Re: [Talk-GB] User dataone: "splitting into 2 way to tag restriction "

[David Fisher]

Hi all,

Just had the same thing happen near me (Croydon) but by a different
user (Zain Ahmad Hashmi, e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34443141).
The only thing that occurred to me is that all the edits involved ways
passing over or under railway lines... although like Dave F I can't
see what the actual improvement is.

Both "dataOne" and "Zain Ahmad Hashmi" joined Sep 15th, 2015, and seem
to have done nothing other than a large number of similar edits.
Either they're the same person/bot, or there's some source somewhere
that is encouraging such edits for whatever reason.

Thanks,
David. (user Pgd81)



On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:56 PM, David Woolley
 wrote:
> On 02/10/15 20:26, Philip Barnes wrote:
>>
>> On Fri Oct 2 14:47:05 2015 GMT+0100, Dave F. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> A new editor has started splitting roads in my locale, but from what I
>>> can see making no tagging amendments. Am I missing something? If not I'd
>>> like to halt him before there's too much damage.
>>>
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dataOne/history#map=11/51.2981/-1.9753
>>>
>>> I've sent a message asking for clarification.
>>>
>> I can see nothing othet than the splits, don't think you have missed
>> anything.
>>
>
> Even if this is a botched attempt at legitimate changes, the scale of the
> process makes it look like an un-sourced bulk import, possibly from an
> ineligible source.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Vanguard Way - Anyone from the Kent / Sussex border?

[David Fisher]

(P.S.  and as a local, I can confirm that no ways are actually named
"Vanguard Way" on the ground, at least not in the Croydon area)


On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:27 AM, David Fisher  wrote:

> There appears to be a user named "VanguardWay" (
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/VanguardWay/edits) who has been
> systematically adding "Vanguard Way" to all ways along the route, all in
> mid-September of this year.  To their credit, I suppose, they've added it
> as an extra name with a forward slash rather than replacing any existing
> names, but clearly the relation is both more correct and far older.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Andy Street wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:27:31 +
>> Richard Symonds  wrote:
>>
>> > Although, granted, it's probably recorded incorrectly...
>>
>> Yup, the fact that most/all of the ways have also been tagged with the
>> website for the Vanguard Way is a fairly strong indicator the editor in
>> question hasn't understood how relations work.
>>
>> --
>> 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] Vanguard Way - Anyone from the Kent / Sussex border?

[David Fisher]

There appears to be a user named "VanguardWay" (
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/VanguardWay/edits) who has been
systematically adding "Vanguard Way" to all ways along the route, all in
mid-September of this year.  To their credit, I suppose, they've added it
as an extra name with a forward slash rather than replacing any existing
names, but clearly the relation is both more correct and far older.


On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Andy Street  wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:27:31 +
> Richard Symonds  wrote:
>
> > Although, granted, it's probably recorded incorrectly...
>
> Yup, the fact that most/all of the ways have also been tagged with the
> website for the Vanguard Way is a fairly strong indicator the editor in
> question hasn't understood how relations work.
>
> --
> 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] walls versus landuse=field

[David Fisher]

Hi all,
This feels like an appropriate thread to butt into and ask: is there an
accepted tag for grassy chalk downland, as found in southern England?
Would natural=fell be appropriate here too, or is that for proper
mountainous territory?  If not, would something like "natural=grassland,
grassland=downland" be appropriate?  (again, like Henry Gomersall, I'm
thinking about areas of open land that may be grazed but aren't really
meadows to my mind.)
Thanks,
David.


On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Henry Gomersall  wrote:

> On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 13:48 +0100, Henry Gomersall wrote:
> > Yeah, I had a look, but I can't see anything about mountainous pasture
> > land. The issue is land that is very clearly strongly influenced by
> > the
> > presence of animals, but isn't farmland as such. meadow is probably
> > acceptable, but doesn't seem _quite_ right.
>
> oh, natural=fell seems to do the job :)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Henry
>
>
> ___
> 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] "Trunk" vs "green-sign" routes in the UK

[David Fisher]

Ok.  So I guess I should message users Trubshaw (re A354) and UltimateKoopa
(re A22), then.
Thanks guys.



