inferred:source = presence of
residential side streets)
3) publish the algorithm

It doesn't make much difference to me, but clearly people might find the
data useful. So I'm open to views/suggestions.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Updated GB cycle lanes map

[Richard Mann]

RCNs are deliberately not shown, since they are generally leisure routes
(and being phased out in favour of NCN tagging).

Richard

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org wrote:



 On 2 October 2012 09:55, Richard Mann 
 richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.comwrote:

 I've updated my map of GB cycle lanes (and quiet cycle routes). Rendered
 using Geofabrik/Osmosis/Maperitive. Now with OdbL data...

 http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/DualCycleNetworkMap/

 It looks to me like there's quite a lot of cycle lanes missing. A lot of
 cycle lane data is available from DfT for review and copying across, but
 doesn't appear to have made it's way into OSM yet:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/England_Cycling_Data_project (and yes
 this is a bit complicated, but it's quite easy once you get going)

 A major part of the update to the cycle lane map has been identifying
 urban main roads based on the presence of residential side roads. This was
 done using a python algorithm in Maperitive. The results look pretty
 accurate (not many false positives). In good share-alike style, I can do
 three things with the output:
 1) put the output back in the database, by using existing keys (eg
 maxspeed=30 mph + maxspeed:source=inferred from presence of residential
 side streets)
 2) put the output back in the database, using new keys (eg
 maxspeed:inferred=30 mph + maxspeed:inferred:source = presence of
 residential side streets)
 3) publish the algorithm

 It doesn't make much difference to me, but clearly people might find the
 data useful. So I'm open to views/suggestions.

 Richard

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



 Looking at it RSN18 (Medway) is missing on
 http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/DualCycleNetworkMap/ however its on
 OSM and viewable via Cycle Map on the main osm site

 Peter.

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Updated GB cycle lanes map

[Richard Mann]

The data is available in OSM format (or as a set of z12 tiles, obvs) if
anyone wants to do this.

Stretching a set of mid-zoom tiles to be a background in Potlatch could be
a fairly re-usable approach. But I've no idea how practical that is.

Richard

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 2 October 2012 09:55, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  1) put the output back in the database, by using existing keys (eg
  maxspeed=30 mph + maxspeed:source=inferred from presence of residential
 side
  streets)
  2) put the output back in the database, using new keys (eg
  maxspeed:inferred=30 mph + maxspeed:inferred:source = presence of
  residential side streets)

 Please don't put auto-generated data back into the database, in either
 form.

 It would be best to hook the output from your algorithm into an
 existing QA system, such as the ITO maps, or keepright, or if none
 fit, then into a new QA system.

 Cheers,
 Andy

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

Re: [OSM-talk] All you've ever wanted to know about the french cadastre

[Richard Mann]

While I would agree that the French data is huge, it _is_ pleasing to be
able to make maps where the density of building is observable, even if you
know nothing about the buildings. I'm not sure that every building in every
village is quite required, but it'll probably go that way eventually.

Is tracing better than importing for creating community and high-quality
tagged data? I'll guess we'll know after this little experiment.

I think we have perhaps discussed this long enough (translation: stop!)

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Data User Group asks what data do you want

[Richard Mann]

I've asked for Network Rail's Sectional Appendices (track layout diagrams
and lots of other goodies) to be available in PDF form.

Richard

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Rob Nickerson
rob.j.nicker...@gmail.comwrote:


 Hi All,

 Just a quick heads up that the Open Data User Group (supported by UK
 Government) as asking what data do you want. If interested there are
 details of the initiative and a simple form to fill out:

 http://www.data.gov.uk/odug/overview
 http://data.gov.uk/node/add/data-request

 Cheers,
 Rob

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Data User Group asks what data do you want

[Richard Mann]

It's not geocoded, so it'll need human interpretation.

Richard

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Shaun McDonald
sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.ukwrote:

 PDF isn't necessarily the best format if you want to process the data with
 some other program. It's great for presentation, but as soon as you want to
 push it around and mix it with things, and do interesting things it's much
 less useful.

 Shaun

 On 27 Sep 2012, at 23:19, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I've asked for Network Rail's Sectional Appendices (track layout diagrams
 and lots of other goodies) to be available in PDF form.

 Richard

 On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
  wrote:


 Hi All,

 Just a quick heads up that the Open Data User Group (supported by UK
 Government) as asking what data do you want. If interested there are
 details of the initiative and a simple form to fill out:

 http://www.data.gov.uk/odug/overview
 http://data.gov.uk/node/add/data-request

 Cheers,
 Rob

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


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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for import guidelines

[Richard Mann]

I think the distinction between mechanical and manual needs to be fleshed
out a bit. To me manual implies a degree of care to other data (relative
location of existing objects, links to other objects, existing versions of
the same or related objects, other tags, consideration of the quality of
the source, cross-referencing to other sources, that sort of thing). The
amount of care depends on what you're doing, but obviously has a tendency
to decline if you're dealing with more data. Telling people that they're
not taking enough care is likely to annoy them. Asking them to
self-describe themselves as a bot when they're taking a lot of care is
also insulting.

So I'd choose some tag names that are a bit less loaded.

