Re: [Talk-GB] SOTM 2013 - Final programme and end of "mates rates"
Working for me now
Windows 7 Chrome
Didn't load first 10 times i tried to view it, i was receiving malicious iframe
warnings until i signed into google.
>
> From: Gregory
>To: OpenStreetMap ; Talk-GB
>
>Sent: Thursday, 29 August 2013, 23:38
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] SOTM 2013 - Final programme and end of "mates rates"
>
>
>
>Confirmed the programme worked on:
>Linux: Chrome (incognito mode so logged out) and Firefox.
>
>
>The box does flicker with some message ("loading Google Drive" I think) first
>though.
>
>
>It looks like Friday's schedule has been added to Lanyrd already, check back
>in another day or two and the guys might have got added the rest of the
>schedule added. http://lanyrd.com/2013/sotm/
>
>
>
>On 29 August 2013 23:17, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>
>Hmm, that's odd as I seem to see it fine with and without my google account.
>Anyone else able to confirm this for me please?
>>
>>The programme will be making it's way onto Lanyrd soon so you should be able
>>to view it there. Lanyrd has a great website designed for mobile devices (and
>>a dedicated app) so this will be ideal for conference delegates wanting to
>>check the schedule.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 29 August 2013 18:36, Sam Larsen wrote:
>>
>>Rob,
>>>
>>>This only seems to load if you are signed into Google. I try my best not to
>>>be signed in these days ;) You might want to look into that.
>>>
>>>Sam
>>>
>>___
>>Talk-GB mailing list
>>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Gregory
>o...@livingwithdragons.com
>http://www.livingwithdragons.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
Re: [Talk-GB] SOTM 2013 - Final programme and end of "mates rates"
Rob, This only seems to load if you are signed into Google. I try my best not to be signed in these days ;) You might want to look into that. Sam > > From: Rob Nickerson >To: OpenStreetMap ; Talk-GB > >Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013, 23:52 >Subject: [Talk-GB] SOTM 2013 - Final programme and end of "mates rates" > > > >Hi All, > > >== SOTM Final Programme == >After a lot of hard work and many long hours the final programme for State of >the Map 2013 is now available to view at >http://2013.stateofthemap.org/info/programme/ > >This will also be copied over to Lanyrd in the coming days and the preceding >text updated on the page above to provide a link. > >== Mates Rates tickets == >Due to high demand we are getting close to being full. As such, we will be >closing the "mates rates" discounted tickets at 12 noon BST this Friday. Be >quick if you want to get the cheaper entry rates! > >Looking forward to seeing many of you at State of the Map 2013, >Rob > >stateofthemap.org > >___ >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] Find My Nearest Cash Machine
I don't really see the point of this thread. UK cash machine data is fairly dense in OSM, i very rarely find any that aren't already mapped. Can't we just extract OSM cash machines? This will spur us on to map them better in OSM in areas that are lacking, which will lead to a better OSM dataset anyway. Sam Larsen > > From: Derick Rethans >To: Shaun McDonald >Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org >Sent: Tuesday, 21 August 2012, 14:00 >Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Find My Nearest Cash Machine > >On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Shaun McDonald wrote: > >> >> On 20 Aug 2012, at 13:15, Philip Barnes wrote: >> >> > On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 12:33 +0100, Brian Prangle wrote: >> >> >> >> Impressive! Shame about the data. Just done a quick look around >> >> Acocks Green - ATMs missing and some are up to 30m away from their >> >> actual location. I would estimate about 95% accuracy. Anyone else >> >> had a look? >> >> >> > Too small an area that I am not familiar with for me to make any >> > meaningful comment. A different colour for the machines which charge >> > would be useful, to allow these to be ignored. >> >> The ones that I've looked at had a faded balloon for the ATMs that are >> charged for. > >Yeah, and the top right has a checkbox "Free only"... > >cheers, >Derick > >___ >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] Please do not use Code-Point Open, (postcode) data in OSM
Does this mean that the fantastic postcode mapping by blackadder is now going to be removed: http://blog.mappa-mercia.org/2011/02/whats-in-postcode.html Or has he done enough to create a derived work which is exempt from the licence? Sam > > From: Michael Collinson >To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org >Cc: Andrew >Sent: Thursday, 12 January 2012, 13:57 >Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Please do not use Code-Point Open, (postcode) data in >OSM > >On 12/01/2012 13:41, Andrew wrote: >> Michael Collinson writes: >> >>> I regretfully have to relay that while the Ordnance Survey "has no >>> objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released >>> under the Open Database License 1.0", this has to permanently exclude >>> Code-Point Open, (postcode) data. >>> >> Could you check http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue and make >> sure the information there is correct as you understand it? >> > >Thanks Andrew. It was out of date. I have updated it and added to >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#License > >Mike > > >___ >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] Potlatch 2 tutorial videos. (Was: Re: Adding a further 250, 000 UK roads quickly using a Bot?)