On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Tom Hughes  wrote:

> On 22/04/13 14:44, David Fisher wrote:
>
>  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)?
>>
>
> Yes, there has been a consensus for at least the last six and a bit years
> now that "trunk" in the OSM sense means green signed primary A road and
> "primary" means white signed secondary A road.
>
> Which is why the wiki says what it does.
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[David Fisher]

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ambiguous restrictions sign

[David Fisher]

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 wrote:

>
> On 31 Oct 2012, at 16:02, David Earl  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  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 31 October 2012 14:37, David Fisher  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

Re: [Talk-GB] Using UK postcode data to generate a heat map

[David Fisher]

Hi all,

Thanks for all your help with this.  Thought I should update.

After getting confirmation of the validity of using the data, my friend and
his colleagues successfully merged their postcode list with the CodePoint
Open dataset and sent me the results.  I then converted the
eastings/northings to lats/longs using a Python routine I found on the web
[1]  (having first tested it out in QGIS using random postcodes from
CodePoint Open, of course!) and sent it back to my friend who loaded the
data into OpenHeatMap.  His boss was happy and my friend bought me a couple
of pints, so all is well.

A few things to throw out there:

-- I'm now properly in awe of proper GIS users.  I had no idea that
coordinate systems were so numerous and so complicated.  For example, OS
themselves provide a stand-alone batch coordinate converter [2], and I
first tried using that to do the job, but found that the results didn't
match when loaded into QGIS.  So I searched again and found the Python
routine [2] which *did* match.  Evidently I wasn't using the OS software
correctly, but no idea why.

-- OpenHeatMap doesn't do true heat maps (or not that I could see anyway).
Its main use seems to be things like house-price variation, where you have
a *value* associated with each datapoint, rather than being interested in
the *density* of datapoints.  However, you can colour the points so that
their overlap creates the illusion of a heatmap, which is still pretty
useful for amateur use such as this.  I tried following the QGIS tutorial
kindly linked to by Steven Horner [3] but although each individual step
seemed to work, I couldn't get the same end results.

-- On a different but tangentially-related note, I had a look at the OS
contour data the other day, just for kicks.  It's in a format that, whilst
open-able by QGIS, bears no relation to any other data I have (e.g.
BoundaryLine shapefiles).  It uses a different co-ordinate system, and
Googling the relevant terminology lead me to a series of articles that each
left me more baffled than before.  Again: tricky stuff, this GIS lark.
Maybe I should stick to GPS uploads, POIs and Bing tracing ;-)

Again, thanks all.
David.


[1]
http://hannahfry.co.uk/2012/02/01/converting-british-national-grid-to-latitude-and-longitude-ii/
[2]
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/support/os-net/grid-inquest.html
[3]
http://qgis.spatialthoughts.com/2012/07/tutorial-making-heatmaps-using-qgis-and.html
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] New user reinstating old railways in Norfolk

[David Fisher]

He's responded positively to comments in his latest diary entry, and has
asked for help with JOSM. Hopefully this can now be resolved! Only trouble
is, I fear what he wants to do is quite complex and he might struggle and
get annoyed again :-s

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> > However, I think it's now clear that the whole of both
> > changesets [3,4] need to be reverted. Presumably, this should be
> > done as quickly as possible to avoid the risk of subsequent
> > edits complicating things. I don't have any recent experience of
> > doing reverts, so is there anyone reading this who would be
> > able to do them instead?
>
> Done.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/15078224
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/15078231
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/New-user-reinstating-old-railways-in-Norfolk-tp5749762p5749768.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

[Talk-GB] Using UK postcode data to generate a heat map

[David Fisher]

Hi all,

A friend has come to me with an interesting-sounding request, and I just
wondered how feasible it might be.
He has a database of UK postcodes and some measurement or other (not sure
what yet) and would like to create a heat map.
Neither of us are techies, but I've been contributing to OSM for a year now
and am familiar with JOSM and (to a lesser extent) QGIS.
How difficult a project is likely to be?  (bearing in mind I'd be doing it
in my spare time as a favour and for my personal interest)

I assume you'd first have to convert the postcodes to lat/lon?  Then I'd
need a rendering tool for the "heat" colours, and then a simple base map on
which to overlay it (just thinking out loud now).