But the principle that changesets should have a licence tag where that's
clear/available is a sensible one. As is the message keep your changesets
at human-scale or set up a separate account.

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Legal Wording again..

[Richard Mann]

If I understand it right, you have to have (c) OSM contributors, and a
hyperlink from that text (or more if you choose) to the copyright page.
ODBL/CC-BY-SA do not need to be specifically mentioned.

Maybe add Tiles: yourserver (CC-BY-SA) if you're serving them locally




On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Frans Thamura fr...@meruvian.org wrote:

 honestly we just use the tile

 and we wjll follow osm direction

 my idea to make more more local server to reduce osm load

 and contribution stictly must to osm.org

 we will follow any license that osm will pick

 here we just use leaflet and osmdroid

 Frans Thamura
 Meruvian
 On Sep 14, 2012 1:47 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote:

 Hello Frans,

 On 14.09.2012 07:33, Frans Thamura wrote:

 any idea for the right letter in the map box?


 You might want to reimport your data as it is now (and in the future)
 available as ODbL. If you stick with CC-BY-SA you will no longer receive
 updates from osm.org.

 Have a look how to credit the data:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/**copyrighthttp://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright


 Your work can still use CC-BY-SA, so something along tiles CC-BY-SA
 osmosa.net, data (c) Openstreetmap contributors is fine. one link to
 your site, one to openstreetmap as stated in the link above.

 Stephan


 __**_
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Talk-GB] An alternative rendering of cycle routes in Britain....

[Richard Mann]

I've produced an alternative rendering of cycle networks in Britain:

http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/DualCycleNetworkMap/

This is in the style of the Oxford Cycle Map. It was produced using
Geofabrik / osmosis (to cut it into z8 chunks) / Maperitive.

The main cartographical feature is the simplification of lcn/ncn into a
couple of shades of blue, with red used to highlight urban main roads and
show the extent to which they have been adapted (or not). Main roads are
highlighted if they have speed limits of 30/20, or if they have cycle lanes
and no maxspeed tag. If anyone cares to add maxspeed data to urban main
roads, or other main roads with cycle lanes, that'd be much appreciated.

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

[Talk-GB] Use of place=town

[Richard Mann]

Is it me, or have people been a bit over-enthusiastic with the use of
place=town in parts of north London? I'd have thought town should be more
restricted to definite centres, with place=suburb quite sufficient for the
rest?

Market towns used to have a rule that they only got a charter if they were
6 miles from the nearest existing town, and that sort of spacing (or close
to it) would have a fair degree of logic. A selective cull may be in order.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Use of place=town

[Richard Mann]

Sorry; meant to include a permalink:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.58lon=-0.122zoom=11layers=M

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Richard Mann 
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:

 Is it me, or have people been a bit over-enthusiastic with the use of
 place=town in parts of north London? I'd have thought town should be more
 restricted to definite centres, with place=suburb quite sufficient for the
 rest?

 Market towns used to have a rule that they only got a charter if they were
 6 miles from the nearest existing town, and that sort of spacing (or close
 to it) would have a fair degree of logic. A selective cull may be in order.

 Richard

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

[Talk-GB] Not my patch, but why's this a tertiary_link

[Richard Mann]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/114413014

My guess is that it should be a highway=unclassified, but maybe someone in
Brighton/Lewes can provide some local knowledge?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Not my patch, but why's this a tertiary_link

[Richard Mann]

Roads either side are unclassified/residential, so I've made it
unclassified  added turn restrictions

Richard

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Stephen Colebourne
scolebou...@joda.orgwrote:

 I believe it is wide enough for two cars, and is used to access Glynde
 IIRC.
 Stephen

 On 26 June 2012 11:11, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Sounds like it needs a turning restriction, not to be a tertiary_link. Do
  you have a view on whether it should be a tertiary (ie clearly wide
 enough
  for two-way traffic, and forming a clear link between places) or an
  unclassified?
 
  Richard
 
  On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Stephen Colebourne 
 scolebou...@joda.org
  wrote:
 
  I know that area. That road is a typical minor country road. The A27
  is divided at that point by a central barrier. It can only be entered
  from Lewes, and exited to Beddingham.
 
  Stephen
 
 
  On 26 June 2012 10:00, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com
  wrote:
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/114413014
  
   My guess is that it should be a highway=unclassified, but maybe
 someone
   in
   Brighton/Lewes can provide some local knowledge?
  
   ___
   Talk-GB mailing list
   Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
   http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  
 
  ___
  Talk-GB mailing list
  Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
 
 

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Richard Mann]

The people who collected the data tell me that the cycle lane widths were
recorded in 3 categories:
1) 1.5m
2) 1.5=x2
3) =2

So the values in the data (1.25 and 1.75 mostly) are spuriously accurate
and quite often overstated.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Richard Mann]

I'd be tempted to convert the cycleway=lane into cycleway:left=lane and
cycleway:right=lane anyway, since (if I understand it right), it's
relatively easy to tag-transform it back again, for data users who can only
use symmetrical stuff. The capital letter is wrong though.

Richard

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:

 Also, I'm not up on cycleway lane tagging, and on a section where
 there are lanes both sides, is cycleway:left=lane and
 cycleway:right=lane correct, as per merge tool suggestions? Also,
 the merge tool is showing a suggest of Lane with a capital letter,
 which I think should be lower case.

