Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses

[David Woolley]

On 12/08/14 23:08, Rob Nickerson wrote:

6, The Hollies,
Birmingham Road,
Town,


Cases I've seen are maisonettes and parades of shops.

I've used:

housenumber: 5
street: The Hollies, Birmingham Road

but that is more to ensure the data is captured than because it really 
seems right to me.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

[Lester Caine]

On 13/08/14 01:22, Robert Norris wrote:
> However I am in favour of this edit, but I think the edit needs to *only* 
> change 'C' Roads, as some B roads are tagged tertiary.
Ditto.
But it's a bit like the 'name' problem where a few roads have locally
known names, but these are not displayed on signs :( Need recording but
not necessarily displaying.

On a slightly different tack, the tertiary road designation is more of a
problem. While not advocating 'tag for routing', this is one that is
making my own use of OSMAND almost impossible, and I can't believe
others don't find the problem. It refuses to use the B4632 ( used to be
the A46! ) going north from here, and I can't trace why. Roads south are
a similar problem, but these a good quality 'C' roads. Should they be
'upgraded' to secondary or should the distinction be removed in OSMAND
for UK roads?  If I can't trust local routing why should I at a new
destination and we are talking a several mile detour here which can add
30mins to the journey.

-- 
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] C roads again

[Colin Smale]

 

This sounds very sensible. Can/should it be extrapolated to cover other
cases where the signposting (or lack of it) of a road number contradicts
the official version? I am thinking specifically of B-roads which are
still officially classified as such, and indeed frequently rendered as
secondary (not just by OSM), where the road number was removed from the
signs years ago (probably to discourage traffic)? 

Example: 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.4083/0.2956 

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.409452,0.298958,3a,75y,234.44h,78.06t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-0NCD5FN6g3rpCZLcqhXQA!2e0?hl=en


Highcross Road and Whitehill Road are both shown as B255, because that
is what they officially are. On-the-ground evidence is that they are
more tertiary (Whitehill Road) and "nasty windy country lane"
unclassified (Highcross Road) and there is no sign of "B255" on any
sign. Should we put B255 into official_ref here? 

--colin 

On 2014-08-13 00:58, Ed Loach wrote: 

> After previous discussions I've already changed the C road references that I 
> mapped (from roadworks signs) to official_ref, so your suggestion seems 
> sensible. I feel ref should be reserved for (permanently?) signposted 
> references. 
> 
> Ed 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [1]
 

Links:
--
[1] 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 of British canals.

[Marc Gemis]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

> Don't be fooled by the siren voices of the wiki. What's in the database is
> valid because it's formed by consensus. What's on the wiki too often isn't.
> Any fool can invent their own scheme, write "this is how you do it" on the
> wiki, and most of them do. Wiki users have rationalised their behaviour by
> promoting a voting scheme, but as this can lead to major changes being
> approved by just a handful of people, it doesn't have any particular
> legitimacy.
>

Some thoughts (certainly no critique on your way of working).

The wiki is IMHO the only place where different (country) communities talk
to one another. What is the value of a great tagging schema for e.g.
canals, when it is only discussed on talk-gb ?
When communities (country or city centric) reach a consensus on a certain
way of tagging but do not communicate this to the rest of the world, they
make the same mistake as the "wiki"-people you criticise. "A handful of
people reached a consensus".
Right now the wiki (and perhaps the tagging mailing list) seems to be only
place where different communities meet and communicate.

The danger is that data consumers have to read all the different mailing
lists to see how a certain feature is tagged in a particular country or
region (Dresden cycleway tagging comes to my mind, or the exit-to which is
popular in the USA).
Even with a wiki, some country specific things might get interpreted
incorrectly, eg. the UK-specific "designation" or "landuse=village green"
tags.

I totally agree with you that communication with other mappers is key, but
it does not end at the border of a country.

I also refer to a talk on SOTM EU 2014 by Kirill Bondarenko: OSM: World Map
or Set of Local Maps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2gYKOYLgd8
which is about the same problem.

And the presentation of Frederik Ramm on the usage of mailing lists, where
the same topic (highway classification) pops up in every country.(sorry
can't find the link).
And how sometimes the same topic pops up in different fora and mailing
lists (e.g. osm notes problems, tagging of unsurfaced roads, child-care
tagging).

I'll admit that there are some barriers to overcome: language,
understanding of the country-specific law, habits, etc. as well as time
that people want to spend on discussing a topic.