It sounds like the sort of thing it'd be useful to have a tutorial for.  If
one exists, great!  If not, and if I'm successful, I might have a go at
writing one.

Thanks in advance,

David.  (user Pgd81)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Ambiguous restrictions sign

[David Fisher]

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.

Thanks,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Places and postcodes -- nodes/areas?

[David Fisher]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Craig Wallace wrote:

> I think most of the postal_code tags on postboxes are just based on the
> ref. eg if the ref on the box is "SE25 29", it is assumed the postbox is in
> the SE25 postcode, so it is tagged as postal_code=SE25.
> Craig


Yes, that's what I think's happened.  People are recording the ref (e.g.
SE25 29) but are also tagged additionally as e.g. "postal_code=SE25".

On 11/09/2012 10:47, Matt Williams wrote:
> I would be surprised if post boxes being labelled with postal codes were
affecting which suburb a certain street is associated with in
> Nominatim.

Sorry, I was unclear.  I don't think this is what's happening; rather,
Nominatim is getting "Thornton Heath" (incorrectly) from somewhere, and
also, separately, "SE25" (incorrectly) from somewhere else.  They're
different instances of the same process.

RE your point about postcodes simply being lists of addresses:  you're
quite right, of course.  People tend to place great importance on living
"within" a certain postcode, and thus we tend to think of them as defining
areas, but they don't really.  I'm happy not to pursue this.  But this
implies that "postal_code=SE25" on a postbox is incorrect -- would you
agree that this is the case, and would you support the removal of such tags?

@Steve Doerr:  Good suggestions -- I have access to both political ward
boundaries and (indirectly) to postcode "boundaries".  However, neither
quite does the job for me.  It's all interesting data though, of course --
and it does provide examples of what different people/organisations think a
certain placename refers to.

@Tom Chance:  Interesting.  In Southwark, wards are tagged as
"boundary=administrative" rather than "boundary=political" -- presumably
this is why Nominatim picks them up?  More generally, I'm glad a long-time
contributor/developer like yourself has given this some thought and
struggled.  You ask "could you decide where Croydon ends and Thornton Heath
begins?" -- well, I could give it a good try... but then what about other,
smaller, suburbs/neighbourhoods like Waddon, Selhurst, Addiscombe -- are
they "part" of Croydon/Thornton Heath or adjacent to it?  (PS Yes, I'd seen
the Dalston page before, and love it :) )   Would you support mappers just
giving it a go, based on a mixture of postcodes/addresses/wards and local
knowledge?

Thanks all, some great responses; always a pleasure.

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

[Talk-GB] Places and postcodes -- nodes/areas?

[David Fisher]

Hi all,

I've noticed that in my area (Croydon, S London) a lot of streets & POIs
are identified by Nominatim with a nearby suburb of Croydon (Thornton
Heath) rather than with Croydon town itself.  The Nominatim/geocoding guys
said this was due to nodes being used instead of areas, and suggested I
create relations to identify the boundaries of the town and of its
suburb(s).  My question is: are there any guidelines on how such
areas/relations should be defined?  Political/admin boundaries don't really
help.  Is it a case of just using my instinct & local knowledge?  Are there
any good examples elsewhere?

My other (related) question is to do with postcodes. Some postboxes nearby
have been tagged not only with "ref=xxx" (containing the first part of the
postcode plus a reference no.) but also "postal_code=xxx" (again containing
the first part of the postcode), meaning that, again, a lot of streets &
POIs become identified by Nominatim with this postcode (e.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/363996567).  Should *all*
postboxes be tagged with "postal_code" in this way?  What about streets
themselves?  For streets, does the (first part of the) postcode need to be
displayed on the street sign for this to be done?