 Ed


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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Admin Boundaries and OS OpenData BoundaryLine

[Richard Mann]

I think Peter was planning on making the ITO boundaries available as a
traceable layer, but haven't heard anything about this recently.

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:

 On 29 May 2012 15:44, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:

 My questions to the community:
 1) Would a bulk upload of any or all of this data be interesting?


 Thanks for raising this, it would be great to get a more complete set of
 boundaries. In answer to your first question, no, please don't follow a
 bulk upload approach. I say this for two reasons:

 1) Most boundaries follow existing features like roads, rivers, etc. They
 need to be manually entered as relations sharing nodes with those features.
 In my experience this is often a nice opportunity to spot other problems
 with very old features using aerial imagery and GPS tracks, e.g. poor
 alignment, or complicated junctions that aren't fully modelled for routing.
 So much better done manually than by dumping a load of new ways into the
 database.

 2) Many boundaries already exist, but are often slightly incorrect, e.g.
 not sharing nodes with existing features but being a little offset. By
 doing this manually you can improve these as you go, especially since every
 boundary shares its properties with one or more other boundaries.

 The best approach would be to identify which boundaries are missing, put
 those up in a list and and encourage people to get us to 100%. Perhaps
 start with counties, then unitaries and districts, then even wards.

 ITO have a nice map of boundaries that people can use to check up on them,
 you can see I started to add wards in Southwark:
 http://www.itoworld.com/map/2

 Regards,
 Tom

 --
 http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways and Access tags: Left, Right, Forward, Backward?

[Richard Mann]

I don't know when bicycle:backward=yes appeared - I've always used
oneway:bicycle=no
(and taginfo puts it as 131 to 4831 uses, so I'm not the only one)

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:59 AM, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:

 It has been pointed out that some of these may be due to one-way roads
 (and as there are more countries that drive on the right, this would cause
 a slight bias), however in these cases the :right suffix is not always
 needed.

 I can have a look for incorrect examples, but irrespective of whether I
 find any, I believe that the wiki page needs updating to better explain
 right/left. I am happy to have a go at doing this however as the lane
 enthusiasts and the 'access' page uses forward / backward instead I
 wondered whether there was any intention or hope to switch at some point in
 the future to bring consistency.

 Cheers,
 Rob

 p.s. I'm not saying we should change, just wanted to open a discussion to
 allow others to voice their opinion before I add more details to the wiki
 page. :-)



 On , Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:02 AM,  rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   My concern with right / left is that some may think ok we drive on the
 
   right side of the road so it must be cycleway:right (similarly left
 for
 
   countries such as the UK that drive on the left side of the road). A
 quick
 
   look on TagInfo reveals:
 
  
 
   cycleway:right=* - 9190 occurrences
 
   cycleway:left=* - 4329 occurrences
 
  
 
   A way has a 50/50% chance of being drawn in either direction so (unless
 
   people are reversing ways as they prefer right to left) then you would
 
   expect the split to be closer.
 
 
 
  Ok, so, you have a hypothesis that people are using the tag incorrectly.
 
 
 
  1) Could you find some examples to see if this true
 
  2) What do you think should be done, if so?
 
 
 
  Steve
 
 
 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways and Access tags: Left, Right, Forward, Backward?

[Richard Mann]

Off-carriageway tracks tend to be bidirectional (they all are in the UK).
So no-one would bother to use bidirectional_track.

Richard


On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:56 PM, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Arg, thats still not right is it? Firstly it leaves 2 values for
 cycleway:left and also the opposite_track is not quite right because if it
 had been on the right hand side of the way (but the way was still
 orientated in the same direction) you would have to use
 cycleway:right=opposite_track to imply that the cycle track flows in the
 same direction of the traffic closest to it (i.e. the traffic on the right
 that is going in the opposite direction of how the way is drawn).

 Maybe it should be The track may be cycled in the opposite direction of
 other traffic using the same side (i.e. right / left) of the road

 Finally the talk page has a good suggestion to use
 cylceway:left=bidirectional_track but this has no uses according to tag
 info.

 Rob



 On , rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
  Oh, I think I get it now. So for example if you had a cycle route that
 runs parallel to a road (but not within the road carriageway), is on the
 left side and allows cycling in both directions it would be tagged as:
 
  * highway=*
  * cycleway:left=track
  * cycleway:left=opposite_track
 
  If this is correct that the wiki could do with the definition changing
 so that opposite_track reads The track may be cycled in the opposite
 direction to the way, with an explanation of how a way is essentially an
 arrow.
 
  Regards,
  Rob
 
  p.s. Sorry for the large number of emails on this. Am trying to get
 things clear in my mind!
 
 
 
  On , rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
   Are there any cases of that?
  
   Wouldn't you assume that the cycle lane is on the same side as the
 flow of traffic (so forward would imply left in GB)? Surely the same
 argument can be made that cycleway:left tells you which side of the road it
 is on but doesn't tell you the direction of flow.
  
