Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] New BING imagery
Thanks for letting us know. Based on the progress of the Coventry public realm improvements and this cross-reference photo [1], I would date the imagery as circa 27th March 2012. In Coventry, as with the previous imagery, there may be a small offset. If you use Ordnance Survey data released under an open licence as a cross-reference, a offset of about -2.05; -1.67 is required (+- 1 as its very difficult to get a good offset) Regards, Rob [1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/coventrycc/6877675866/in/set-72157628026533825 p.s. A quick look shows that we have done a fantastic job of mapping new buildings with the old imagery!! On 1 March 2013 12:51, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: Bing have released new Ortho data circling Brum. Bing Maps World Tour[1] and check the Selected Releases and then select the Aerial-Global Ortho Feb 2013. Basically goes west to the welsh border and east to connect with previous data. The area not covered is Birmingham and north up to Stafford and south to Worcester. Coventry is new. Note though that this new stuff is not available at the highest zoom. Turn off auto zoom in JOSM to stop the old data appearing at highest zoom. Cheers Andy [1] http://www.bing.com/maps/?form=MPSRCHcp=0~0lvl=2style=aapp=50493~myappna me~worldtour (needs Silverlight) ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] New BING imagery
On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 17:25 +, Rob Nickerson wrote: Thanks for letting us know. Based on the progress of the Coventry public realm improvements and this cross-reference photo [1], I would date the imagery as circa 27th March 2012. I am in North Shropshire, it certainly looks like this area was done in summer 2012. Wem town square is now on the imagery, looks great. Can do some improvements with this. The imagery is alignment with the old imagery varies across the town slightly different, will have a bike ride around with GPS to ensure I have the correct alignment before I start nudging things. The imagery clearly changes at the Welsh border in this part of the world. Still excellent resolution but a different tint. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] Dartmoor needs fixing (heath area missing a chunk)
On 28 Feb 2013 23:08, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: ...looks excellent as a get away from it all destination... Bring some good boots as it's pretty muddy after 6 months of rain. Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Dartmoor needs fixing (heath area missing a chunk)
Looks like I'm missing something here as I always assumed Dartmoor was a moor, given its name. Is there a reason for moors being tagged as heaths? There are some moors, in name, locally which need mapping. Dudley Kevin Peat k...@k3v.eu wrote: On 28 Feb 2013 23:08, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: ...looks excellent as a get away from it all destination... Bring some good boots as it's pretty muddy after 6 months of rain. 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] Dartmoor needs fixing (heath area missing a chunk)
On 1 Mar 2013 13:48, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com wrote: Looks like I'm missing something here as I always assumed Dartmoor was a moor, given its name. Is there a reason for moors being tagged as heaths? http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUcode=UK0012929 Dartmoor is often described as upland heath which I suppose is basically what moorland is. Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] TNDS and NaPTAN data
Hi Has anyone looked at using TNDS (http://traveline.info/tnds.html) as a basis for importing bus routes into OSM? I've had a quick look at the data and it looks like it would be possible to extract at least the stop ordering for each route. In theory it can also have the road routes between stops, but the local routes I looked at (Stagecoach Cambridge) only have the stops, not the routes between them. Still, even the stop list would a good start. The background here is that while updating my local area and removing a bus route that no longer runs through there, I ended up rebuilding the whole route by hand from timetable information as the OSM route relation was quite out of date and had missing road sections/stops/etc. Looking at other routes in the area, they have similar errors. Transcribing routes by hand is quite a lot of work - just the one route I did took a couple of hours to get right. A related issue is that the stop information imported from NaPTAN is getting out of date. The TNDS data uses NaPTAN stop references and - at least around Cambridge - there are some new stops in the TNDS routes that don't exist at all in the current OSM data. Is there an existing mechanism to update the NaPTAN data? Or what would be the right way to add the missing stops? Oliver ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode data
* How accurate is the data already in OSM? Interesting question Rob, as of today there's approximately 200,000 ways or nodes tagged with postcodes in OSM, this is made up of about 29,000 unique postcodes. Those numbers are not 100% accurate as my bounding box for getting the data overlaps a bit with France and Ireland. I've removed the obvious French postcodes (5 digits) there might be a few I missed although I'm pretty sure the extras don't skew the numbers too much. I've compared the unique values from that list with the ONS dataset (excluding terminated postcodes) and come up with the list linked below [1] There's 1119 unique invalid postcodes, which of of course doesn't account for ways or nodes that are incorrectly tagged with a valid postcode but is a useful stat nonetheless. It should also be relatively easy to get those cleaned up I would think. Couple of notes about the data, there are a few postcodes that look like they are valid (e.g. BR3 1AZ, WC2H 9BD) but they have in fact got some invalid characters at the end that are not visible so that's why they are listed. It also includes postcodes in lowercase as well since it breaks from the convention of uppercase postcodes, you could argue that they should be in or out, but it was easier to leave them in. [1] https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0viaV_xKHyCNmJDY1A1X092Zkk/edit?usp=sharing On 28 February 2013 23:44, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Interestingly out of the 95 you also identified 2 postcodes that are incorrect in OSM... raising the obvious questions: * How accurate is the data already in OSM? * Should imports be compared to 100% accuracy or a more realistic measure of OSM accuracy? 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] Postcode data
That's an interesting list for anyone who is concerned with data cleansing! Some of the results are because only the first part of a postcode has been entered, however even these have numerous formats (e.g. CV3, CV3 ???, CV3 ///). For the other errors, it tends to be typos (e.g. CO!6 7BJ, where ! is a probably a typo of 1 - Shift+1=!), but there are also road names, numbers, and web URLs in the postcode tag. Would it be possible to create a list of these where we could add the correct postcode in a new column and then upload the new data into OSM? Rob On 1 March 2013 17:24, Aidan McGinley aidmcgin+openstreet...@gmail.comwrote: * How accurate is the data already in OSM? Interesting question Rob, as of today there's approximately 200,000 ways or nodes tagged with postcodes in OSM, this is made up of about 29,000 unique postcodes. Those numbers are not 100% accurate as my bounding box for getting the data overlaps a bit with France and Ireland. I've removed the obvious French postcodes (5 digits) there might be a few I missed although I'm pretty sure the extras don't skew the numbers too much. I've compared the unique values from that list with the ONS dataset (excluding terminated postcodes) and come up with the list linked below [1] There's 1119 unique invalid postcodes, which of of course doesn't account for ways or nodes that are incorrectly tagged with a valid postcode but is a useful stat nonetheless. It should also be relatively easy to get those cleaned up I would think. Couple of notes about the data, there are a few postcodes that look like they are valid (e.g. BR3 1AZ, WC2H 9BD) but they have in fact got some invalid characters at the end that are not visible so that's why they are listed. It also includes postcodes in lowercase as well since it breaks from the convention of uppercase postcodes, you could argue that they should be in or out, but it was easier to leave them in. [1] https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0viaV_xKHyCNmJDY1A1X092Zkk/edit?usp=sharing On 28 February 2013 23:44, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.comwrote: Interestingly out of the 95 you also identified 2 postcodes that are incorrect in OSM... raising the obvious questions: * How accurate is the data already in OSM? * Should imports be compared to 100% accuracy or a more realistic measure of OSM accuracy? 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] Ambiguous restrictions sign
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