Not a video - but webpage walkthrough for adding your address (detatched house) using Potlatch2 & Bing: http://osmarex.com/Add%20your%20address%20to%20OSM%20using%20Bing%20and%20Potlatch2 - Original Message > From: Richard Fairhurst > To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Sent: Fri, 4 February, 2011 16:01:44 > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Potlatch 2 tutorial videos. (Was: Re: Adding a further >250, 000 UK roads quickly using a Bot?) > > > davespod wrote: > > I’ve created a first attempt at a short tutorial video for > > adding POIs using Potlatch 2. > > That is absolutely _brilliant_! > > My faith in human nature is restored. :) Do you have a file you could e-mail > me? If so I'll embed it into P2 this weekend. > > Now off to look at Tom's video... > > cheers > Richard > > P.S. "you lot" is a term of endearment. Sometimes. > > > -- > View this message in context: >http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Adding-a-further-250-000-UK-roads-quickly-using-a-Bot-tp5986539p5992996.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
Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in central London - can someone fix it?
- Original Message > From: Sam Larsen > To: Derick Rethans ; Tom Chance > Cc: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail) > Sent: Tue, 19 October, 2010 16:31:30 > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in central London - can someone fix it? > > While all this talk of reverts is going on, > I have made a quick fix (to help with routing, rendering etc.. while we are > discussing this)using local knowledge > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6100372 > so if someone is going to revert, then they should probably revert mine also. > > Sam There are still three small streets missing on the south side of ludgate hill which will need to be added if no revert is made. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.51346&lon=-0.10183&zoom=18&layers=M Sam > > > > > - Original Message > > From: Derick Rethans > > To: Tom Chance > > Cc: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail) > > Sent: Tue, 19 October, 2010 15:32:02 > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in central London - can someone fix it? > > > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Tom Chance wrote: > > > > > Can someone try and unpick her changes, either reverting the changeset or > > > manually correcting things? > > > > How would one go about fixing things? > > > > regards, > > Derick > > > > -- > > http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org > > Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php > > twitter: @derickr and @xdebug > > > > ___ > > 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 mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in central London - can someone fix it?
While all this talk of reverts is going on, I have made a quick fix (to help with routing, rendering etc.. while we are discussing this)using local knowledge http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6100372 so if someone is going to revert, then they should probably revert mine also. Sam - Original Message > From: Derick Rethans > To: Tom Chance > Cc: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail) > Sent: Tue, 19 October, 2010 15:32:02 > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in central London - can someone fix it? > > On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Tom Chance wrote: > > > Can someone try and unpick her changes, either reverting the changeset or > > manually correcting things? > > How would one go about fixing things? > > regards, > Derick > > -- > http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org > Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php > twitter: @derickr and @xdebug > > ___ > 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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - handling already-tagged fixmes
With all this talk of changing street names, can i just remind you to make sure that if you are changing street names that there are no addresses liked to that street. I have added many addresses linked to streets using Karlsruhe schema (without relations) - i guess this is where relations would help. I just did it the way the germans did it - they seem to know what they are doing. If there are, either change them also, or add a fixme tag or something. Thanks, Sam - Original Message > From: Robert Scott > To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Sent: Wed, 14 July, 2010 11:08:03 > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO - > handling >already-tagged fixmes > > On Wednesday 14 July 2010, Ed Avis wrote: > > Thanks for getting the OS Locator tiles updating again. Could I make a >feature > > request? > > > > Often when OS and OSM disagree I will tag this in the OSM database with a >note > > such as > > > > FIXME=Check name - OSM has Marefield Gardens, OS has Maresfield Gardens > > > > Usually I will also delete the name= tag, so that the street shows up in >noname > > checks to be resurveyed (and because the correct name is unknown). > > > > It would be useful for these already-looked-at cases to be excluded