   Rob
  
  
  
   On , Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
Imagine a two way road with a cycleway on one side. Neither forward
 or backward tell you to which side of a way the cycleway is – this would
 only tell you if it were in the same direction as the way, rather than on
 one side of it. So forward, backward, left, right all have their places. Ed
   
   

 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycleways and Access tags: Left, Right, Forward, Backward?

[Richard Mann]

I think we should spend time making maps and not having silly arguments
that aren't going to be resolved because there are pros and cons both ways.

Rob - for your purposes - the wiki should describe simple versions of both
methods (ignore left and right), credit them both with having virtues, and
probably advise people not to go round deleting things if there's no
immediate need.

Some of this won't be resolved until there's been some tool development,
and as RichardF is wont to remind us, that doesn't happen by itself.

Richard

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:

 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
  simply draw cycleways with separate carriageways like any
  other highway with its own way in OSM and you resolve
  lots of issues, including distinct surfaces and restrictions.

 Yes. Absolutely that.

 Things like cycleway=track were a hack back in the day when we only had a
 few mappers and barely usable tools, and we needed to grow our coverage as
 fast as possible. That's not the case now. We can spend the time to map
 things properly (hippy), and we should.

 cheers
 Richard



 --
 View this message in context:
 http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Cycleways-and-Access-tags-Left-Right-Forward-Backward-tp5709253p5709424.html
 Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes

[Richard Mann]

IMO it's better to add something clear than to shoehorn something into a
generic tag. Especially if you end up with compound values. OK so they
could be parsed, but it's just making work (both processing and
maintaining). Better to have something unambiguous like national_rail=yes
and london_underground=yes.

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:35 AM, AJ Ashton aj.ash...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Richard  everyone,

 This started off simply as an effort to improve our display London
 Underground stations using existing OSM data, but was scope-creeped
 into much more and apparently we messed up.

 We've found that the lack of familiar London Underground and National
 Rail icons is a particularly strong sticking point with people who
 would otherwise happily switch to OSM, which is partly why we chose to
 focus on it. The tagging for stations is not so consistent, and my
 blog post goes into details about how we attempt to account for this
 as much as possible at the import  rendering stages. However certain
 inconsistencies seemed simple enough to just fix in OSM.

 We saw network=National Rail tags already in use at various stations
 and didn't think continuing to use them would be an issue. The
 imports/mechanical edits policies didn't come to my mind because we
 started with just a handful of edits. Even though this obviously ended
 up turning into many more, I thought that things were being done quite
 manually and carefully. There were no scripts or bots used, but the
 error the Craig points out looks like the result of a very bulk and
 incorrect copy/paste (or something) so clearly there were problems
 here.

  ... something that might seem simple
  from afar actually turns out to be a bit more nuanced, but by giving
 careful
  consideration to the nuances, we're making what is hands-down the best
 map
  of the world. I hope we can have a similarly useful conversation about
 the
  stations too.

 I guess our excitement to make awesome maps tripped us up here.
 Richard pointed out specifically that 'the network=National Rail tag
 is of debatable value and relevance'. I'm curious about the details of
 why.

 We just went with what seemed to be an established tagging system (but
 I guess is actually not). I am interested to hear tagging ideas that
 would be both correct and useful for rendering a map with appropriate
 icon styles.

 AJ @ MapBox

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Cycling, the law and traffic signs

[Richard Mann]

I doubt there are any instances in the UK where there's a TRO supporting a
No Pedestrians sign on a cycle track (welcome to be proved wrong!). The
possibility exists in the legislation, but you'd have to explicitly sign it
(the white-bike-on-blue-circle does not of itself exclude pedestrians in
the UK).

The confusion arises because the european standard is that that sign really
does exclude pedestrians (and is very commonly used in Germany, the
Netherlands, Belgium, Austria...), but well, we do things differently.

Richard

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Shaun McDonald
sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.ukwrote:


 On 16 May 2012, at 01:05, Jason Cunningham wrote:

 On 15 May 2012 23:32, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:


 As I am not a regular cyclist I must admit that I don't pay much
 attention to these signs. So my question is do Local Authorities use the
 cycle and foot signs (segregated or otherwise) and reserve the cycle sign
 for cases where traffic regulation prevents foot access (in which case
 foot=no would be correct), or is use mixed?

 Cheers,
 Rob


 Unless it's been recently changed. the Cycle Only sign could never
 prohibit 'pedestrian access' because use of the sign is defined by the
 Department for Transports Traffic Signs Manual (chapter 3) [1].

 The DFT guidance confirms the signs can be used for routes where cycles
 can travel and all other vehicular traffic is prohibited. Therefore this
 sign must not be used to prohibit pedestrian access. The Manual also points
 out usefulness of a convenient footway or footpath to lure pedestrians away
 from this intended 'cycle only' way.


 I find the cycle only sign is used in cases where there is also a separate
 pavement, thus the pedestrians can use that. They can in some cases be used
 where there is no pavement and it's not recommended for pedestrians to go
 that route. If cyclists are allowed and pedestrians are prohibited then a
 separate no pedestrians sign will be used.

 Shaun


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bulk railway station changes

[Richard Mann]

National Rail is what ATOC came up with to describe things that are
represented by the double-arrow symbol, and which would formerly have been
referred to as British Rail or informally as the rail network. (The staff
refer to it as the railway, but that's another subject)

National Rail isn't a great name, but it's the correct one. The symbol is
owned by ATOC.