So, please continue to document on the wiki, even when you add a line "For
UK purposes only", so people elsewhere can at least learn how you do it.

regards,

m
p.s. sorry for the incoherent list of thoughts and the bad English. I still
hope you get some ideas from it.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

[Robert Norris]

>
> Ignoring the source information for now, but I suspect it is very
> similar to rights of way information in that it is probably derived from
> OS maps.
>
> The following overpass query highlights the issue, Norfolk standing out
> as especially bad. This is just tertiary roads, there are issues with
> unclassified too.
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4xS

AFAIK there are some (but very few) roads where the C number is sign posted but 
not that I'm aware of any explicitly.

Whether any of these have ever been captured in OSM is hard to tell.

Unfortunately a brief cross check with Google Streetview, for the very few 
tertiary roads with 'source:ref=survey' don't seem to bare much scrutiny. The 
visible signposts don't have a 'C' in them. The 'source:ref' bit is only on a 
short section of an otherwise longer road anyway, so possibly a road split 
editing leftover.

Obviously source=survey tags it too imprecise to tell whether a ref was 
surveyed.

However I am in favour of this edit, but I think the edit needs to *only* 
change 'C' Roads, as some B roads are tagged tertiary.

e.g. using something like this:
   

In the above query will prevent altering too many things.

Possibly only change things without source tags or with source=[nN][pP][eE], as 
a first iteration too.


> I am going to use the horrible word, mechanical edit, but I feel it
> needs sorting out.
>
> I propose that nothing is removed, but the ref tag for tertiary and
> unclassified is moved to official_ref. This will retain the data and
> allow OSM to be used by those who can make use of this data.

> I know we should not tag for the renderer, but I think its ok to give
> the renderer a clue as to which are displayed on signs and which aren't.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] C roads again

[Will Phillips]

This is a widespread problem and I wouldn't oppose a mechanical edit in 
this case. The one concern I have is the rare cases where C road 
references really do appear on signs, but perhaps even then official_ref 
is appropriate.


Similarly, some rights of way references appear on signs: I recall this 
is common on the Isle of Wight. Should this influence whether ref or 
prow_ref is used?


Cheers,
Will

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

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

[Ed Loach]

After previous discussions I've already changed the C road references that
I mapped (from roadworks signs) to official_ref, so your suggestion seems
sensible. I feel ref should be reserved for (permanently?) signposted
references.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

[Andrew Hain]

Philip Barnes  writes:

> I am going to use the horrible word, mechanical edit, but I feel it
> needs sorting out.
> 
> I propose that nothing is removed, but the ref tag for tertiary and
> unclassified is moved to official_ref. This will retain the data and
> allow OSM to be used by those who can make use of this data.

I agree with this proposal. Go ahead.

--
Andrew


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses

[SK53]

Two things:

   - I was emphatically told by people who know that the BS enables
   describing much more than mere postal addresses. In other words PAON, SAON
   etc., are not merely for building number & flat number.
   - Some of the issues you raise were discussed at last Friday's Open
   Addresses Symposium (bulk of slides here
   
),
   and the great and the good of the UK addressing world seemed to be of a
   like mind regarding how the Royal Mail PAF encodes addresses (that any open
   address scheme should handle places (locality etc) in ways which are useful
   over and above how the post is delivered.

Cheers,

Jerry

PS. My own slides are up on Slideshare too.




On 12 August 2014 20:18, Rob Nickerson  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Following on from my previous email to the list, this is a classic example
> where the wiki page has become so long and complex I can't make head or
> tail of it.
>
> So... how do people tag UK addresses?
>
> The standard for representing addresses in Britain is BS7666, which
> comprises:
>
> * Primary addressable object name (PAON),
> * Secondary addressable object name (SAON),
> * street,
> * postcode,
> * locality (if available),
> * town,
> * county
>
> This combination of PAON and SAON allows them to do easily capture
> addresses such as:
>
> Example 1
>
> Flat 2
> 8 Something Road,
> Town,
> ...
>
> Example 2
>
> 6, The Hollies,
> Birmingham Road,
> Town,
> ...
>
> How would these map to OSM's tags?
>
> Finally how would you tag something like:
>
> Business Name,
> Building Name,
> Something Technology Park,
> Other thing Road,
> Town,
> ...
>
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
> ___
> 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 addresses

[Will Phillips]

On 12/08/2014 22:46, Derick Rethans wrote:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Tom Hughes wrote:


On 12/08/14 20:18, Rob Nickerson wrote:


Example 1

Flat 2
8 Something Road,
Town,
...

addr:flatnumber=2

I actually have used addr:flat here before (and addr:unit for slightly
related things in like parades).

cheers,
Derick


I have occasionally used addr:flat when tagging the entrance to a single 
flat, but usually use addr:flats. I did use addr:flatnumber originally 
but changed to addr:flats as that seems  to have become more widely 
accepted.