Thanks,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Natural England data

[David Fisher]

Andy:  Thanks for the confirmation.  For the data that might not be
compliant, I take it "OGL" is the terminology I'd look for as a check?
RE Bulk imports: most certainly not!!

Tom: There is a long, long list of England-wide shapefiles, each
downloadable with a couple of clicks from "
http://www.gis.naturalengland.org.uk/pubs/gis/GIS_register.asp";.  So far
I've downloaded "Local Nature Reserve" and "Sites of Special Scientific
Interest (England-wide)", opened them in Quantum GIS, and identified the
selections in my local area (of many thousands in total) that I'd use for
boundary fixing etc.   These are the ones that are of particular interest
to me, but I'd be happy to help more generally.  However, I'm pretty new to
all this -- it'd be good if someone more experienced could take a look and
judge what the best approach might be, e.g. a smaller list of shapefiles of
particular usefulness to the OSM project.

Thanks again.

David



On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Tom Chance  wrote:

> Perhaps, David, you could upload the shapefiles somewhere so we could
> stick them into Potlatch 2 for tracing purposes, with a wiki page to track
> progress? I'd be very interested in having a look at it.
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 18 July 2012 20:53, Andy Robinson  wrote:
>
>> On the whole yes as its OGL its fine for OSM. However remember to tag
>> with the appropriate source/attribution. A word of warning though that some
>> of the data may not be fully compliant yet so check the licence details for
>> each data type before you use.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Also PLEASE DO _*NOT*_ DO ANY BULK IMPORTS!
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> So far I’ve used it to fix the Peak District boundary but nothing else. I
>> think Ed Loach has used it a bit too.
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* David Fisher [mailto:djfishe...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* 18 July 2012 20:18
>> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject:* [Talk-GB] Natural England data
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've recently come across the Natural England site, which has shapefiles
>> for download of various category of open space (local/national nature
>> reserve, SSSI, etc).
>>
>> The website states "From 1 April 2012 Natural England is making its
>> publicly available Geographic Information datasets available for commercial
>> and non-commercial reuse under the Open Government Licence. We are now able
>> to use this licence, as we have secured copyright exemptions from Ordnance
>> Survey under the Public Sector Mapping Agreement."  (
>> http://www.gis.naturalengland.org.uk/pubs/gis/gis_register.asp)
>>
>> Does this allow the data to be used by OSM?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> David Fisher.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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] Natural England data

[David Fisher]

Hi all,

I've recently come across the Natural England site, which has shapefiles
for download of various category of open space (local/national nature
reserve, SSSI, etc).

The website states "From 1 April 2012 Natural England is making its
publicly available Geographic Information datasets available for commercial
and non-commercial reuse under the Open Government Licence. We are now able
to use this licence, as we have secured copyright exemptions from Ordnance
Survey under the Public Sector Mapping Agreement."  (
http://www.gis.naturalengland.org.uk/pubs/gis/gis_register.asp)

Does this allow the data to be used by OSM?

Thanks,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bing imagery in London

[David Fisher]

Brilliant, thanks for the info and links.
So it looks as if they are slowly updating the whole lot -- shame they felt
it necessary to drop the old before the new was ready though.  Going by the
yellow areas ("current release") in your link [1], it looks like much of
the home counties now have the new imagery, whilst London itself does
not... ah well, just have to be patient I guess.
Thanks again,
David.



On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Andy Robinson  wrote:

> BING have been updating their imagery [1] and the latest update for London
> (June 2012) is from Oct 2011 [2] which I guess means that the previous
> imagery has been dropped, even though it was better for our purposes.
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
> ** **
>
> [1]
> http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=51.522276995783905~0.6418725813313131&lvl=8&dir=0&sty=h&app=50493~myappname~worldtour~p_rid~c86e326e-c476-44a7-9afb-2d199eecd2ed~p_c~0~p_i~0&FORM=LMLTCC
> 
>
> [2] http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/bing/
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* David Fisher [mailto:djfishe...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 22 June 2012 11:09
> *To:* Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* [Talk-GB] Bing imagery in London
>
> ** **
>
> Hi,
> Thought I would flag this up with the Talk-GB list as well, since London
> seems to be very quiet.
> Has anyone else noticed Bing's imagery at highest zoom levels (<10m ish)
> has disappeared recently?  And does anyone know why, or if it will be
> returning?  It's a big setback for tracing buildings and distinguishing
> close detail in dense urban areas where GPS can be very poor.
> Thanks,
> David.
>
>
> 
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: *David Fisher* 
> Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-london] Bing imagery in London
> To: talk-gb-lon...@openstreetmap.org
>
>
> Glad it's not just me!  I noticed this as well, seems to have happened 3
> or 4 days ago (hard to tell exactly because the areas I've been working on
> most recently have tiles cached).  It is a bit of a setback.
>
>
>
> 
>
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Paul Williams 
> wrote:
>
> The quality of Bing imagery in a very large part of London (it appears
> this includes all of Central London) seems to have suddenly dropped.
> The highest resolution images have gone leaving images which are at a
> lesser resolution, are darker and appear to be affected more greatly
> by shadows - making it more difficult to map buildings etc accurately.
> I've checked this in JOSM, Potlatch and on the Bing maps website
> itself, both yesterday and this morning. Does anyone know if this is
> just a temporary problem (perhaps while they're updating the images or
> something like that) or not?
>
> Cheers
> Paul Williams
> (Paul The Archivist)
>
> ___
> Talk-gb-london mailing list
> talk-gb-lon...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Bing imagery in London

[David Fisher]

Hi,
Thought I would flag this up with the Talk-GB list as well, since London
seems to be very quiet.
Has anyone else noticed Bing's imagery at highest zoom levels (<10m ish)
has disappeared recently?  And does anyone know why, or if it will be
returning?  It's a big setback for tracing buildings and distinguishing
close detail in dense urban areas where GPS can be very poor.
Thanks,
David.



-- Forwarded message --
From: David Fisher 
Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-london] Bing imagery in London
To: talk-gb-lon...@openstreetmap.org


Glad it's not just me!  I noticed this as well, seems to have happened 3 or
4 days ago (hard to tell exactly because the areas I've been working on
most recently have tiles cached).  It is a bit of a setback.



On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Paul Williams wrote:

> The quality of Bing imagery in a very large part of London (it appears
> this includes all of Central London) seems to have suddenly dropped.
> The highest resolution images have gone leaving images which are at a
> lesser resolution, are darker and appear to be affected more greatly
> by shadows - making it more difficult to map buildings etc accurately.
> I've checked this in JOSM, Potlatch and on the Bing maps website
> itself, both yesterday and this morning. Does anyone know if this is
> just a temporary problem (perhaps while they're updating the images or
> something like that) or not?
>
> Cheers
> Paul Williams
> (Paul The Archivist)
>
> ___
> Talk-gb-london mailing list
> talk-gb-lon...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[David Fisher]

Hi all,
I was just wondering whether, beyond the obvious use of having accurate
boundary data in OSM, the Boundary Line data could also be used to align
aerial imagery, particularly at the closest zoom levels?
For instance, I map in South London, close to multiple borough boundaries.
As a test, I downloaded the (more accurate) 2010 data last night and opened
it in JOSM as a layer along with downloaded OSM data and Bing imagery.  In
certain places the Bing imagery shows obvious geometric shapes such as
building outlines or fences/hedges, which it could reasonably assumed that
the boundary would follow (and of course the more you look along the
boundary line, the more features you can use to make the fit).   It seems
to me to be a valid & useful approach, but I just wondered what others
thought?
Thanks,
David.


On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Craig Wallace  wrote:

> On 30/05/2012 16:11, Jason Cunningham wrote:
>
>>
>> This suggests the original Boundary Line data is superior, but would
>> need to be compared to 2012 releases to check boundaries have not moved.
>>
>> Does anyone have the original Boundary Line release? and would they be
>> able to make them available?
>>
>
> The previous releases of Boundary Line data are available here:
> http://parlvid.mysociety.org:**81/os/
> http://os.openstreetmap.org/**data/ 
>
>
> __**_
> 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