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.ukwrote:

 Richard Fairhurst wrote:

 Or indeed we could just go with network=National Rail as a good enough
 solution.


 My issue with National Rail was that, to me, (as I explained to the
 Peruvian chap who's edited Mansfield Woodhouse station):

 National Rail means these people: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ , also
 http://www.atoc.org/

 It's just an industry association of the various Train Operating
 Companies. They don't own, operate or have any direct involvement with the
 British rail _network_.


 The only place I've heard national rail* used is in London to refer to
 non-underground stations (and even there, you still here British Rail
 station).   Everyone else says Railway.


 I don't think that network=network_rail works either, as there will
 inevitably by issues in London where NR works on infrastructure for TfL
 Overground services.

 So network=railway for me, since that's probably the best description of
 what it actually is.

 Cheers,
 Andy

 * in lower case, where national simply means non-underground, and is a
 description rather than a name.



 __**_
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Byways (Was: Rights of way - Image vote)

[Richard Mann]

You sometimes get a simple direction sign at a road junction saying
Byway. It just means it doesn't go anywhere very much, but otherwise it's
a normal unclassified (non-urban) road.

Richard

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.comwrote:



 I'm pretty happy to add that any way signposted as either a Byway
 Public Byway or Byway Open to All Traffic should be tagged as
 designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic as long as it also has a red arrow.
 Unlike footpaths there is little chance of a landowner putting up a sign
 for a byway unless it is a public right of way. There can also be no
 confusion caused by long distance routes (as with footpaths).

 Cheers,
 Rob

 On 12/05/12 13:02, Philip Barnes wrote:
 
 * They do vary between highway authorities, but well worth getting some** 
 photos of samples. The one thing waymarks have in common, and I can 
 only** claim knowledge of England and Wales here is that a public 
 footpath has** yellow arrows, public bridleways have blue arrows and the 
 hardest to** find of all are red arrows, used on B.O.T.A.Ts.*
 Not a waymarker, but the signposts are fairly rare too; Public Byway
 or just Byway is the normal wording:
 
   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:UK_Public_Byway_signpost.jpg
   http://osm.org/go/eutqlptvf--?m
 
 and I don't think we could expect the waymarkers to say any more.
 
 
 Predictably enough, the thin little road the one above points at is
 blocked off at one end for larger vehicles:
 
   https://imgur.com/Tx9hI
 
 To complicate matters further, that's a No Motor Vehicles sign under the
 graffiti which presumably reflects a TRO filed somewhere in the bowels
 of the local town hall. It's only applicable to the plugged end. A sign
 on the far end warns of there being no sane turning places.
 
 So it's not open to all traffic at all, and the sign doesn't call it
 open to all traffic, but it should be tagged
 designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic anyway :D
 
 --
 Andrew Chadwick



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle lanes and Cycle Tracks - how to map

[Richard Mann]

Gosh, you are a glutton for punishment.

cycleway=track is used extensively in some countries
highway=cycleway is use extensively in some countries
cycleway=track was only rendered on OCM relatively recently
cycleway:left|right=track|lane isn't rendered on OCM
the Danes had a big argument about which to use and settled on
cycleway=track, despite it not being rendered on OCM
cycleway=track gives you more control over the rendering
highway=cycleway is easier to route, though unpacking cycleway=track isn't
difficult
sub-tagging of cycleways is difficult (eg their membership of a route
relation) if you use cycleway=track

In essence it comes down to the problem that recombining two parallel ways
in order to render them neatly is next-to-impossible. Whereas putting the
tags on a single way loses some micro-geography.

I'd go for cycleway=track, but I'm not prepared to go round deleting
highway=cycleway, and thus having lots of stuff disappear in OCM. So until
OCM can render cycleway:left|right properly, we're probably stuck with both.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes

[Richard Mann]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:

 But as yet I haven't understood what point you're trying to make in this
 thread. Without trying to be obtuse... can you explain?

 cheers
 Richard

That there are legitimate ways of classifying cycle routes other than for
touristic purposes (and it's not just me; it seems to be a known, if
unresolved, distinction in Utrecht).

OSM tagging of cycle routes seems dominated by the touristic approach, and
this limits the usefulness of the data if you're more interested in utility
cycling.

Looking at the Dutch guidance, they define a main cycle route as one that
has more than 2000 cyclists per day (other countries might settle for a
lower threshold!). These account for about 20% of the lanes/tracks, but
about 80% of the distance cycled. At that sort of volume, signposting is a
bit irrelevant; it's more down to observing the dominant flows of cyclists
(typically reinforced by above-average facilities, though not always). In
an ideal world, you'd do proper counts and derive the data from bottom up,
but given that it's usually pretty obvious, I think a certain amount of
duck-tagging is appropriate.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes

[Richard Mann]

We do it for motorised vehicles.

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote:

 But why does this need special treatment? We don’t do it for any other
 mode of transport.