For what it's worth, there is a wiki page for addr:flats at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:flats
The information there seems correct to me, although I might add that 
flat numbers can sometimes be letters or even names. I have tagged real 
examples like:

addr:flats = 1-5;The Garden Flat;The Penthouse

Cheers,
Will


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses

[Rob Nickerson]

On 12 August 2014 21:43, Tom Hughes  wrote:

> On 12/08/14 20:18, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>
>> Example 2
>>
>> 6, The Hollies,
>> Birmingham Road,
>> Town,
>> ...
>>
>
> Hard to say without knowing what "The Hollies" is exactly, but this is
> probably a case that we don't have a good answer for at the moment.
>
>

I wasn't aware of the addr:flatnumber tag so thanks for that. In regards to
The Hollies, I didn't survey that one myself but gather it is a collection
of new houses on Birmingham Road (with a short stubby service road):

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.63901&mlon=-1.83537#map=19/52.63901/-1.83537&layers=N

Examples I've seen include modern gated "courtyard" community:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.21581&mlon=-1.87158#map=19/52.21581/-1.87158&layers=N

and a slightly older set of houses that must have been built after the
other houses on the street were removed:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.21740&mlon=-1.86922#map=19/52.21740/-1.86922&layers=N

So far I have been tagging these as addr:housenumber=6, The Hollies. Other
ideas welcome.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses

[Derick Rethans]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Tom Hughes wrote:

> On 12/08/14 20:18, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> 
> > Example 1
> > 
> > Flat 2
> > 8 Something Road,
> > Town,
> > ...
> 
> addr:flatnumber=2

I actually have used addr:flat here before (and addr:unit for slightly 
related things in like parades).

cheers,
Derick

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses

[Will Phillips]

Hi,

I think we could do with a wiki page dedicated to tagging UK addresses 
and covering how to tag the more complicated cases. The problem at the 
moment is that there has been little discussion and no consensus about 
certain situations such as tagging parent/subsidiary streets.


I have been active in mapping addresses around Nottingham for a while 
and do always try to record addresses as fully as possible. I have 
personal methods for handling almost all situations that I encounter, 
but these are sometimes not fully documented, which is obviously not ideal.


This is how I would tag Rob's examples:


Flat 2
8 Something Road,
Town,

addr:flats = 2
addr:housenumber = 8
addr:street = Something Road
addr:city = Town


6, The Hollies,
Birmingham Road,
Town,

If 'The Hollies' is a building I would use:
addr:flats = 6
addr:housename = The Hollies
addr:street = Birmingham Road
addr:city = Town

If 'The Hollies' is a subsidiary street I would use:
addr:housenumber = 6
addr:street = The Hollies
addr:parentstreet = Birmingham Road
addr:city = Town

Here the 'addr:parentstreet' tag is completely non-standard. I use it 
quite regularly in the interest of getting things done, but with the 
intention of changing it in future if consensus is reached regarding a 
standard way to do it.


I work on the assumption that addr:housenumber must refer to the 
addr:street tag (so it shouldn't be a flat number or refer to a 
different (parent or subsidiary) street.



Business Name,
Building Name,
Something Technology Park,
Other thing Road,
Town,

name = Business Name
addr:housename = Building Name
addr:place = Something Technology Park
addr:street = Other thing Road
addr:city = Town

This assumes that 'Something Technology Park' is not a physical street, 
but a named area that functions like a street for addressing purposes.


Localities:
I tend to use addr:suburb to record localities where they appear in the 
official address. I'm never sure which tag is best for village or hamlet 
names where addr:suburb seems wrong.


Cheers,
Will

On 12/08/2014 20:18, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi All,

Following on from my previous email to the list, this is a classic 
example where the wiki page has become so long and complex I can't 
make head or tail of it.


So... how do people tag UK addresses?

The standard for representing addresses in Britain is BS7666, which 
comprises:


* Primary addressable object name (PAON),
* Secondary addressable object name (SAON),
* street,
* postcode,
* locality (if available),
* town,
* county

This combination of PAON and SAON allows them to do easily capture 
addresses such as:


Example 1

Flat 2
8 Something Road,
Town,
...

Example 2

6, The Hollies,
Birmingham Road,
Town,
...

How would these map to OSM's tags?

