Re: [Talk-GB] National Park extensions

[Andy Townsend]

On 17/08/2016 16:42, jc...@mail.com wrote:

As a result much of what has been added is inaccurate, not least because many nodes are 
shared with highways etc. despite the written descriptions clearly stating "...it 
follows the edge..." (Yorkshire Dales was mostly clean of shared nodes but Lake 
District did have shared nodes/ways before, hence A6 road got broken - partially fixed by 
another mapper)


Before doing anything else I'd mention the issue (tactfully) to the 
mapper who did the change, perhaps on a changeset discussion.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Park extensions

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 17 August 2016 at 16:42, jc...@mail.com  wrote:
> I know there has been some caution against using Natural England data 
> directly in OSM, so I wasn't surprised that the boundaries weren't 
> immediately updated when the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks 
> were expanded from 1st August. [1]

I presume the caution that this was because of Licensing issues.
Natural England are/were using a custom version of the OGL for which
compatibility with the ODbL used by OSM wasn't guaranteed. They should
have switched to using the OGL 3 now, but not everything has been
updated last time I looked.

If you follow the link from
https://data.gov.uk/dataset/national-parks-england and register, I
think you can get a download of the National Park boundaries in either
Mapinfo or Shapefile format. The website claims they've been updated
for the August changes (I haven't checked.) Despite some contradictory
messages along the way, the only thing that could be interpreted as a
licence that's included with the download says it's OGL3 -- which
would mean it's ok to use in OSM, provided the appropriate attribution
statement is added to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors
.

Robert Whittaker

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

[Talk-GB] National Park extensions

[jc...@mail.com]

I know there has been some caution against using Natural England data directly 
in OSM, so I wasn't surprised that the boundaries weren't immediately updated 
when the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks were expanded from 
1st August. [1]

However since coming back from holiday, I see the OSM boundary relations have 
now been modified [2] but using the low-res PDFs from the gov.uk website. 

As a result much of what has been added is inaccurate, not least because many 
nodes are shared with highways etc. despite the written descriptions clearly 
stating "...it follows the edge..." (Yorkshire Dales was mostly clean of shared 
nodes but Lake District did have shared nodes/ways before, hence A6 road got 
broken - partially fixed by another mapper)

I think the changesets need to be reverted (can anyone on this list do this?) 
but where do we go from here in terms of new Nat Park boundaries? Is there a 
source other than Natural England?

Jez C

[1] 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-parks-to-extend-by-size-of-isle-of-wight
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/spiregrain/history
e.g. way 398069815

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

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

[Colin Smale]

I have already brought this to the attention of DWG. SomeoneElse has
been attempting to moderate the tone on a couple of the changeset
discussions. 

No idea if it is permanent, but alexkemp has switched his focus to
houses/numbers in the last couple of days.

//colin 

On 2016-08-17 13:58, Walter Nordmann wrote:

> No, alex has never been blocked: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp
> 
> please contact DWG
> 
> regards
> Walter
> 
> ___
> 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] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Walter Nordmann]

No, alex has never been blocked: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp

please contact DWG

regards
Walter


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

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

[Andrew Hain]

Every account that has ever been blocked has a link from the profile called 
“Active blocks”.

--
Andrew

From: Paul Sladen 
Sent: 17 August 2016 11:04:20
To: Will Phillips
Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Will Phillips wrote:
> On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:
> > "This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be
> > able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest
> > in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"
> I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has turned
> unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening.

The changes are one thing; but the automated non-responses are going
to be a bigger issue in resolving this this has it disrupts
the project by preventing discussion.

I'm wondering if the 'alexkemp' has previously received the
block-uploads-until-messages-are-read flag in the past?
If so perhaps a strong encouragement is required?

-Paul


___
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 use of OS triangulation stations to determine aerial imagery offset

[Greg]

Thanks David. I have contacted OS using the contact form on their
website in the hope that they may publish the data under the OGL. I
think it would be helpful in accurately determining imagery offset.

Thanks,
Greg.


On Tue, Aug 16, 2016, at 09:00 PM, David Woolley wrote:
> On 16/08/16 15:22, Greg wrote:
> > There is also a FOI request with a full CSV file here:
> 
> FOI responses don't remove any copyright and I don't think they even 
> given any right to republish the data.
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> 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] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Paul Sladen]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Will Phillips wrote:
> On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:
> > "This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be 
> > able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest 
> > in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"
> I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has turned 
> unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening.

The changes are one thing; but the automated non-responses are going
to be a bigger issue in resolving this this has it disrupts
the project by preventing discussion.

I'm wondering if the 'alexkemp' has previously received the
block-uploads-until-messages-are-read flag in the past?
If so perhaps a strong encouragement is required?

-Paul


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

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

[David Woolley]

On 17/08/16 00:57, Dave F wrote:

As far as I can see is_in:* is used for the same things as boundaries,
but is less efficient & prone to errors.

Are you aware of any utilities that use is_in:*?

To me, the value of is_in is that it allows for cases where there is n 
usable source for the actual boundary, but local people will still know 
on which side of the boundary they lie.


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