 ** **

 Cheers

 Andy

 ** **

 *From:* Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* 10 May 2012 10:08
 *To:* Richard Fairhurst
 *Cc:* talk@openstreetmap.org
 *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on
 long-distance routes

 ** **

 On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
 wrote:

 But as yet I haven't understood what point you're trying to make in this
 thread. Without trying to be obtuse... can you explain?

 cheers
 Richard

 That there are legitimate ways of classifying cycle routes other than for
 touristic purposes (and it's not just me; it seems to be a known, if
 unresolved, distinction in Utrecht). 

  

 OSM tagging of cycle routes seems dominated by the touristic approach, and
 this limits the usefulness of the data if you're more interested in utility
 cycling.

  

 Looking at the Dutch guidance, they define a main cycle route as one that
 has more than 2000 cyclists per day (other countries might settle for a
 lower threshold!). These account for about 20% of the lanes/tracks, but
 about 80% of the distance cycled. At that sort of volume, signposting is a
 bit irrelevant; it's more down to observing the dominant flows of cyclists
 (typically reinforced by above-average facilities, though not always). In
 an ideal world, you'd do proper counts and derive the data from bottom up,
 but given that it's usually pretty obvious, I think a certain amount of
 duck-tagging is appropriate.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes

[Richard Mann]

A Dutchman posted a map of the main cycle routes in Utrecht, and I asked
why it looked so different to OSM/OCM
http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/looking-down-on-cyclists/

Q: Why does the map above look different to what’s in OpenStreetMap?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.0924lon=5.1317zoom=12layers=C
A: The map here shows only those routes the city thinks are main routes. In
reality there are far more routes and far more streets with cycling
infrastructure (almost all major streets) as you can see in OpenStreetMap.
The few red lines you see in OpenStreetMap are the national cycle routes
but they have nothing to do with main routes in the city.

the national cycle routes ... have nothing to do with main routes in the
city

Obviously, OCM can render what it likes, but I think this neatly
illustrates that OSM tagging of cycle routes is missing a trick or two.

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes

[Richard Mann]

My point is that tagging should allow both types of routes to be recorded,
so different renderings can be produced for different purposes (and indeed
routers can use the information as well, if they want to).

I know that different route networks apply for different purposes in my
city (and have tagged and rendered accordingly); I just thought it
interesting to note that that difference was also regarded as obvious in a
major Dutch city.

Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM cycle map - ?excessive focus on long-distance routes

[Richard Mann]

You'd have to ask the City of Utrecht whether their main cycle routes are
signed. If they've officially identified a particular set of routes, that
would seem to be fairly clear-cut. See their city website:
http://www.utrecht.nl/images/dso/infraprojecten/fiets/fietsroutes.html

Richard



On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:

 Richard Mann wrote:
  My point is that tagging should allow both types of routes to be
  recorded

 We tag what's on the ground, whether it's route signage, cycle-specific
 infrastructure, or a giant woolly mammoth (http://url.ie/f9ts).

 Are you suggesting a deviation from that?

 cheers
 Richard



 --
 View this message in context:
 http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-cycle-map-excessive-focus-on-long-distance-routes-tp5697183p5697391.html
 Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik rendering issue with *_link roads

[Richard Mann]

Logically, you need to know the lower of the two classifications being
linked, and it may also be useful to know the higher of the two being
linked. So I record that information in links_lower and links_higher tags.
Then it can be rendered very neatly.

But I got flamed last time I proposed this ought to be fixed, so this
information is offered on a tag-what-you-like basis, rather than a
render-as-I-do basis.

Richard

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:

 I finally found out what the issue is with this [1] situation. My issue
 with it is that IMHO it is not good to see the unclassified road rendered
 on top of the primary_link road. I made a test here [2] where the left
 primary is a primary_link and the right primary is a primary proper.
 Apparently mapnik's renderering rules state that primary_link roads should
 be rendered below unclassified roads. I haven't inspected the rendering
 rules in detail (I'm also not familiar with them) but I have seen that
 tertiary_link roads are also rendered below unclassified roads. I expect
 that any *_link road is rendered below any other (or at least motorway -
 unclassified) road.

 Is this behaviour of mapnik wanted? As I said: IMHO it is not pleasing to
 the eye to see the unclassified road rendered on top of the primary_link
 road. In order of priority, a *_link road is just below its * counterpart
 but above the next lower road (so primary - primary_link - secondary).

 [1] 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?**lat=51.352555lon=6.014996**zoom=18http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.352555lon=6.014996zoom=18
 [2] 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?**lat=51.352419lon=6.010627**zoom=18http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.352419lon=6.010627zoom=18

 Regards,
 Maarten

 __**_
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talkhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapnik rendering issue with *_link roads

[Richard Mann]

That's why you need to know the lower of the two classifications being
linked (so you can put the link just under the lower one)

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 4:11 PM, AJ Ashton aj.ash...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl wrote:
  Is this behaviour of mapnik wanted? As I said: IMHO it is not pleasing to
  the eye to see the unclassified road rendered on top of the primary_link
  road. In order of priority, a *_link road is just below its * counterpart
  but above the next lower road (so primary - primary_link - secondary).

 I would guess that, yes, this is the intention. The example you point
 out is only minorly aesthetically displeasing. But if links were
 rendered on top of unclassified roads, the situation of a link merging
 into an unclassified (rather than passing through) would look much
 worse. Example:

 http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2398828/scrot/link_order.png

 Granted, links don't feed into unclassifieds as often as they do
 higher classifications of road, but it still happens a lot.