Finally how would you tag something like:

Business Name,
Building Name,
Something Technology Park,
Other thing Road,
Town,
...


Thanks,
Rob


___
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 addresses

[Andy Mabbett]

On 12 August 2014 20:18, Rob Nickerson  wrote:

> The standard for representing addresses in Britain is BS7666

It's worth comparing that with the (international) vCard standard:

   http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6350.txt

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCard

used by address book software, etc.

> which comprises:
>
> * Primary addressable object name (PAON),

the extended address (e.g., apartment or suite number);

> * Secondary addressable object name (SAON),
> * street,

the street address;

> * postcode,

the postal code;

> * locality (if available),
> * town,

the locality (e.g., city);

> * county

 the region (e.g., state or province);

and of course also has the country name.

Standards, schmandards, eh?

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK addresses

[Tom Hughes]

On 12/08/14 20:18, Rob Nickerson wrote:


Example 1

Flat 2
8 Something Road,
Town,
...


addr:flatnumber=2
addr:housenumber=8
addr:street=Something Road

(I don't normally tag anything beyond the street)


Example 2

6, The Hollies,
Birmingham Road,
Town,
...


Hard to say without knowing what "The Hollies" is exactly, but this is 
probably a case that we don't have a good answer for at the moment.



Finally how would you tag something like:

Business Name,
Building Name,
Something Technology Park,
Other thing Road,
Town,
...


name=Business Name
addr:housename=Building Name

and probably:

addr:street=Something Technology Park

assuming that the technology park is actually a road, or collection or 
roads, that comes off Other thing Road.


eg http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/123243789

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

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

[Talk-GB] UK addresses

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi All,

Following on from my previous email to the list, this is a classic example
where the wiki page has become so long and complex I can't make head or
tail of it.

So... how do people tag UK addresses?

The standard for representing addresses in Britain is BS7666, which
comprises:

* Primary addressable object name (PAON),
* Secondary addressable object name (SAON),
* street,
* postcode,
* locality (if available),
* town,
* county

This combination of PAON and SAON allows them to do easily capture
addresses such as:

Example 1

Flat 2
8 Something Road,
Town,
...

Example 2

6, The Hollies,
Birmingham Road,
Town,
...

How would these map to OSM's tags?

Finally how would you tag something like:

Business Name,
Building Name,
Something Technology Park,
Other thing Road,
Town,
...


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

[Talk-GB] C roads again

[Philip Barnes]

We have discussed this subject a couple of times and have, I think,
concluded that displaying the ref (generally only known to local
government people) on roads that are unsigned is not helpful to the end
user. 
Some, but I suspect not all, of the thread starts are below.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-May/011632.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-March/014555.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-April/014788.html 

Ignoring the source information for now, but I suspect it is very
similar to rights of way information in that it is probably derived from
OS maps.

The following overpass query highlights the issue, Norfolk standing out
as especially bad. This is just tertiary roads, there are issues with
unclassified too.
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4xS

I am going to use the horrible word, mechanical edit, but I feel it
needs sorting out.

I propose that nothing is removed, but the ref tag for tertiary and
unclassified is moved to official_ref. This will retain the data and
allow OSM to be used by those who can make use of this data.

I know we should not tag for the renderer, but I think its ok to give
the renderer a clue as to which are displayed on signs and which aren't.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of British canals.

[Rob Nickerson]

Some very good tips there RichardF.

>
>Don't be fooled by the siren voices of the wiki. What's in the database
>is valid because it's formed by consensus.
>

To come to the defence of the wiki (yes, there's a lot wrong with it, but
there are also some good people putting in a lot of effort), it's worth
pointing out that what's in the database is also affected by what tags the
major editors expose/have pre-sets for, and also what gets rendered on the
main map style (tagging for the render).

I suppose my point is that the only true consensus is when documentation,
mapping tools, data in OSM, and the renderer all align. And as you pointed
out so eloquently the best way to do this is by having a healthy community
that talk and listen. :-)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of British canals.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Hi Richard,

> I am working my way around the canals of Britain, tracing the canal banks 
> and tidying up locks etc.

Your work is really welcome and as someone with a particular interest in the
British canals I'm glad to see it taking place.

In terms of "playing nice with the OSM community", rather than just using
OSM as your own personal data store, there are two points I'd like to
emphasise:

1. If you find yourself extensively changing existing work, or doing things
differently from what you've seen other mappers do, take a minute to
reflect. That work is very probably how it is for a reason (for example, the
towpaths with highway=cycleway which we corresponded about earlier). You
might not be aware of that reason, or you might be aware but disagree with
it. In either case, you should take the time to talk to the community and
find out why the consensus has formed the way it has.

