Re: [Talk-GB] TfL bus maps as source
Tom The TfL bus maps may not be usable but the timetable data on which they are based are available at traveline.info/tnds under the Open Government Licence. Is that "ODBL-compatible" or am I missing your point? A note of caution however. This week's edition of the London data includes breadcrumb trails of the "track" taken between each bus stop. I am not sure that TfL have intended to release this level of detail because of map copyright issues. However if you ignore everything between the tags, then the rest of the Routelink records, ie the stop to stop links, are what is normally available as Open Data. Regards Peter Stoner In message Tom Chance wrote: > On 29 September 2013 18:52, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: >> I'm really after moral backing that this is a breach, as I'd be surprised >> if >> they took my word for it. They have an investment in quite a few bus >> routes >> that they, probably, wouldn't want redacted. >> > You definitely can't copy TfL bus maps. You have to follow the signs, or > ride the routes, toot toot! > Sadly TfL still don't release their "open" data in a simple way under an > ODBL-compatible license. > Regards, > Tom -- Peter Stoner UK Regional Coordinator Traveline Information Limited m: 07917 525679 e: peter.sto...@traveline.info ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hand-drawn OS maps on Wikimedia Commons
Rob Nickerson wrote: p.s. Is there a Linux equivalent of MAPC2MAPC? qgis2 ? I still need to actually get it to create an alignment, but it displays the material I do have nicely, so is anybody using this for doing the referencing? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL bus maps as source
On 29/09/13 18:52, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: > On 29 September 2013 18:27, Andrew wrote: >> OpenStreetmap HADW writes: >> >>> My own assumption is that they are not a valid source, but I've just >>> discovered one route, by a contributor who has added several bus >>> routes, where their bus route finder web site has been quoted as a >>> source from version 1 of the relation. >> >> Have you tried contacting the mapper? > > I sent them a message expressing concern just before posting to the list. > > I'm really after moral backing that this is a breach, as I'd be surprised if > they took my word for it. They have an investment in quite a few bus routes > that they, probably, wouldn't want redacted. I am the mapper who created that particular relation and I definitely rode that bus in both directions, so the only information gleaned from the TfL website is the existence of the route. I even took photos of my hand-scribbled notes and saved them with the gpx files in case it ever needs proving. Thanks for bringing this to my attention - I'll be sure to check such things more carefully in the future. I can't recall how that source tag came to be there - I can only assume that being one of the first few relations I ever did, I had copied it from another relation and edited it. What's the safest way to proceed with this - delete the relation entirely and create a new one from my notes? -Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hand-drawn OS maps on Wikimedia Commons
>On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Rob Nickerson >wrote: > > > >Hi Steven, > > > >I've never heard of MAPC2MAPC but it looks great. I posted a comment [1] > on the talk-gb-westmidlands mailing >list noting that there are KMZ/KML > files available on British Library website that include the corner > coordinates. It >appears that MAPC2MAPC should be able to read these, and > then assuming the z/x/y.png output in the >OSMTracker is standard TMS this > would be exactly what we need to host these online as a map layer (just > like >Bing or any of the other OS out of copyright maps). > I've bodged together a test website displaying the St Ives map converted to tiles, displayed with OpenLayers, it's easy to create tiles in MAPC2MAPC. You can view the test here [1]. > >Hope this helps. Do you think we can get these hosted on > ooc.openstreetmap.org? > It would be good to get them all hosted in one place, I've been looking at something similar for my own purposes but just hosted locally. > >p.s. Is there a Linux equivalent of MAPC2MAPC? > > Not aware of anything like MAPC2MAPC for Linux I'm afraid [1] https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2657852/OS_Drawings/index.html ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL bus maps as source
On 29 September 2013 18:52, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: > I'm really after moral backing that this is a breach, as I'd be surprised > if > they took my word for it. They have an investment in quite a few bus > routes > that they, probably, wouldn't want redacted. > You definitely can't copy TfL bus maps. You have to follow the signs, or ride the routes, toot toot! Sadly TfL still don't release their "open" data in a simple way under an ODBL-compatible license. 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
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL bus maps as source
On 29 September 2013 18:27, Andrew wrote: > OpenStreetmap HADW writes: > >> My own assumption is that they are not a valid source, but I've just >> discovered one route, by a contributor who has added several bus >> routes, where their bus route finder web site has been quoted as a >> source from version 1 of the relation. > > Have you tried contacting the mapper? I sent them a message expressing concern just before posting to the list. I'm really after moral backing that this is a breach, as I'd be surprised if they took my word for it. They have an investment in quite a few bus routes that they, probably, wouldn't want redacted. (I'm actually a bit concerned that other people have been using such sources (very prolific and not checking if they are already part mapped), but haven't given any source, so I can't be sure..) Where people quote sources like this one (or more generally quote a URL, rather than a standard source tag), I think they are thinking more in wikipedia terms. Wikipedia tends not to concern itself with database copyrights, as long as the exact wording of a source isn't reproduced. For wikipedia, the source goes to show that the material is not "original research". On the other hand, OSM actually prefers original research - a survey is the highest form of source. Incidentally, that means that care needs to be taken in using wikipedia to source OSM; importing from multiple articles may, indirectly import a copyright database.. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL bus maps as source
OpenStreetmap HADW writes: > My own assumption is that they are not a valid source, but I've just > discovered one route, by a contributor who has added several bus > routes, where their bus route finder web site has been quoted as a > source from version 1 of the relation. Have you tried contacting the mapper? -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hand-drawn OS maps on Wikimedia Commons
>> >> Corner coordinates are now displaying, allowing these to be aligned & >> adjusted to fit. Have fun! >> >> >Are the configuration files available already somewhere or is there a plan >to make them available so users of the maps could just load the maps rather >than having to align themselves with the given coordinates. > >I have just aligned about half a dozen of the maps using MAPC2MAPC and the >coordinates posted but it's a long job to do the whole 200 files. Happy to >post the files somewhere of the ones I have done. > Hi Steven, I've never heard of MAPC2MAPC but it looks great. I posted a comment [1] on the talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list noting that there are KMZ/KML files available on British Library website that include the corner coordinates. It appears that MAPC2MAPC should be able to read these, and then assuming the z/x/y.png output in the OSMTracker is standard TMS this would be exactly what we need to host these online as a map layer (just like Bing or any of the other OS out of copyright maps). Hope this helps. Do you think we can get these hosted on ooc.openstreetmap.org? Regards, Rob p.s. Is there a Linux equivalent of MAPC2MAPC? [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-westmidlands/2013-September/001430.html ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] TfL bus maps as source
Have TfL bus maps been cleared as a source? If so, why aren't they being more extensively used? My own assumption is that they are not a valid source, but I've just discovered one route, by a contributor who has added several bus routes, where their bus route finder web site has been quoted as a source from version 1 of the relation. The relation is 3073309. My view is that I need to ride the route, or follow it from stop to stop on the ground to get copyright safe information. Sorry to keep raising these copyright issues, but I do see it as the biggest threat to OSM, given that the new generation of contributors come from a popular culture that doesn't appreciate copyrights. (I wasn't looking for copyright issues. I've been chasing broken and missing links from the London bus wiki page, trying to sort out where people have restarted routes without consulting it, and trying to complete the repair from the mass deletion of London relations by a Russian, with the comment 'improve security', a significant number of which failed to revert first time.) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hand-drawn OS maps on Wikimedia Commons
> > Corner coordinates are now displaying, allowing these to be aligned & > adjusted to fit. Have fun! > > Are the configuration files available already somewhere or is there a plan to make them available so users of the maps could just load the maps rather than having to align themselves with the given coordinates. I have just aligned about half a dozen of the maps using MAPC2MAPC and the coordinates posted but it's a long job to do the whole 200 files. Happy to post the files somewhere of the ones I have done. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes
Peter wrote: > As such, it seems unreasonable to ask a new mapper to great a situation requiring > a court case for every ambiguous section of road in the country to establish if they > are dual carriageways or single carriageways. This is why I suggest we use > GB:national to indicate that the speed is set by a black/white sign. > > We could however compromise and suggest 'GB:nsl_dual' where we know if is a dual > carriageway, 'GB:nsl:single' where we know it isn't and GB:national where we aren't > sure. > Alternatively, we could always use 'GB:national' for the maxspeed type and add > other tagging to indicate dual carriagewayness, either using 'carriagway=A/B' tag > or a relation with type=dual-carriageway or similar. > Or.. and this is the simplest approach in the short term as far as I can see which > I have been advocating, we can imply dual-carriagewayness by a combining a highway > tag with the tag pairs 'maxspeed=70' and 'maxspeed:type=GB:national'. I say this > because the '70 mph' value for maxspeed can only be used case where a road is a > dual-carriageway. As we get clearer about what constitutes a dual-carriageway or not > we then only need to change with speed between 70 mph to 60 mph. We can then > also populate approach dual-carriageway tagging on these roads. I prefer your compromise method for the very reasons you mention about the ambiguous bits. On those bits you are either guessing what numeric value to put in the maxspeed value, or you are guessing nsl_single or nsl_dual (implying you are also guessing maxspeed). So if you've guessed the speed you can't mix that with maxspeed=60/70 mph to identify dual carriageway anyway, and having national shows where the ambiguities are better. So, use GB:nsl_single or GB:nsl_dual with the correct (car) maxspeed where they are known, and use GB:national where you aren't sure and put 60 mph to err on the side of caution until evidence proves it higher. Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes
Peter, > I say this because the '70 mph' value for maxspeed can only be used case > where a road is a dual-carriageway. What about link roads and slip roads? Sometimes they seem to go on for miles without an obvious "other carriageway". Yet the correct maxspeed is often 70mph, is it not? How about saying that 70mph can only be valid on a way tagged as one-way? Colin On 2013-09-29 10:14, Peter Miller wrote: > To attempt to summarise the situation: > > * The maximum legal speed for any vehicle should be a number in maxspeed > following by " mph". > * There should also be information available to say if this speed is defined > as a number in a circle or a black and white sign > * There is also benefit, for various reasons, to know if a road is single > carriageway or dual carriageway. > * There also seems to be agreement (in the form of silence from some) that > there is no clear definition of what is and is not a dual-carriageway in the > UK without going to court! > * OSM tagging policy is generally that one should tag what one sees. > > As such, it seems unreasonable to ask a new mapper to great a situation > requiring a court case for every ambiguous section of road in the country to > establish if they are dual carriageways or single carriageways. This is why I > suggest we use GB:national to indicate that the speed is set by a black/white > sign. > > We could however compromise and suggest 'GB:nsl_dual' where we know if is a > dual carriageway, 'GB:nsl:single' where we know it isn't and GB:national > where we aren't sure. > > Alternatively, we could always use 'GB:national' for the maxspeed type and > add other tagging to indicate dual carriagewayness, either using > 'carriagway=A/B' tag or a relation with type=dual-carriageway or similar. > > Or.. and this is the simplest approach in the short term as far as I can see > which I have been advocating, we can imply dual-carriagewayness by a > combining a highway tag with the tag pairs 'maxspeed=70' and > 'maxspeed:type=GB:national'. I say this because the '70 mph' value for > maxspeed can only be used case where a road is a dual-carriageway. As we get > clearer about what constitutes a dual-carriageway or not we then only need to > change with speed between 70 mph to 60 mph. We can then also populate > approach dual-carriageway tagging on these roads. > > Regards, > > Peter > > On 29 September 2013 00:45, Nick Allen wrote: > Peter, > > After your first post on this, my initial thought was that you were correct > and the simpler tag you were proposing was enough. I started following your > proposal, but I've thought a little more & feel that the more involved > 'GB:nsl_single' type tag is actually needed & I'll be going back through my > work over the last couple of days and changing it back. > > My thinking is; > > i/. The basis of GB law is that it is up to the individual to know what the > law states, and to comply with it. No matter what your SatNav tells you it > won't help you when you are standing in a court explaining your actions - the > SatNav is a guide only and some maintain that they are unsafe as they > distract the driver who may therefore miss the speed limits being displayed. > > ii/. If you are driving a motor vehicle with very few exceptions you should > comply with the law regarding speed limits. > iia/. A built up area with street lighting (I'm not entirely sure how you > define built up area, and I seem to remember something about the street > lights being no more than 200 yards apart) will have a speed limit of 30 mph > unless there are signs indicating otherwise, & there should be repeater signs > at intervals if it is not a 30mph area. > iib/. National speed limit signs - the national speed limit has changed > during my lifetime. Motorways are fairly simple, and for a car (not towing) > it will be 70mph. Two-way roads with a national speed limit sign are also > fairly simple, being 60mph for a car (not towing). Dual carriageways - little > bit more complex - an island in the middle of the road to assist pedestrians > to cross is not sufficient to make it a dual carriageway, but you would need > to look at the current case law to help in deciding what exactly is a dual > carriageway. I don't think a long length of wide road with the lanes divided > by white crosshatch markings on the road, even if this exists for a length > measured in miles, counts as a dual carriageway - it needs to have a physical > barrier involved. > iiic/. A prescribed limit indicated by signs such as '40', '50' etc.. > > iii/. The current software writers who seem to be using OSM data are mainly > wrestling with the basics of navigating a car anywhere in the world but I > think steps are being made towards navigation for larger vehicles, and these > vehicles are likely to have different speed limits imposed on them in GB > national speed limit areas. If they are writing software for na
Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes
To attempt to summarise the situation: - The maximum legal speed for any vehicle should be a number in maxspeed following by " mph". - There should also be information available to say if this speed is defined as a number in a circle or a black and white sign - There is also benefit, for various reasons, to know if a road is single carriageway or dual carriageway. - There also seems to be agreement (in the form of silence from some) that there is no clear definition of what is and is not a dual-carriageway in the UK without going to court! - OSM tagging policy is generally that one should tag what one sees. As such, it seems unreasonable to ask a new mapper to great a situation requiring a court case for every ambiguous section of road in the country to establish if they are dual carriageways or single carriageways. This is why I suggest we use GB:national to indicate that the speed is set by a black/white sign. We could however compromise and suggest 'GB:nsl_dual' where we know if is a dual carriageway, 'GB:nsl:single' where we know it isn't and GB:national where we aren't sure. Alternatively, we could always use 'GB:national' for the maxspeed type and add other tagging to indicate dual carriagewayness, either using 'carriagway=A/B' tag or a relation with type=dual-carriageway or similar. Or.. and this is the simplest approach in the short term as far as I can see which I have been advocating, we can imply dual-carriagewayness by a combining a highway tag with the tag pairs 'maxspeed=70' and 'maxspeed:type=GB:national'. I say this because the '70 mph' value for maxspeed can only be used case where a road is a dual-carriageway. As we get clearer about what constitutes a dual-carriageway or not we then only need to change with speed between 70 mph to 60 mph. We can then also populate approach dual-carriageway tagging on these roads. Regards, Peter On 29 September 2013 00:45, Nick Allen wrote: > Peter, > > After your first post on this, my initial thought was that you were > correct and the simpler tag you were proposing was enough. I started > following your proposal, but I've thought a little more & feel that the > more involved 'GB:nsl_single' type tag is actually needed & I'll be going > back through my work over the last couple of days and changing it back. > > My thinking is; > > i/. The basis of GB law is that it is up to the individual to know what > the law states, and to comply with it. No matter what your SatNav tells you > it won't help you when you are standing in a court explaining your actions > - the SatNav is a guide only and some maintain that they are unsafe as they > distract the driver who may therefore miss the speed limits being displayed. > > ii/. If you are driving a motor vehicle with very few exceptions you > should comply with the law regarding speed limits. >iia/. A built up area with street lighting (I'm not entirely sure how > you define built up area, and I seem to remember something about the street > lights being no more than 200 yards apart) will have a speed limit of 30 > mph unless there are signs indicating otherwise, & there should be repeater > signs at intervals if it is not a 30mph area. >iib/. National speed limit signs - the national speed limit has changed > during my lifetime. Motorways are fairly simple, and for a car (not towing) > it will be 70mph. Two-way roads with a national speed limit sign are also > fairly simple, being 60mph for a car (not towing). Dual carriageways - > little bit more complex - an island in the middle of the road to assist > pedestrians to cross is not sufficient to make it a dual carriageway, but > you would need to look at the current case law to help in deciding what > exactly is a dual carriageway. I don't think a long length of wide road > with the lanes divided by white crosshatch markings on the road, even if > this exists for a length measured in miles, counts as a dual carriageway - > it needs to have a physical barrier involved. >iiic/. A prescribed limit indicated by signs such as '40', '50' etc.. > > iii/. The current software writers who seem to be using OSM data are > mainly wrestling with the basics of navigating a car anywhere in the world > but I think steps are being made towards navigation for larger vehicles, > and these vehicles are likely to have different speed limits imposed on > them in GB national speed limit areas. If they are writing software for > navigating a 40 tonne lorry across Europe then the least we can do is try > to indicate what type of road it is so they can attempt to give an > indication to the driver of what is the maximum speed they may legally > travel at. > > Regards > > Nick > (Tallguy) > > > > 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 interp