 --
 AJ Ashton

 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Tagging Guideline - wiki page proposals

[Richard Mann]

Which (yawn) is not a bad thing:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote:

 IMHO it's either a track on the main highway (cycleway=track) or a
 separate track (highway=cycleway). If you put both in you're editing for
 the renderer not editing what's on the ground .

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Tagging Guideline - wiki page proposals

[Richard Mann]

I'd only use cycleway=track if there's a track on both sides, otherwise I
use cycleway:left=track or cycleway:right=track, as appropriate.

I also add a highway=cycleway alongside, because some applications prefer
one method, some the other, and there's little harm having both (in my
view).

cycleway=track wasn't rendered on the cycle layer until fairly recently,
and one-sided tracks _aren't_ rendered. So if you want them to show on the
cycle layer, you need to create a separate highway=cycleway (or
highway=footway|path+bicycle=yes|designated).

Richard

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Bogus Zaba bog...@bogzab.plus.com wrote:

 On 21/04/12 00:13, Andy wrote:

 Just a couple of quick notes:

 * The cycle path section is a bit misleading as it stands. The tagging
 you have shown is for standalone paths (i.e. mapped separately from a
 road); the majority of cycle paths in the UK are on the side of a road
 and thus should be tagged something like
 highway=primary,secondary...**, cycleway=track, segregated=yes/no.
 I've copied the relevant section onto my user page and altered it:
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.**org/wiki/User:Sparkhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Spark

 * I would prefer to see the 'UK Classic vs Global' stuff taken out -
 these are the *UK* guidelines and hence the best/commonest practice in
 the UK should be given.

 Cheers,
 Andy

 __**_
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

  I should have read these tagging guides before. I have tried to map
 local cycle paths along the side of the road by creating a way parallel to
 the road and tagging it as a highway=cycleway. Do I understand from the
 above that it is better practice to simply add a cycleway=track tag to the
 main highway?

 My excuse for doing it via a separate way is that I was copying somebody
 else's practice and I could see that his way of doing it resulted in nice
 rendering on the Cycle Map which can be accessed from the main map page.

 Bogus Zaba


 __**_
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Tagging Guideline - wiki page proposals

[Richard Mann]

Brave man!

Globally, highway=path is mostly used without any access tags, judging by
taginfo: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=path#combinations

So I think Classic and Alternative are adequate titles. Established
and Alternative would probably be more accurate.

Richard

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:17 PM, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all,

 It has been mentioned in the past (and I expect many others have thought
 it), that the current UK Tagging Guidelines wiki page [1] is to confusing
 for newcomers and data consumers alike. I have had a go at addressing this
 by creating a new version of this page [2]. As discussed on the Talk
 section of this new page [3], I have tried to work in many of your (the UK
 mappers) suggestions.

 I have used the wiki cleanup objectives as a guide and have incorporated
 the following key changes:

 (i) Copyright - The first section replaces the current Obtaining the
 data section and promotes the existing Copyright section to a more
 prominent position. Info most relevant to helping new UK mappers is
 highlighted

 (ii) Classic UK vs Alternative Global - The wiki guidelines (above) state
 that we should Provide a place for people to discuss new tagging
 proposals. I have therefore kept both schemes. So as to not excessively
 confuse newcomers I have split the page so that it reads as (a) tag the
 fact that the way is there, (b) tag its legal status if applicable.

 (iii) Public Rights of Way - As discussed on the talk-gb mailing list a
 public right of way may run along a track, road, etc.. I have therefore
 removed as much as the UK Classic vs Global Alternative debate out of this
 section into (a) - tag features presence. Following Achadwick suggestion
 on Talk:United Kingdom Tagging Guidelines that the right of way should be
 signified using the designation key (see table below). I have heavily
 refocused the page to emphasise this. This greatly simplifies things for
 newcomers  data consumers. In a way it also reduces the UK Classic vs
 Global Alternative debate.

 (iv) Scotland - Now has a separate section ready to be filled in.


 Please take your time to have a look, and feedback comments to this
 mailing list. Be friendly; I am still relatively new and this is my first
 real go at editing a wiki :-)

 Regards,
 RobJN



 [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines
 [2]
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines_Consultation
 [3]
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines_Consultation
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Cycle tracks now show up on OCM

[Richard Mann]

Mapnik can't handle one-sided cycle lanes (yet). Even when it does, it may
take Andy some time to implement it.

Maperitive can (but only for smaller areas):
http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/cyclemap/?zoom=3lat=51.74126lon=-1.25403layers=B0

Richard

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:

 2012/4/16 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com

 I've only just noticed that cycleway=track now renders on OCM, which
 means you get a more realistic picture of Copenhagen/Frederiksburg :
 http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=17lat=55.68659lon=12.5642layers=B00


 That's great :)
 Unfortunately, cycleway:left=lane in my city isn't rendering. Don't know
 about cycleway=lane.

 Janko Mihelić

 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Cycle tracks now show up on OCM

[Richard Mann]

I've only just noticed that cycleway=track now renders on OCM, which means
you get a more realistic picture of Copenhagen/Frederiksburg :
http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=17lat=55.68659lon=12.5642layers=B00
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Group relation proposal

[Richard Mann]

Relations are not categories. They are for recording geospatial
relationships between elements, not for putting things in groups.