from the > > Locator check, since they are being flagged separately by noname checks. > > I >know > > this was briefly discussed earlier on the list. > > > > We could spend all month discussing a suitably elaborate tagging scheme of > > fixme:name:OS_OpenData_Locator:resurvey=yes;osm_value=x;os_value=y. >However, > > I propose not inventing any new tagging for this. Rather, look to see if >the > > OS name is mentioned as a substring in one of the tag values. That would >show > > that somebody at least is aware of it, and would catch various tagging >schemes > > including the FIXME one I've been using. > > I really think this is exactly the sort of thing that does not belong in the >OSM database, which is why I am working on a separate but connected database >of >manually overridable match states. Development isn't as fast as I'd like it >to >be due to work constraints and my home processing power being limited >(testing >can take a while). > > > robert. > > ___ > 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] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
Assuming one is not comfortable putting 'not' data into OSM, Has anyone used '[alt|old|loc]_name' & '[alt|old|loc]_name:source' for scenarios where OSM has a completely different name for the same feature? Sam Larsen ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
- Original Message > From: Peter Miller > To: Sam Larsen > Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Sent: Wed, 2 June, 2010 18:00:47 > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO > > ... >> >> We're now able to get a > lot of data for free from OS, I don't think it's unreasonable to report the > odd > error back to them so they can improve their map. >> > > > +1 >+1 >Just to say that I was in discussion with the research guys > at the OS about this last week and the status reports which we hope to have > online next week will include a section of 'not:name's for each district > which > they have expressed interest in reviewing. The only small issue could be over > licencing, however I don't believe that they would ever want to act on a > report > in OSM without checking it first on the ground so it will purely be treated > as a > clue for their purposes. Peter, Having used the data in a number of vastly different areas in terms of completion, i have noticed that as a measure of completeness there are a few flaws. I have done name updates in remote Scotland & Wales where the OS Locator missing names tiles provide an incredibly valuable resource - mapping to the same extent as a huge number of nonamed roads. However, when attempting to get Cambridgeshire up to the top of the list for this measure of completion, i have noticed a large amount of really tricky & difficult to diagnose OS Locator noname extents. In areas where there has been a huge amount of pedal power mapping by some very enthusiastic mappers in the Fens north of Cambridge, the data in OSM here is generally of a very high quality, for this reason i would dispute many of the OS Locator missing name polygons. I would assume that a number of these are down to the 'historical' nature of OS data & place names. There are a number of local names for stretches of A & B roads, which i would think are probably not signposted or have not even used in the locality for a long time - these may be covered by historical name tag (which i think does exist in places). For that reason i would be hesitant to put too much faith in the level of accuracy using this measure when completeness becomes something like 90 - 95%. I still think that for the majority of places which have huge swathes of noname roads we have a very useful resource here when used with a bit of common sense and I think you have provided a valuable resource/workflow for those who are always on the lookout for measures of OSM completeness (in the UK). Another point - has anyone made moves to compare the data in the other direction i.e. comparing OSM roads & names with OS Locator - i have come across a number of 'new villages' (new roads within the last year or two) which i would assume are not in the OS Locator dataset. I guess this ties in with the feeding back of data to the OS - maybe they should run this using their budget to help guide their surveyors. Sam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
> >From: Andrew Ainsworth >To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org >Sent: Wed, 2 June, 2010 16:57:48 >Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] >- Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO > > >Could I just make a silly suggestion that no one seems to have talked about >yet. If we find an error in OS Open Data, rather than tag our own data to say >someone else has got it wrong, why not just report it to OS. After examining >the postcode data for my area recently I found a couple of errors, reported >them to OS who have replied saying there is indeed an error and they will send >someone out to re-survey the street. > >We're now able to get a lot of data for free from OS, I don't think it's >unreasonable to report the odd error back to them so they can improve their >map. > +1 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