2. Changeset comments. Be descriptive. Your edits are generally great but,
to be (over?) frank, your changeset comments really aren't. "editing canals
and related structures" isn't very helpful - it's pretty much "I did some
work". Better examples would be:
   "Tracing waterway outline, north Stratford Canal"
   "Rationalising lock tagging around Birmingham"
   "Adding lock names on River Thames"
It's not just that it's useful per se - it also demonstrates good faith in
your interaction with other mappers. None of us are perfect on this issue,
me included, but resorting to a default comment is pretty much always a bad
idea.

In general, talking to the community is always useful. It magnifies the
effect of your work, because others can share their experience with you and
vice versa. For example, if you say "I'm mapping CRT boater facilities, I'd
like to ask a few questions", others will read up on the consensus and
before long all such facilities will be mapped in the same way. If you say
"I'm mapping towpaths", someone will come along and say "Great! If you can
add connections at bridges to roads, that'll make them routable!". And so
on.

Don't be fooled by the siren voices of the wiki. What's in the database is
valid because it's formed by consensus. What's on the wiki too often isn't.
Any fool can invent their own scheme, write "this is how you do it" on the
wiki, and most of them do. Wiki users have rationalised their behaviour by
promoting a voting scheme, but as this can lead to major changes being
approved by just a handful of people, it doesn't have any particular
legitimacy.

And thanks again for helping improve canal data. :)

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Tagging-of-British-canals-tp5813876p5814339.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Where to cross boulevards, and how to map it

[SK53]

By chance I mapped a couple of crossings at the junction of Southchurch
Boulevard & Thorpe Hall Avenue (http://osm.org/go/0EGQ1kp6R--). The first
is not marked on the roadways, but is an asphalt path across the central
reservation. The second has zebra crossings on both carriageways and a
footway between them.

Just now I've added a landuse=grass area on the easternmost end of
Southchurch Boulevard. This does nothing for routing, but does help with
visually interpretation of the map. My impression was that in this area
most natural desire lines for crossing both roads are broadly met by OSM as
it stands. It is always possible to see if there are other observable
desire lines just by looking for paths worn across the grass. These can be
added, and I believe there is even a tag
 which can be added to
reflect that these paths are just desire lines, not anything official or
maintained. My impression is that bus stop access is probably the major
factor which might result in the creation of such paths.

It's always possible that someone somewhere in OSM has invented a tag for
annotating ways whose purpose is solely for routing. (Some imported data on
waterways has something termed an ArtificialPath for linking linear
elements (streams, rivers) within an area element (lake or reservoir).

HTH,

Jerry Clough
SK53


On 12 August 2014 13:15, Stuart Reynolds 
wrote:

>  Hi
>
>
>
> Here in Southend I have a number of boulevards - dual carriageways with
> large central grassed/tree areas. In some cases there are quite clearly
> defined crossing points, and often there will be fences down the middle of
> the road (especially outside schools) to prevent people using anything
> other than the crossing. Here, for example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.55374/0.66964
>
>
>
> In other places (go west from here) there are no defined crossing points,
> and people can, and do, cross anywhere.
>
>
>
> We use the data, among other things, to offer pedestrian routing. And it
> clearly makes no sense for a pedestrian to walk for ages up the road to
> find a crossing point and then to walk back again. But the voids in the
> carriageways are just that - voids. What might I fill them with? And would
> that in itself create routing opportunities, or do I need (indeed, am I
> even allowed) to add fictitious footpaths? How would I even do that in a
> nice way that would obscure them from renders?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Where to cross boulevards, and how to map it

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi

Here in Southend I have a number of boulevards - dual carriageways with large 
central grassed/tree areas. In some cases there are quite clearly defined 
crossing points, and often there will be fences down the middle of the road 
(especially outside schools) to prevent people using anything other than the 
crossing. Here, for example: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.55374/0.66964

In other places (go west from here) there are no defined crossing points, and 
people can, and do, cross anywhere.

We use the data, among other things, to offer pedestrian routing. And it 
clearly makes no sense for a pedestrian to walk for ages up the road to find a 
crossing point and then to walk back again. But the voids in the carriageways 
are just that - voids. What might I fill them with? And would that in itself 
create routing opportunities, or do I need (indeed, am I even allowed) to add 
fictitious footpaths? How would I even do that in a nice way that would obscure 
them from renders?

Thanks
Stuart

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