Put a tag on the elements saying this is part of Group X. Wait for data
users to work out a way to grab groups of elements based on that tag (
maybe help code that sort of functionality yourself).

Richard


On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM, LM_1 flukas.robot+...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have created a new proposal for group relation (type). It is
 intended to reduce tagging duplication and make it easier to map dense
 public transport areas by grouping ways that are used by multiple
 transport lines (not having to add the same group to multiple route
 relations).
 The proposal is here:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Group_Relation

 Please discuss or comment, preferably on the wiki discussion page.


 Lukáš Matějka (LM_1)

 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism changeset

[Richard Mann]

Maybe an abandon changes button? At the moment you have to hit undo (which
might be complicated) or click on View and face down the
do-you-really-want-to-leave-this-page dialog.



On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 14 March 2012 13:40, Oliver O'Brien m...@oliverobrien.co.uk wrote:

  I think we are being too nice if we assume that edits like this might be
 someone new that doesn't realise they aren't in a sandbox, especially when
 they go through the trouble of pressing the save button and adding a
 (blank) comment.

 I think you're being far too hasty with the cry of vandalism -
 people make mistakes, people do things unwittingly. Adding a variety
 of tags using what appears to be the the potlatch2 presets is hardly
 conclusive proof of deliberate intent.

 We've likely got many thousands of contributors who have made mistakes
 during their edits. If everyone cries vandalism every time someone
 messes up a route relation...

 Cheers,
 Andy

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

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

Re: [Talk-transit] Proposal for a new transport tag

[Richard Mann]

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:

 I must admit I don't know much about getting renderers to work, but
 summing frequencies of all bus lines on each way seems to be enough for
 now. And if you draw bus routes with colours ranging from blue (rare route)
 to red (busy route) it should be pretty obvious where you need to go if you
 want to get on a bus quickly. And for lines that aren't active on all days
 you can add a dashed line (which is visible only if it is the only route on
 the road).



No renderer does summing of frequencies for you, although
Maperitive is getting close (it will do summing already, but only to change
labels, not to change line colours/widths)
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-transit] Criteria for inclusion

[Richard Mann]

I add service=something to the relation to roughly describe what the type
of service is. The ones I use a service=city, service=country,
service=express, service=park_and_ride.

I also add a rough weekday frequency (number of buses per hour off-peak).

That way people can pick out stuff they want and ignore stuff they don't.

Richard

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Stefan Herbert Tiran 
stefan.ti...@student.tugraz.at wrote:

 Hi,

 On 02/29/2012 02:01 PM, Alexander Jones wrote:

 I just wanted to get your opinions on which routes should be included in
 OSM, or if there is an established set of criteria for inclusion.


 Fortunately OSM is not german wikipedia. There should be no worry about
 having too much information in the database.

 Yours,
 Stefan

 __**_
 Talk-transit mailing list
 Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-transithttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [OSM-talk] Map Co-ordinates for towns, etc in UK

[Richard Mann]

We're kinda proud of the fact that the government doesn't bother with such
things as defining the centre of the town (or seasons). It's just one of
those things that makes us different from ze French.

So the place tag will be wherever people feel like (usually the nearest
open space to the centre of town, to help rendering). And you should choose
your own centre of the town for measurement purposes. I suppose we could
crowdsource a set of zeropoints if someone comes up with an appropriate
tag. Just don't expect the place tags to be in the same location.

Richard

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:14 AM, mick bare...@tpg.com.au wrote:

 I hope this isn't off-topic, if so I apologise.

 Can some one advise me of the official policy for locating the centre of
 towns in the UK, i.e. the spot on the map for a point representing the town
 and used as the Zero Point for measuring distances to other towns.

 In Australia this was taken as the centre of the road and the middle of
 the plot of land occupied by Post Office and marked by a triangular
 concrete mile post painted white with black characters about 1 metre high
 with a bevelled top. the vertical faces visibly from the road indicated the
 distance to the next town in the direction of travel. The upper face on the
 '0' post showed the distance to the state capital.

 I was told this by a NSW Dept of Main Roads Clerk of Works about 1973.

 When the roads went metric in 1976 these posts rapidly disappeared,
 replaced by International Standard metal posts with green shields marking
 the 5 KM intervals but with no 'Zero Post'. A few towns kept their Zero
 Posts and moved them to a park.

 mick

 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Road cores and casings on standard Mapnik rendering

[Richard Mann]

The current tagging rules for links don't make life at all easy for the
renderer, but I got flamed when I suggested that the link road should
take the status of the lower classification (unless it's a motorway_link).

It's compounded with various problems with how Mapnik handles layers and
bridges.

So instead I add links_lower and links_higher tags, and render (both order
and colour) on the basis of the contents of the links_lower tag.

Perhaps the rendering gods prefer Mapnik to be a bit crap, so cartographers
can add value by doing something better. Who knows.

Richard

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Ben Robbins ben_robbi...@hotmail.comwrote:

  Another Failed Link.  Try this:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/6/6a/Z18crop.png

 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk