Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
Jul 10, 2020, 14:49 by ajt1...@gmail.com: > On 10/07/2020 12:54, Andrew Hain wrote: > >> I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for >> highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset in Potlatch >> 1. >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607 >> > If Osmose is flagging "highway=footway;foot=yes" as a warning I'd suggest > that that is a problem that needs logging with Osmose. > It may be the best to make it a bit smarter - it is a completely valid suggestion in for example Poland. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map
On Sunday, 5 July 2020 18:42:43 BST Mark Goodge wrote: > On 05/07/2020 18:35, Robert Skedgell wrote: > > On 05/07/2020 17:58, Mark Goodge wrote: > >> Just out of interest, is there any simple way to export data from > >> GeoPackage (eg, to GML or GeoJSON) via the command line on Linux? I've > >> tried ogr2ogr, but that doesn't seem to recognise GeoPackage as a > >> source. I can do it manually by loading it into QGIS desktop and then > >> exporting it, but I'd prefer something I can automate. > > > > This worked for me to import a copy of the USRN GeoPackage file into my > > local OSM database: > > > > ogr2ogr -f PGDump -s_srs EPSG:27700 -t_srs EPSG:3857 \ > > osopenusrn_202007.sql osopenusrn_202007.gpkg > > > > Is it possible that your installation of GDAL doesn't include support > > for the GPKG vector driver? > > Yes, I get the error > > Unable to open datasource `osopenusrn_202007.gpkg' with the following > drivers > > followed by a list of drivers, and GPGK isn't one of them. But GDAL > seems to be up to date, so I'm not sure how to add it. > > Mark You may have been caught by the current heavy development affecting GDAL and PROJ in the spatial field. The LTS releases of various linuxes are significantly behind on this, and the projects that use GDAL and PROJ as upstream are catching up slowly. There are major changes. My Ubuntu bionic (due for upgrade to Focal shortly) claims to have a current GDAL - using an ubuntigis unstable repo, but that's behind as well - I'm on GDAL 3.04 while upstream is 3.11. Paul Bivand _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bus Routes on OSM
Jul 6, 2020, 15:43 by for...@david-woolley.me.uk: > On 06/07/2020 14:02, Matthew Scanlon wrote: > >> How are Bus Routes added into OSM? I have noticed that bus routes in >> Basildon (my local area) are a few years out of date with some service such >> as the 5 and 8Ahaving been withdrawn and the route 2 being renumbered 28 >> > > My understanding is that TfL doesn't licence the information on a basis that > would allow it to be directly used, so OSM rely on members of the public > using the buses, or tracing the routes between bus stops. > > How up to date the information is depends on how enthusiastic people are in > an area, and there tends to be a preference for mapping things for the first > time over maintaining existing mapping. > And many people prefer to map or maintain things that are likely to be more or less stable - for example roads are far less likely to be moved/renamed than bus lines. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map
Hi Nick, Thanks for that. I regret that my VBA and Python are about as good as my Swahili and Martian. (i.e. NOT) Many years ago, I did a bit (sic) of coding in Basic, Fortran and Algol (look them up in the history books) and I used Prolog for my AI project in 1984, but since then, I've been gradually relegated to management. However, I am sure that there are others in this community, who will be much better placed than I am to use the code that you have so kindly provided. Regards,Peter On Thursday, 2 July 2020, 23:19:06 BST, Nick wrote: Hi Peter re: "I am still not clear how best to use the data available" - I have written a simple bit of VBA that enables address data to be retrieved for a given UPRN (I attach the VBA used in a form for Excel) - this only works for Scotland but may be available elsewhere. Using the concept you can use Python (a friend has done some preliminary work) or similar. This is not elegant but is perhaps a first step in enabling a whole lot of development? Cheers Nick On 02/07/2020 18:38, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote: Hi Robert, Many thanks for producing that map. I was able to look at my street and see a blue pin in each of the building outlines that I had mapped from aerial imagery, so that gave me a warm, smug feeling :) I too noticed some not-yet-there properties in a nearby development that had UPRNs assigned - Not a problem really (IMHO). There is also one allocated to a pond near me; I didn't know that was "addressable"! However, I am still not clear how best to use the data available, if you can't use it to look up the address of the property. Similarly, I am not sure how a data consumer could use the data, if we laboriously edited every property in OSM to include a "ref:GB:UPRN=" tag (or similar; other tags are available.). Sorry not to be able to contribute something more useful... :( Regards, Peter On Thursday, 2 July 2020, 17:40:51 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: I'm not completely sure if/how we can best make use of the new OS OpenData (UPRNs, USRNs and related links) in OpenStreetMap, but as a first step I've set up a quick slippy map with the UPRN locations shown: https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/ (zoom in to level 16 to show the data) The UPRN dataset literally just contains the UPRN number and its coordinates (both OS National Grid and WGS lat/lon). There are some additional linking datasets that link these ids to other ids (e.g. USRNs, TOIDs). But no address information is available directly. (You may be able to get street names by matching to OS Open Roads via TOIDs though. Coupled with Code-Point Open, you might be able to assign quite a few postcodes in cases where there's only one unit for a whole street.) The UPRN data has already helped me find a mapping error I made locally though -- it looks like I'd accidentally missed drawing a house outline from aerial imagery, and also classified a large garage a few doors down as a house. The two errors cancelled out when the houses were numbered sequentially, so I didn't notice until now. Today though I spotted a UPRN marker over some blank space on the map, and no marker over the mapped house that's probably a garage. Now a few initial thoughts on the data that I've explored so far: I believe that the UPRNs are assigned by local authorities, so conventions may vary from place to place. I don't know who actually assigns the coordinates (authority or OS). Looking at those for rows of houses around me, they don't seem to have been automatically given coordinates from the house footprint, it looks more like someone manually clicking on a map. The UPRN dataset should include all addressable properties. It is also ahead of reality in some places, as it includes locations for houses on a new development near me that have yet to be built yet. For blocks of apartments/flats, the UPRN nodes may all have the same coordinates or may be displaced from each other, possibly in an artificial manner. Other objects also appear to have UPRNs. Likely things I've noticed so far include: car parks, post boxes, telephone boxes (even after they've been removed), electricity sub-stations, roads and recorded footpaths (the UPRN locations seem to be at one end of the street, so usually lie at a junction), recreation grounds / play areas, floodlight poles (around sports pitches), and allotments. There's no information about the object type in the UPRN data unfortunately. Anyway, I hope some of this is useful / interesting. I hope to be on the OSMUK call on Saturday to discuss things further. Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker https://osm.mathmos.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://li
Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN Locations Map
Hi Robert, Many thanks for producing that map. I was able to look at my street and see a blue pin in each of the building outlines that I had mapped from aerial imagery, so that gave me a warm, smug feeling :) I too noticed some not-yet-there properties in a nearby development that had UPRNs assigned - Not a problem really (IMHO). There is also one allocated to a pond near me; I didn't know that was "addressable"! However, I am still not clear how best to use the data available, if you can't use it to look up the address of the property. Similarly, I am not sure how a data consumer could use the data, if we laboriously edited every property in OSM to include a "ref:GB:UPRN=" tag (or similar; other tags are available.). Sorry not to be able to contribute something more useful... :( Regards,Peter On Thursday, 2 July 2020, 17:40:51 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: I'm not completely sure if/how we can best make use of the new OS OpenData (UPRNs, USRNs and related links) in OpenStreetMap, but as a first step I've set up a quick slippy map with the UPRN locations shown: https://osm.mathmos.net/addresses/uprn/ (zoom in to level 16 to show the data) The UPRN dataset literally just contains the UPRN number and its coordinates (both OS National Grid and WGS lat/lon). There are some additional linking datasets that link these ids to other ids (e.g. USRNs, TOIDs). But no address information is available directly. (You may be able to get street names by matching to OS Open Roads via TOIDs though. Coupled with Code-Point Open, you might be able to assign quite a few postcodes in cases where there's only one unit for a whole street.) The UPRN data has already helped me find a mapping error I made locally though -- it looks like I'd accidentally missed drawing a house outline from aerial imagery, and also classified a large garage a few doors down as a house. The two errors cancelled out when the houses were numbered sequentially, so I didn't notice until now. Today though I spotted a UPRN marker over some blank space on the map, and no marker over the mapped house that's probably a garage. Now a few initial thoughts on the data that I've explored so far: I believe that the UPRNs are assigned by local authorities, so conventions may vary from place to place. I don't know who actually assigns the coordinates (authority or OS). Looking at those for rows of houses around me, they don't seem to have been automatically given coordinates from the house footprint, it looks more like someone manually clicking on a map. The UPRN dataset should include all addressable properties. It is also ahead of reality in some places, as it includes locations for houses on a new development near me that have yet to be built yet. For blocks of apartments/flats, the UPRN nodes may all have the same coordinates or may be displaced from each other, possibly in an artificial manner. Other objects also appear to have UPRNs. Likely things I've noticed so far include: car parks, post boxes, telephone boxes (even after they've been removed), electricity sub-stations, roads and recorded footpaths (the UPRN locations seem to be at one end of the street, so usually lie at a junction), recreation grounds / play areas, floodlight poles (around sports pitches), and allotments. There's no information about the object type in the UPRN data unfortunately. Anyway, I hope some of this is useful / interesting. I hope to be on the OSMUK call on Saturday to discuss things further. Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker https://osm.mathmos.net/ ___ 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] Server crash or dns spoofing?
That is an unrelated failure that caused tile of the default map style to stop updating (other servers relying on the same toolchain also were likely to be affected) Jun 28, 2020, 21:08 by danstowell+...@gmail.com: > I won't presume that everyone on talk-gb wants the gory technical > details, but it seems they gave a brief summary on twitter: > https://twitter.com/OSM_Tech/status/1277001284705570821 > > Best > Dan > > > Op zo 28 jun. 2020 om 19:39 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB > : > >> >> Apparently it was a temporary outrage, >> see https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/431 >> (without useful details except that whatever is broken become fixed) >> >> Jun 28, 2020, 20:30 by witwa...@disroot.org: >> >> Is www.openstreetmap.org down? >> >> I am getting an error "We're sorry, but something went wrong". >> >> My dns is giving >> www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.11 >> www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.13 >> www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.12 >> www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:b >> www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:c >> www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:d >> >> but reverse lookup is a bit suspicious: >> $ host 130.117.76.11 >> Host 11.76.117.130.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) >> >> Am I the only one seeing this: do I need to investigate further? >> >> ael >> >> >> >> _______ >> 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 mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Server crash or dns spoofing?
Apparently it was a temporary outrage, see https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/431 (without useful details except that whatever is broken become fixed) Jun 28, 2020, 20:30 by witwa...@disroot.org: > Is www.openstreetmap.org down? > > I am getting an error "We're sorry, but something went wrong". > > My dns is giving > www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.11 > www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.13 > www.openstreetmap.org has address 130.117.76.12 > www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:b > www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:c > www.openstreetmap.org has IPv6 address 2001:978:2:2c::172:d > > but reverse lookup is a bit suspicious: > $ host 130.117.76.11 > Host 11.76.117.130.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) > > Am I the only one seeing this: do I need to investigate further? > > ael > > > > ___ > 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] JOSM Plugin for the FHRS API
I'm getting this after selecting the Search Entry option: https://snipboard.io/7J6Eb0.jpg Latest JOSM version Any ideas? On 26/06/2020 10:45, o...@poppe.dev wrote: Hey Tony, as I'm from the other side of the Channel, I doubt that there's someone from the UK community that knows me well enough to reassure you about my person (I could always ask people from the German Telegram group to tell you I'm not a lunatic *g*) You could always take a look at the GitHub repository ( https://github.com/kmpoppe/fhrsPlugin) and check what's going on in the code - which heavily relies on the JOSM core source. Regards Kai > Hi Kai > > I'd like to help as its a good idea - however I don't know you, so could > you get some community people who are well known to vouch for you, its > just that I don't want strange software on my machine. > > Regards > > Tony Shield > > TonyS999 ___________ 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] JOSM Plugin for the FHRS API
As the OSM entity has to already contain the FHRS:ID tag it limits the usefulness of this plugin. Won't most have address data added when contributors initially add the FHRS tag? I certainly do. What would be useful is a way to search the LA's database for retailers which don't have a FHRS tag. DaveF. On 26/06/2020 05:58, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote: Good morning everyone, I built a plugin for JOSM that allows you to merge data from the FHRS API into OSM with a few clicks. I'd love to find some people that would be willing to test the 0.1.2 version and report bugs they found and/or comment on the user experience. Just throw me a line at o...@poppe.dev and I'll send you the download link. Thanks in advance! Kai ___ 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] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM
Jun 21, 2020, 03:54 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org: > > > > Jun 21, 2020, 01:28 by list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net: > >> We think in particular that a significant part of the cycle parking data >> (generally the residential areas, where there is little parking presently) >> and the speed bumps data are ripe for automated conversion. These form tens >> of thousands of locations which we feel are very low risk, useful data, and >> eminently suitable for import. >> >> Speed bumps: >> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=bumps_road/#14.98/51.47101/-0.02755 >> >> Cycle parking: >> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=parking_new/#14.98/51.46059/-0.05586 >> > please, please, please do not add useless fixme tags > > fixme=Check bike parking type > > is not needed - just lack of bicycle_parking tag is enough to note that, > and will be spotted by tools such as StreetComplete > > (spotted on id RWG102691) > I opened https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/36 > > > And instead of > bicycle_parking=locked > note=Own lock > > use > access=private > > (id RWG102738) > and https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/37 > I remember big import preparations that had issue tracker about tag > conversion > - is it this project? > hopefully it is the correct location ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM
21 Jun 2020, 12:07 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk: > On Sun, 2020-06-21 at 08:42 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: > >> >> >> >> Jun 21, 2020, 01:21 by list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >>> >>>> You’ll remember that a couple of weeks ago I posted about the work I’m >>>> doing to look at getting the relevant bits of Transport for London’s >>>> openly licensed Cycle Infrastructure Database into OSM. >>>> >>>> https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion >>>> >>>> It takes the TfL CID files, compares them against OSM (by making queries >>>> against a freshly loaded Postgres database), and outputs a series of files >>>> for each datatype, all categorised by the type of editing that will be >>>> required to get them into OSM. >>>> >>> >>> You can now view this converted data as an interactive visualisation at: >>> >>> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm/#13.12/51.50426/-0.08725 >>> >>> Use the "Feature type" drop-down to change the type. >>> >>> This shows the results of Richard's excellent scripting to convert the TfL >>> CID data to OSM tagging. It hopefully demonstrates the correctness of >>> Richard's conversion and the extensiveness of the data. I have also >>> included the two TfL photos of each asset. >>> >>> NB You can see the original TfL data using the "TfL CID" layer button, and >>> OSM data using "OSM" layer button. These are both in the main list of >>> cycling data layer buttons on the right-hand side. >>> >> https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=crossings_junctions/#14.77/51.50656/-0.08864 >> is missing bicycle=yes foot=no intentional? See say >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/24923378>> (RWG082685) >> that seems impassable for pedestrians >> >> https://api.cyclestreets.net/v2/infrastructure.image?key=c047ed46f7b50b18=tflcid=RWG082685=1=2=400 >> >> > Why? > > I cannot seen anything prohibiting pedestrians at that point. > > Phil (trigpoint) > Is it ok for pedestrians to walk on the carriageway and cross the road together with cyclists in place marked by bicycle paintings?___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM
Jun 21, 2020, 01:21 by list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net: > > > On Sun, 26 Apr 2020, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > >> You’ll remember that a couple of weeks ago I posted about the work I’m doing >> to look at getting the relevant bits of Transport for London’s openly >> licensed Cycle Infrastructure Database into OSM. >> >> https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion >> >> It takes the TfL CID files, compares them against OSM (by making queries >> against a freshly loaded Postgres database), and outputs a series of files >> for each datatype, all categorised by the type of editing that will be >> required to get them into OSM. >> > > You can now view this converted data as an interactive visualisation at: > > https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm/#13.12/51.50426/-0.08725 > > Use the "Feature type" drop-down to change the type. > > This shows the results of Richard's excellent scripting to convert the TfL > CID data to OSM tagging. It hopefully demonstrates the correctness of > Richard's conversion and the extensiveness of the data. I have also included > the two TfL photos of each asset. > > NB You can see the original TfL data using the "TfL CID" layer button, and > OSM data using "OSM" layer button. These are both in the main list of cycling > data layer buttons on the right-hand side. > https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=crossings_junctions/#14.77/51.50656/-0.08864 is missing bicycle=yes foot=no intentional? See say https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/24923378 (RWG082685) that seems impassable for pedestrians https://api.cyclestreets.net/v2/infrastructure.image?key=c047ed46f7b50b18=tflcid=RWG082685=1=2=400 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM
Jun 21, 2020, 01:28 by list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net: > > Speed bumps: > https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=bumps_road/#14.98/51.47101/-0.02755 > > Cycle parking: > https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=parking_new/#14.98/51.46059/-0.05586 > RWG197392 https://api.cyclestreets.net/v2/infrastructure.image?key=c047ed46f7b50b18=tflcid=RWG197392=1=1=400 looks like bump to me, tagged as hump RWG999715 has broken images --- Overall for both - would it be possible to keep images hosted and link them with image tag? Or maybe - upload images to Wikimedia Commons and link them with wikimedia_commons? It would make easier to verify what went wrong in case of manual verification. Is there a plan which tags would be used by changeset itself? _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM
Jun 21, 2020, 01:28 by list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net: > We think in particular that a significant part of the cycle parking data > (generally the residential areas, where there is little parking presently) > and the speed bumps data are ripe for automated conversion. These form tens > of thousands of locations which we feel are very low risk, useful data, and > eminently suitable for import. > > Speed bumps: > https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=bumps_road/#14.98/51.47101/-0.02755 > > Cycle parking: > https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=parking_new/#14.98/51.46059/-0.05586 > please, please, please do not add useless fixme tags fixme=Check bike parking type is not needed - just lack of bicycle_parking tag is enough to note that, and will be spotted by tools such as StreetComplete (spotted on id RWG102691) And instead of bicycle_parking=locked note=Own lock use access=private (id RWG102738) I remember big import preparations that had issue tracker about tag conversion - is it this project? ___________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Status of Potlatch 2
Jun 18, 2020, 10:57 by nathanc...@outlook.com: > > Hi all, > > > > > > Possibly not the correct place to raise this but I was wondering if anyone > knew what the plans for Potlatch 2 are? > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Microgrants/Microgrants_2020/Proposal/Potlatch_2_for_desktop > Where is best to raise this, if not here? > It was possible to comment on and support microgrant proposals but deadline for that ended. ___________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle Track - part/soft protection tags - proposal
Do you have a photo of such feature? https://i1.wp.com/bicilonatours.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/barcelona-cr-urgell.png link is dead Jun 16, 2020, 20:21 by simon.st...@gmail.com: > Full disclosure - I’m currently working for London Cycling Campaign on a > project to bring data from the Transport For London Cycling Infrastructure > Database to OSM. > > As part of this the question arose as to how to tag cycle facilities that are > give more protection and comfort than a painted lane on the road but not as > much as a fully protected lane with, say, a 50cm concrete kerb separating > cyclists from motor traffic. > > This was raised here - > > https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/23 > > There are may types of ‘hybrid’, ‘partial, or ‘soft’ separation. The London > COVID-19 ‘StreetScape’ programme is bring a lot of this type of > infrastructure to London’s streets very quickly. Looking at OSM Wiki and > previous discussions it doesn’t appear that there is a definitive way to > record these. And indeed, looking at the recent infrastructure and how it has > been entered to OSM by users it is not happening consistently as a result. > > My view on this is that the greatest distinction is between a painted lane > and a track (that has some form of protection). The difference between the > different types of track is less than between no protection at all and > ’something’. > > > Given the multitude of different ways of giving some protection to cyclists I > wonder whether it is better to treat them all as variants of track (since > they all offer much greater protection than a lane but vary in comfort level > - in my view in this order of comfort). > > > > cycleway:track=kerb > cycleway:track=rubber_kerb_wand > cycleway:track=rubber_kerb > > > cycleway:track=concrete_barrier > cycleway:track=plastic_barrier > > > > cycleway:track=stepped > cycleway:track=wandorca > cycleway:track=wand > cycleway:track=orca > > > > > There may be more I've forgotten. > > This would mean that routing engines would see either lane or track at the > basic level, but the routing engine designer could then add further > refinement using info about the type of track (in combination perhaps with > the size/speed of the road it was alongside) if that info was available. > The detail of the precise type of infra is relevant (rather than just simply > tagging these with a generic tag such as ‘part protected’ or ‘hybrid’ since > it may be that some types of infra prove more successful or have safety > issues and there is a desire to identify locations where they are present (eg > the concrete or water filed barriers prevent informal crossing of the road by > pedestrians) > > Since this infra is being rolled out quickly and in volume (both in London > and internationally - though London, due to the fragmented local authorities > seems to be doing it in far more varied ways than other places) there is a > benefit to establishing this now > > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Farmfoods clean up
I think the tag should indicate the primary market and should be consistent. From the Farmfoods home page, "Farmfoods are the Frozen Food Specialists. Our roots are embedded in the distribution and handling of frozen food." That seems pretty definitive to me. Supermarkets often sell a few books, records, home furnishings etc, but I would not think it sensible to tag them as bookstores or record shops. Regards, Mike >My local one was doing a roaring trade in 36-packs of loo roll >a few weeks ago. I believe they are also one of the cheapest >places to get cans of coke. So frozen_food sounds a bit too >limited. _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Farmfoods clean up
Cj Malone wrote: This also means shop=frozen_food, currently they are mainly shop=supermarket My local one was doing a roaring trade in 36-packs of loo roll a few weeks ago. I believe they are also one of the cheapest places to get cans of coke. So frozen_food sounds a bit too limited. Regards, Phil. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
I think a lot of the confusion comes from the name suggestion index (some of the presets for iD) listing Boots twice. However basically all (if not all) of Boots in the UK are pharmacies, because they do prescriptions. In some regions this is not the case, Boots without prescriptions is a chemist. In the UK it's more obvious using Superdrug as an example, some stores do prescriptions, some don't. If Superdrug does prescriptions it may be amenity=pharmacy or it may have a separate node for the pharmacy, with different contract details and opening times, but I don't think this is usually worth it for small shops. Supermarkets on the other hand, I would have there pharmacies as separate nodes, partly for the above, different details. But also because the location inside the store can be massively helpful for people who just want the pharmacy, not the supermarket. See Sainsbury's with a Lloyds Pharmacy inside it https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6868601075 Tesco with a Tesco pharmacy inside https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6841571554 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] hgv=discouraged
I created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:hgv%3Ddiscouraged based on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access content and what I found on internet. Triggered by post on an international mailing list by someone who was unaware that we have a way to tag "Unsuitable for Heavy Goods Vehicles" signs. I never was in UK, but content at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access about "discouraged" value seemed to be a good idea. Review is welcomed - is it matching reality and how OSM community maps such objects? This new page should be found by https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=%22Unsuitable+for+Heavy+Goods+Vehicles%22=Special%3ASearch=Go https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=Unsuitable+for+HGV=Special%3ASearch=default=1 searches (and that was primary reason for creating it). ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] INSPIRE Polygons spatial data
Is
"Although the data is released under the OGL, there is an
important caveat: third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised
to license"
is still applicable what makes it basically useless for us?
May 16, 2020, 16:47 by christian.lederm...@gmail.com:
> Reading through the inspire land registry data, it seems they have adjusted
> their licence:
> What would that mean for use in OSM?
>
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/inspire-index-polygons-spatial-data#conditions-of-use
>
> Conditions of use
>
> Your use of the > INSPIRE> Index Polygons service is governed by conditions.
>
>
> The > INSPIRE> Index Polygons and attributes provided in this service are
> available for use and reuse under the > Open Government Licence (> OGL> )
> <http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/>>
> . This licence enables public bodies to make their data available free of
> charge for reuse.
>
>
> Use under the > OGL> is free. If you fail to comply with any of the
> conditions of the > OGL> then the rights granted to you under the licence
> will end automatically.
>
>
> Under the > OGL> , when reusing the data you must acknowledge the source of
> the data and include the following attribution statement:
>
>
> This information is subject to Crown copyright and is reproduced with the
> permission of HM Land Registry.
>
>
> If you are reusing the polygons (including the associated geometry, namely x,
> y co-ordinates), you must also display the following Ordnance Survey
> copyright/database right notice:
>
>
> © Crown copyright and database rights [year of supply or date of publication]
> Ordnance Survey 100026316.
>
>
> You must provide a link to these conditions, where possible.
>
>
> Under the > OGL> , HM Land Registry permits you to use the data for
> commercial or non-commercial purposes. However, as the licence says, > OGL>
> does not cover the use of third party rights which we are not authorised to
> license. HM Land Registry uses Ordnance Survey data in the preparation of the
> polygons and you will need to comply with Ordnance Survey licensing terms for
> use of the polygons (including the associated geometry, namely x,y
> co-ordinates).
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Christian Ledermann
>
> Newark-on-Trent - UK
> Mobile : +44 7474997517
>
> https://uk.linkedin.com/in/christianledermann
> https://github.com/cleder/
>
>
> <*)))>{
>
> If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left,
> you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If
> you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both.
>
> 1) Don’t drive species to extinction
>
> 2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on.
>
> 3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above.
>
> }<(((*>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
>Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically >blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing >people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive >rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a >mapper mapped on the ground. Eg. I don't think a highway=no tag should be >added to a cross field definitive footpath just because a path round the >field has been mapped. In the case where a path has been permanently blocked, I would suggest disused:highway=footway/bridleway, abandonded:highway=footway or removed:highway=footway, depending on whether the path is still visible and whether the blockage would be relatively easy or difficult to remove. This seems to me to be much better than highway=no. Regards, Mike _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] City centre landuse tagging
There's landuse = mixed, but that feels like a cop out - there's no truly mixed landuse within the planning system, it's always segregated vertically typically with flats above offices above retail. Overlapping land use polygons seems to work fine in practice - many towns and villages have a larger residential poly and then a smaller overlapping retail poly along the High Street or parade. My feeling is that people tend to map landuse to fill in gaps on the map, and since cities have been pretty busy from the start there's not been much impetus to paint them. If you want to sort that out then I'd draw landuse on the scale of a city block, with overlaps and level tags. On Fri, 1 May 2020, 12:38 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/5/20 9:22 pm, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > > Hi, > > Meant to include this in my other post, but...I'm noticing that several > cities in the UK (Bristol, Bath and Chester are good examples) don't seem > to tag the city centre area with an appropriate landuse tag (presumably > retail, commercial or residential). > > > OSM does not (yet) have a way of tagging multiple landuses in the one > place. > > If OSM did have multiple landuses in the one place, how would you render > it? > > > > This is something I've missed over the years... but what is the common > practice for tagging city centre areas? Presumably the above three landuses > are not used because city centres are typically a mixrure of all three. > > What I'm trying to achieve is a 'built-up-area' rendering which covers the > whole of the built up area of a town or city. Not looking for > administrative boundaries - but the actual physically built-up area. > > Thanks, > Nick > > > > _______ > Talk-GB mailing > listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > _______ > 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] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?
Sorry if I did not make myself clear enough. (Every day is a new learning opportunity!) At least it's good to know that I have not broken the system :-) Regards,Peter On Monday, 27 April 2020, 11:24:14 BST, Andy Townsend wrote: On 27/04/2020 11:16, Peter Neale wrote: It seems that we have had 2 of us attempting the same change at the same time. Generally speaking, IRC's better for this sort of request as everyone sees what's happening in real time I hope that the database change control can cope with this. It can - multiple deletion requests will just be ignored > I did try to avoid such a clash by responding here before starting work. I've clearly been working with people from the Netherlands and Germany too long :) - I didn't interpret "I think that I understand the issue ... A solution may be ... I am happy to spend a while trying this" as "I'm doing it NOW". Best Regards, Andy _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?
Noted. I have been careful to separate the ways sharing points and only delete the way in question. Regards,Peter Peter Neale t: 01908 309666 m: 07968 341930 skype: nealepb On Monday, 27 April 2020, 10:56:40 BST, Jez Nicholson wrote: Note that the vast majority of the points in the Way were pre-existing. Any fix should leave them in place. On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:54 AM nathan case wrote: I’m fairly sure Potlach (assuming you want to tackle this via a browser editor) allows you to delete larger areas in one go – rather than deleting point by point. Cheers. From: Peter Neale via Talk-GB Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:43 AM To: Talk-GB ; Jez Nicholson Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Can anyone reverse this changeset please? I think that I understand the issue. A solution may be to delete individual points until the whole way is small enough to be shown on a screen at editable zoom. I am happy to spend a while trying this, but it is probably best if only one of us is stirring the pot at once. Regards, Peter On Monday, 27 April 2020, 10:32:44 BST, Jez Nicholson wrote: A new user has created a new way in Brighton to indicate the Hollingbury residential error https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785162533 They freely admit their error but are unable to remove it, as am I. Would anyone be able to assist please? I only have anecdotal evidence (like this one) but it seems that a 'new user thing to do' is to 'correct my local area'. Might be another reason to lock boundaries from new user changes? ___ 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] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?
It seems that we have had 2 of us attempting the same change at the same time. I hope that the database change control can cope with this. I did try to avoid such a clash by responding here before starting work. Regards,Peter On Monday, 27 April 2020, 11:12:59 BST, Andy Townsend wrote: On 27/04/2020 10:56, Jez Nicholson wrote: Note that the vast majority of the points in the Way were pre-existing. Any fix should leave them in place. On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:54 AM nathan case wrote: I’m fairly sure Potlach (assuming you want to tackle this via a browser editor) allows you to delete larger areas in one go – rather than deleting point by point. I believe I've resolved this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84189877 - please let us know if all is OK. For completeness, that was done in JOSM using the reverter plugin. It also deleted the three extra nodes added in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82728827 . Potlatch 2 would also have worked, but I'd have needed to delete the 3 new nodes separately. Some combination of "revert.pl" "undo.pl" and/or "delete.pl" in the OSM revert scripts https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Revert_scripts would have worked, but I'd have needed to explicitly say "yes please delete the new way and the 3 new nodes". Best Regards, Andy ___________ 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] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?
I THINK I have done it. It took a bit of fiddling to separate some shared points, but then I was able to cut the offending line and delete a section at a time (which fitted on the screen). I hope that I have not disturbed anything else in the process. Regards,Peter Peter Neale t: 01908 309666 m: 07968 341930 skype: nealepb On Monday, 27 April 2020, 10:44:26 BST, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote: I think that I understand the issue. A solution may be to delete individual points until the whole way is small enough to be shown on a screen at editable zoom. I am happy to spend a while trying this, but it is probably best if only one of us is stirring the pot at once. Regards,Peter On Monday, 27 April 2020, 10:32:44 BST, Jez Nicholson wrote: A new user has created a new way in Brighton to indicate the Hollingbury residential error https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785162533 They freely admit their error but are unable to remove it, as am I. Would anyone be able to assist please? I only have anecdotal evidence (like this one) but it seems that a 'new user thing to do' is to 'correct my local area'. Might be another reason to lock boundaries from new user changes?___ 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 mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Can anyone reverse this changeset please?
I think that I understand the issue. A solution may be to delete individual points until the whole way is small enough to be shown on a screen at editable zoom. I am happy to spend a while trying this, but it is probably best if only one of us is stirring the pot at once. Regards,Peter On Monday, 27 April 2020, 10:32:44 BST, Jez Nicholson wrote: A new user has created a new way in Brighton to indicate the Hollingbury residential error https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785162533 They freely admit their error but are unable to remove it, as am I. Would anyone be able to assist please? I only have anecdotal evidence (like this one) but it seems that a 'new user thing to do' is to 'correct my local area'. Might be another reason to lock boundaries from new user changes?___ 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] underfoot art
There may also be merit in tagging a location that is frequently / consistently used for more ephemeral art. Any time you visit, you can reasonably expect to see something, but it might be a different thing from what was there yesterday. Regards,Peter On Monday, 27 April 2020, 10:07:37 BST, Edward Catmur wrote: These things can be permanent – mosaic or other types of inlay. From: Mike Parfitt Sent: 27 April 2020 08:56 To: mar...@templot.com; neal...@yahoo.co.uk; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] underfoot art There may be some merit in tagging permanent artwork on the sides of buildings. But tagging pavement/street art that will vanish after a couple of showers seems pointless. From: Peter Neale via Talk-GB Sent: 26 April 2020 18:38:06 To: mar...@templot.com Cc: Talk-gb OSM List Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] underfoot art Pavement art, or perhaps street painting? Street painting - Wikipedia | | | | | | | | | | | Street painting - Wikipedia | | | | Regards, Peter Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 15:32, Martin Wynne wrote: What is this stuff called? https://goo.gl/maps/uVVfLbicFhT25TM5A https://goo.gl/maps/5g1yJnsAGEHzpqqY6 I got as far as tourism=artwork but then artwork_type= ? thanks, Martin. ___ 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] underfoot art
These things can be permanent – mosaic or other types of inlay. From: Mike ParfittSent: 27 April 2020 08:56To: mar...@templot.com; neal...@yahoo.co.uk; talk-gb@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Re: [Talk-GB] underfoot art There may be some merit in tagging permanent artwork on the sides of buildings.But tagging pavement/street art that will vanish after a couple of showers seems pointless. From: Peter Neale via Talk-GB Sent: 26 April 2020 18:38:06To: mar...@templot.com Cc: Talk-gb OSM List Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] underfoot art Pavement art, or perhaps street painting? Street painting - Wikipedia Street painting - Wikipedia Regards,Peter Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 15:32, Martin Wynne wrote:What is this stuff called? https://goo.gl/maps/uVVfLbicFhT25TM5A https://goo.gl/maps/5g1yJnsAGEHzpqqY6 I got as far as tourism=artwork but then artwork_type= ? thanks, Martin. ___Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] underfoot art
Pavement art, or perhaps street painting? Street painting - Wikipedia | | | | || | | | | | Street painting - Wikipedia | | | | Regards,Peter Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 15:32, Martin Wynne wrote: What is this stuff called? https://goo.gl/maps/uVVfLbicFhT25TM5A https://goo.gl/maps/5g1yJnsAGEHzpqqY6 I got as far as tourism=artwork but then artwork_type= ? thanks, Martin. ___ 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] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
Are you sure it's upto date?: Page last reviewed: 15 December 2016 Next review due: 15 December 2019 The 'GPs' is corrupted with Chines symbols. On 16/04/2020 17:18, Mike Baggaley wrote: The data at https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies looks like an out of date copy of the NHS data to me. You can use the data at https://www.nhs.uk/about-us/nhs-website-datasets/ which is regularly updated. It even includes an opening hours file which can be linked to the pharmacies. You will need to use "¬" as the column separator. Instead of double clicking on the csv file, open Excel with an empty spreadsheet and use import file. You can then choose the column separator. If you follow the "About our data downloads" link it tells you how to import the data. I assume the data is combined from various regions which use their own systems, hence the variety of ways of holding the address data. Regards, Mike Yes, the first two links at https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies are broken for me as well. For the third link, it looks like they tried to do CSV, but didn't understand how to escape commas within the fields, and so opted to use a different character "¬" instead. If you import this into a spreadsheet, and tell it to use just "¬" as the column separator, I think it works out fine, with all the entries in the right place. (You can certainly do this with LibreOffice; I'm not sure about Excel.) The address lines seem to be used inconsistently, but everything is back aligned when you get to the postcode field. ___________ 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] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
Thanks for pointing out how to import and convert the file. After a bit of trial and error, I discovered how to get Excel to use the "¬" as the delimiter and (as you said), the addresses are quite inconsistent, but the data all lines up again in the Post Code Column. There are some further issues in the ParentName Column, with the County sometimes duplicated there and sometimes there instead of the County Column. Thank you for taking me a step forward in my "How to Use Excel" course! Regards,Peter On Thursday, 16 April 2020, 13:52:06 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 12:27, Peter Neale wrote: > I tried following the link to your proposed new source of “official” data, > but none of the 3 links to the data worked very well for me. > > Link 1: (API format) led to http 404 error. > Link 2 (CSV(TSV) format – led to http 404 error > Link 3 (XSV format) downloaded a file with a “.csv” file extension that > seemed to be tab-separated, rather than comma-separated. I took that into a > text editor and did a global Find and Replace of Tab with Comma. The > resultant .csv file loaded into Excel just fine, but it has over 11,000 lines > and many of them must now have additional commas, because a number of fields > are right-shifted (Post Code in the Latitude Column, Latitude in the > Longitude Column, etc.) Also, over 700 have Blank in the Address1 Field, > with the whole address in Address 2, Address 3, etc. Then quite a few (from > my sample in the first 30) have County values in the ParentName Field. So I > fear that, unless you can do a better conversion than I did (and you almost > certainly could, I know!) you will have a lot of manual cleaning up to do, > before you can use this data. Yes, the first two links at https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies are broken for me as well. For the third link, it looks like they tried to do CSV, but didn't understand how to escape commas within the fields, and so opted to use a different character "¬" instead. If you import this into a spreadsheet, and tell it to use just "¬" as the column separator, I think it works out fine, with all the entries in the right place. (You can certainly do this with LibreOffice; I'm not sure about Excel.) The address lines seem to be used inconsistently, but everything is back aligned when you get to the postcode field. Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ 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] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
"Anyone?" Huh? (seems to be lacking the back-story!) Regards,Peter On Thursday, 16 April 2020, 15:16:45 BST, Andy Mabbett wrote: Anyone? _______ 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] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
Hi Robert, I also don’t want to delete the objects completely; as they do exist, so we should be able to map them. However, I do take your point that a pharmacy which is not open to the public is not an “amenity” in OSM. So my 2 “wholesale” pharmacies do not meet the wiki definition of “amenity=pharmacy: a shop where a pharmacist sells medications” > “A shop is a place selling retail products or services.” I think they may both be better tagged as “office=company” (I know that one of them is also the head office of the company and they both function as offices). I could add a Note explaining why they are not tagged as “amenity-pharmacy”, which might deter other mappers from using this tagging, in response to the flag generated by your excellent tool. I tried following the link to your proposed new source of “official” data, but none of the 3 links to the data worked very well for me. Link 1: (API format) led to http 404 error.Link 2 (CSV(TSV) format – led to http 404 errorLink 3 (XSV format) downloaded a file with a “.csv” file extension that seemed to be tab-separated, rather than comma-separated. I took that into a text editor and did a global Find and Replace of Tab with Comma. The resultant .csv file loaded into Excel just fine, but it has over 11,000 lines and many of them must now have additional commas, because a number of fields are right-shifted (Post Code in the Latitude Column, Latitude in the Longitude Column, etc.) Also, over 700 have Blank in the Address1 Field, with the whole address in Address 2, Address 3, etc. Then quite a few (from my sample in the first 30) have County values in the ParentName Field. So I fear that, unless you can do a better conversion than I did (and you almost certainly could, I know!) you will have a lot of manual cleaning up to do, before you can use this data. The good news is that neither of my “wholesale” pharmacies is in that downloaded file, so, if you were able to use it as a source for your comparison tool, it would no longer flag them as “missing pharmacies”. Good luck and thanks for the excellent tools, which keep me busy, trying to find missing post boxes, pharmacies and the like. Regards,Peter On Wednesday, 15 April 2020, 16:46:43 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 20:40, Peter Neale wrote: > I looked up my 2 "wholesale" pharmacies on the list. Unfortunately, they are > both classed as "community", so will continue to be included in your checking > tool. > > So... ...should we: > a. Continue as we are: Plot them in OSM, tag them as pharmacies, but give > them a name that makes it clear that they are not publicly accessible? > b. Delete them from OSM, so that consumers don't think they are publicly > accessible. (But they do exist and who knows what consumers will really want > to find?) Then we could ask you to manually delete them from the checking > tool (but you probably won't want to keep doing that). > c. Do something else? I certainly wouldn't advocate any inappropriate tagging just to keep my tool happy! So if we don't think they should be amenity=pharmacy, then we shouldn't tag them like that. While they may technically be pharmacies, I would think that amenity=pharmacy is best reserved for places that are amenities for the general public to use, which would rule out option (a). As for (b), I wouldn't necessarily delete the objects completely from OSM: if there's a business presence on the ground, that could still be tagged. The question then is whether it's worth tweaking my tool to remove these false positives. You could just ignore the "missing pharmacy" markers local to you that you know are wrong. As you say, I would have a manually maintained "ignore" list, but that would be more effort for me. What I'd prefer to to is to switch to a better data source for my pharmacy list. There is a list of NHS-contracted pharmacies at https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies which I think would closer match what we want for amenity=pharmacy, but unfortunately that list appears to be England only. So I'd need to find corresponding lists for Wales and Scotland. (NI isn't in the data I'm currently using. I've found https://www.psni.org.uk/registration/premises-registration/changes-to-the-premises-register/ but the data is all locked up in PDFs.) Can anyone help out here? Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ 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] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
Hi Robert, I looked up my 2 "wholesale" pharmacies on the list. Unfortunately, they are both classed as "community", so will continue to be included in your checking tool. So... ...should we:a. Continue as we are: Plot them in OSM, tag them as pharmacies, but give them a name that makes it clear that they are not publicly accessible?b. Delete them from OSM, so that consumers don't think they are publicly accessible. (But they do exist and who knows what consumers will really want to find?) Then we could ask you to manually delete them from the checking tool (but you probably won't want to keep doing that). c. Do something else? Regards,Peter >On Sunday, 12 April 2020, 18:44:35 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > > >On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 18:08, Peter Neale wrote: >> As Boots' stores don't ALL have a pharmacy counter, IMHO they should be >> tagged as "shop=chemist". Those that DO have a >>pharmacy (dispensing >> prescriptions) should be additionally tagged, either with "pharmacy=yes", or >> with a separate node for the >>pharmacy. I think that would fit with the >> checking that you describe for your tool. >> >Both of those will get picked up by my tool. You could also do >shop=chemist and amenity=pharmacy together, or just amenity=pharmacy >on it's own. The best choice will probably depend on the nature of the >Boots branch. Some may essentially just be a pharmacy counter with a >small range of other medicines also available. Others branches will be >a much larger store, where the pharmacy counter is more incidental. > >> As regards "pharmacy type", does your data identify what I would call >> "wholesale pharmacies", who have no public access, but supply >>medicines to >> hospitals, care homes and individual customers in their homes? I know of 2 >> in my area. In one case, I changed the >>name to "Jardines (on line)" >> (Node: 6409354480) and in the other to "Mediva Private Pharmacy" (Node: >> 6443190532), in an attempt to >>make it clear that there is no public access. >> Could these be excluded in future? > >The data I use can be downloaded from >https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/registers -- it's the "list of >registered pharmacies". As of today, I'm now just keeping those with a >Type (the last column) of either "Community" or "Temporary - >Community/Portacabin". I think doing this corresponds most closely to >what we'd want to tag as amenity=pharmacy in OSM. For internal >hospital and prison pharmacies, and for internet-only pharmacies that >you can't get prescriptions from as a walk-in customer, I don't think >they should be tagged as amenity=pharmacy. > >Best wishes,> >Robert. > >-- >Robert Whittaker ___ 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] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
Hi Robert, As Boots' stores don't ALL have a pharmacy counter, IMHO they should be tagged as "shop=chemist". Those that DO have a pharmacy (dispensing prescriptions) should be additionally tagged, either with "pharmacy=yes", or with a separate node for the pharmacy. I think that would fit with the checking that you describe for your tool. As regards "pharmacy type", does your data identify what I would call "wholesale pharmacies", who have no public access, but supply medicines to hospitals, care homes and individual customers in their homes? I know of 2 in my area. In one case, I changed the name to "Jardines (on line)" (Node: 6409354480) and in the other to "Mediva Private Pharmacy" (Node: 6443190532), in an attempt to make it clear that there is no public access. Could these be excluded in future? Regards,Peter On Sunday, 12 April 2020, 14:41:01 BST, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: >On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 18:39, Dave Love wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 12:08 +0100, SK53 wrote: >> > Robert Whittaker has a Pharmacy QA <https://osm.mathmos.net/pharmacy/ >> > > site >> >> That shows a Boots missing which I tagged as the brand from the >> correction iD wanted (brand=Boots shop=chemist). How should Boots be >> tagged, and does iD need a fix? (I assume all Boots have pharmacies, >> but maybe not.) > >As far as my tool at https://osm.mathmos.net/pharmacy/progress/ is >concerned, pharmacies are recognised as OSM objects tagged with >either>amenity=pharmacy or pharmacy=yes*. (The latter can be used on things >like supermarkets and doctors surgeries, when things aren't mapped in >enough detail to have a separate amenity=pharmacy node.) > >As for whether all Boots stores have pharmacies, I think most do, but >some don't: >https://www.boots-uk.com/about-boots-uk/about-boots/boots-in-numbers/ >says there are 2,465 Boots stores, but in the General Pharmaceutical >Council register of Pharmacies, there are only 2304 premises >registered to 'Boots UK Limited'. > >Robert > >PS: I've just noticed that the data I'm using for my tool now contains >a "Pharmacy Type" field. This means I can exclude internet only >pharmacies, temporary locations (e.g. for events) and internal >hospital and prisons pharmacies. This will hopefully make the >comparison shown by the tool must more useful. > >* Because of the change to exclude hospital and prison pharmacies from >the GPhC data, OSM objects with pharmacy=yes will only be picked up in >my tool if they do not also have amenity=hospital or amenity=prison >too. -- Robert Whittaker ___ 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] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence
Why country codes? OSM is geospatially aware. On 09/04/2020 14:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 14:26, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 at 09:21, Tony OSM wrote: If the data is to be in the public domain the next step has to be tagging. Do we need country specific tags for these two pieces of data? What should they be? [snip] So I'd propose that we use either ref:uprn and ref:usrn, or ref:UK:uprn and ref:UK:usrn. What does everyone else think? Oops. If we were to use the ISO Alpha-2 country codes, it should of course be GB rather then UK. So that would make the keys ref:GB:uprn and ref:GB:usrn . Robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence
Hi Lester, Sorry if my post was a bit of a rant. I have a history of having to fight to get IT systems that do the hard work and preventing them demanding that people do the translation into "machine-speak". Thanks for the explanation. Regards,Peter On Thursday, 9 April 2020, 10:29:05 BST, Lester Caine wrote: On 03/04/2020 10:15, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote: > So, will I have to quote a 20-digit alpha-numeric code, if I want to > order something from Amazon? ..or get my grandchildren to send me a > birthday card? > > (I do not know what these UPRN's look like, but I bet they are not as > easy to remember as "Rose Cottage, 3 Church Lane, XX3 4ZZ") > > We have to think about human readability and memorability, versus > machine computability and we need to be careful not to make the humans > do all the work, just to make it easier for the machines. Making me use > a PostCode is already making me do some of the work, but at least they > are only 6 or 7 characters. The NLPG is intended to provide a single database of all the land in the United Kingdom. Councils have been building this for many years now, and it allows parcels of land that the Post Office do not have any reference to in their Postal Address File to be uniquely identified. Looking up data using Postcodes can be fun but often due to people having the wrong postcode anyway. We can identify the vast majority of residential and business locations using 'building Number'/'Postcode', but additional data is useful to identify that this short form is actually correct, but your council tax or business rates will be charged against the UPRN reference on the council systems. It is not intended to be anything other than a 'machine readable' unique refference ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.uk Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.uk _______ 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] Geospatial Commission to release UPRN/ UPSN identifiers under Open Government Licence
So, will I have to quote a 20-digit alpha-numeric code, if I want to order something from Amazon? ..or get my grandchildren to send me a birthday card? (I do not know what these UPRN's look like, but I bet they are not as easy to remember as "Rose Cottage, 3 Church Lane, XX3 4ZZ") We have to think about human readability and memorability, versus machine computability and we need to be careful not to make the humans do all the work, just to make it easier for the machines. Making me use a PostCode is already making me do some of the work, but at least they are only 6 or 7 characters. Regards,Peter On Friday, 3 April 2020, 09:59:27 BST, Mark Goodge wrote: On 03/04/2020 09:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > There will presumably be a drive in government circles to store > addresses as UPRN's, and then fetch the associated location and > address data from AddressBase. Assuming Rob's interpretation is > correct (I think it probably is) then this could be bad new for > sources of addresses and postcodes for OSM. While we'll be more easily > able to geo-locate objects from their URPN's, the actual addresses in > any datasets will become more likely to be contaminated by OS's IP > rights in AddressBase. In the long run, I suspect this could actually spell the end for postal addresses (as distinct from geographic addresses). If every property has a published, unique number, analogous to a telephone number, then all that's necessary for, say, Amazon to deliver a package to me is for them to know the UPRN of my house. Their routing software will then do all the heavy lifting of plotting how to get the package from their depot to my door. Mark ___________ 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] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections
Hi UK OSM community, As you might already know, Facebook released its AI-based detections publicly on 08/09/2019 (https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Available-Countries). With a team of mappers @Amazon we are planning to improve missing roads in UK using Facebook detections as a source. Please let us know if you have any ongoing projects using this data source. While adding missing roads, we will be adding all the associated access tags as per available on-ground resources. Our team will edit roads manually using a normal iD editor and satellite imageries available with FB detections as a background source and will not use RapidID editor or JOSM. Also changeset comments will be addressed by our team on top priority. Regards, Jothirnadh ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps
I commend your efforts, but can I suggest a small change to your proposal? (I am still a bit of a novice on OSM, so please feel free to tell me I am totally wrong) Rather than "lcc:id=1849" should you not use, "id=lcc1849", or perhaps "ref=lcc1849", or even "ref:lcc=1849". I am not sure which (if any) would be most correct, but I feel that what you are trying to record is a type of reference or identity, not a type of lcc. I also note that Taginfo shows 91,800 uses of "id=*", but over 10.3 million uses of "ref=*", so "ref =nnn"would seem by far the most popular tag for a reference number. Also, I do not see the need to "hide" the comment as "lcc:comments="; why not just use "note=under city centre team management"? As I said, please feel free to tell me I am wrong; I am engaging here as part of my education in OSM. Regards,Peter On Thursday, 26 March 2020, 10:12:56 GMT, Patrick Lake wrote: Hi Jez, I agree, we are going to encourage them to rely on OSM as their main source of data in the future, but whether they’ll use it for essential stuff like planning collection routes I don’t know. We (ODI Leeds), however, will be relying on OSM data, as this is all part of a wider project we’re doing for LCC involving analysis on how much waste is collected from these bins and where the optimum location for additional litter bins and recycling points would be. So we’re keen for it to be accurate. I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be meaningless to anyone not from the council. Here’s the rest of the tags we planned to use with examples from the data we’re importing (obviously we can change these): amenity=waste_basket - waste_basket:model=”metal square twin” - condition=good/fair/poor - waste_basket:defects=loose - waste_basket:collection_days=mon/fri (or lcc:collection_days ?) - lcc:id=1849 - lcc:comments=”under city centre team management” What do you think? Cheers, Patrick o/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Anybody in the Dunstable/Luton area?
Hi Dave, No, it doesn’t. However, I now understand your comments about Govia Thameslink. The rail industry data has two different types of bus services within its data. There are “BR” services which are “bus replacement” and there are “BS” services, which are “bus services”. The former do what they say on the tin. The latter are ordinary (non-rail) bus services that are in the data to allow the rail industry to ticket you to places that you cannot get to by train. Once upon a time it was perfectly possible to buy a rail ticket to Dunstable, despite there not being a station there. I don’t believe it is possible now, though - the national rail website doesn’t recognise Dunstable, and the latest MSN (Master Station Names) file from ATOC doesn’t list it either. I suspect then that there isn’t a CRS code for Dunstable. Even if there was, I would be very surprised if that was the stop used. Far more likely to be The Quadrant or ASDA or Church Street (formerly The Winston Churchill until it shut) which are more in the centre. Regards, Stuart On 22 Mar 2020, at 15:56, Dave F mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote: Thanks. Useful. From your data can you confirm if it has a 3-digit/CRS code? On 22/03/2020 15:05, Stuart Reynolds wrote: Hi Dave, I maintain the electronic timetable and stops data for Central Bedfordshire, which includes Dunstable. According to my data, that road (and the associated bus stop) are used by Arriva services F70 and F77 between Luton and Milton Keynes. The road is indeed one way - it is the exit from the westbound busway. The entrance back onto the busway is Church Street. As to the location, the NaPTAN data is correct, using coordinates supplied to my by Central Bedfordshire, and is on the left hand side of the road, orientated for buses heading NW along Station Road as they come off the busway. So yes, it is incorrect in OSM. Regards, Stuart Reynolds for traveline south east and anglia On 22 Mar 2020, at 14:17, Dave F via Talk-GB mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org><mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: Hi If you're in the Dunstable/Luton area would you be able to clarify if this way is used as a regular bus route and if the bus stop at the Western end exists? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/218924564 The only routes I've located so far, continue along the Busway. There's a contributor who claims there a service, run by Govia Thameslink, which goes to Luton, which is a bit surprising as it's oneway. It also means the bus stop is located on the wrong side of the road. Cheers DaveF _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org><mailto: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] Anybody in the Dunstable/Luton area?
Thanks. Useful. From your data can you confirm if it has a 3-digit/CRS code? On 22/03/2020 15:05, Stuart Reynolds wrote: Hi Dave, I maintain the electronic timetable and stops data for Central Bedfordshire, which includes Dunstable. According to my data, that road (and the associated bus stop) are used by Arriva services F70 and F77 between Luton and Milton Keynes. The road is indeed one way - it is the exit from the westbound busway. The entrance back onto the busway is Church Street. As to the location, the NaPTAN data is correct, using coordinates supplied to my by Central Bedfordshire, and is on the left hand side of the road, orientated for buses heading NW along Station Road as they come off the busway. So yes, it is incorrect in OSM. Regards, Stuart Reynolds for traveline south east and anglia On 22 Mar 2020, at 14:17, Dave F via Talk-GB mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: Hi If you're in the Dunstable/Luton area would you be able to clarify if this way is used as a regular bus route and if the bus stop at the Western end exists? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/218924564 The only routes I've located so far, continue along the Busway. There's a contributor who claims there a service, run by Govia Thameslink, which goes to Luton, which is a bit surprising as it's oneway. It also means the bus stop is located on the wrong side of the road. Cheers DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Anybody in the Dunstable/Luton area?
Hi If you're in the Dunstable/Luton area would you be able to clarify if this way is used as a regular bus route and if the bus stop at the Western end exists? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/218924564 The only routes I've located so far, continue along the Busway. There's a contributor who claims there a service, run by Govia Thameslink, which goes to Luton, which is a bit surprising as it's oneway. It also means the bus stop is located on the wrong side of the road. Cheers DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ficticious embankments?
Mar 15, 2020, 22:36 by witwa...@disroot.org: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 09:18:59PM +, David Woolley wrote: > >> On 14/03/2020 18:09, ael wrote: >> > I have just noticed some new "Embankments" added around a fortnight ago. >> > These were added to some stone circles in Cornwall which I know well and >> > have extensively surveyed. There is no trace of any embankments. No >> > source was given and the user does not appear to be local. >> >> I suspect this is a case of tagging for the renderer, which is, of course, >> wrong. >> > > That is what I thought, and mentioned in the changeset comment. I have > had no response as yet from the user. > > A *very* brief look at those recent edits suggests this might be a world > wide problem, and may need a mass revert. There are other changes with > no source given, and I wonder if copyright material has been used. > Given no reply and confirmed tagging for renderer reverting all similar edits should be acceptable (and likely - desirable). _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Suggestion - drink_water:refill
> On 14 Mar 2020, at 21:21, Mark Goodge wrote: > > > > On 14/03/2020 19:36, Jake Edmonds wrote: >>> On 14 Mar 2020, at 20:09, Mark Goodge >> <mailto:m...@good-stuff.co.uk>> wrote: > >>> If we do come up with an agreed tagging system, I'd be happy to add tags >>> for all the establishments in my town that I know offer this service. >> Maybe you have already seen them, but here is a link to the recently >> approved tags. Do you have any thoughts? >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adrinking_water%3Arefill > > That seems reasonable. My only real concern is that tagging as part of a > network could cause the network to think that we are re-creating their > proprietary database. I'd prefer to stick with a simple > drinking_water:refill=yes Is that a concern from a legal standpoint or an attempt to keep a good relationship between OSM and Refill (or any other network?) As a consumer, I’m looking for a place to refill my bottle, I’m not so concerned about which network the establishment is part of. Maybe I missed it, but I can’t remember any discuss from the proposal about why drink_water:refill:network was needed, maybe Stuart can clarify? But could the same thing be said about most brand related tags in OSM? > >>> And I could do that purely by observation; I don't have the Refill app or >>> any other insight into their database, so there's no danger of adding >>> non-free data to OSM. I'm sure that there are plenty of other people up and >>> down the country who would be in a similar position. >> Another way to avoid any worry of users submitting non-free data is to make >> storefront photos part of the project. > > Possibly, although that makes it less likely that we'll get a critical mass > of contributions. I could tag several establishments in my town from memory. > Having to go back and photograph them would be an additional barrier. Of course, I certainly didn’t mean to suggest it as a requirement but more of an optional extension that would serve to both give users greater detail and help contributors ‘prove’ that they were not copy Refills data. > > Mark > > _______ > 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] Abusive posts
Hi Matthew, Thanks for dealing with this. I'm just glad that it is so rare. Regards,Peter On Saturday, 14 March 2020, 12:14:46 GMT, Matthew Newton wrote: Hi all, Seen all the messages. Apologies for the delay in sorting this. In all the years I've been monitoring this list I don't ever recall seeing behaviour like that. It most certainly isn't acceptable. Minor disagreements at times, sure, but outright abuse is way over the top. He's gone. Cheers, Matthew ___ 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] List moderator - volunteers needed
On 14/03/2020 11:37, Dan S wrote: Op za 14 mrt. 2020 om 11:20 schreef Tom Hughes via Talk-GB : On 14/03/2020 11:13, Rob Nickerson wrote: As may have seen in Simon's response it sounds like we currently lack list moderators. If this is something you would like to do please email this mailing list. Likewise we probably need to think about the criteria of what makes a good list moderator. If there are any traits that you'd like to see in a mailing list moderator please share with this mailing list. Just to clarify what Simon said a bit before you all get carried away, there absolutely is a list administrator and there is evidence that they are processing the moderation queue. That's not to say that they are actively reading the messages on the list or applying any particular code of conduct. It does mean however that you can't just choose somebody and ask me to make them the list owner - you will need to try and make contact with the existing list owner and discuss the situation with them before attempting a putsch. Do they read messages to the "owner" address more actively? talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org I have no idea but hopefully. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] List moderator - volunteers needed
On 14/03/2020 11:13, Rob Nickerson wrote: As may have seen in Simon's response it sounds like we currently lack list moderators. If this is something you would like to do please email this mailing list. Likewise we probably need to think about the criteria of what makes a good list moderator. If there are any traits that you'd like to see in a mailing list moderator please share with this mailing list. Just to clarify what Simon said a bit before you all get carried away, there absolutely is a list administrator and there is evidence that they are processing the moderation queue. That's not to say that they are actively reading the messages on the list or applying any particular code of conduct. It does mean however that you can't just choose somebody and ask me to make them the list owner - you will need to try and make contact with the existing list owner and discuss the situation with them before attempting a putsch. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] European Water Project - Introduction
Thanks Simon, I had thought that such a tightly run and structured organisation as OSM would have someone moderating every mailing list Regards,Peter On Saturday, 14 March 2020, 08:47:49 GMT, Simon Poole wrote: Peter I don't believe there is/are any active moderators at this point. The UK community should nominate one or more, and ask the OWG to instate them as list moderators. In any case pleading to them here will not work (and likely wouldn't work even if there were some). Simon Am 13.03.2020 um 23:37 schrieb Peter Neale via Talk-GB: List Moderators, Please remove @Daniel Holsey from this list. His contribution will not be missed. Regards, Peter ___ 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] European Water Project - Introduction
List Moderators, Please remove @Daniel Holsey from this list. His contribution will not be missed. Regards,Peter On Friday, 13 March 2020, 21:31:57 GMT, Daniel Holsey wrote: Your A Nonce Mate On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 21:03, BD wrote: Hi, I quite like the idea of adding free water refill places to the OSM. One idea which could not only benefit the European Water Project but OSM as a whole is to add a tick box on the onosm.org. I could read something like "We do provide free water refills" - link to European Water Project. If we would promote the onosm.org a bit more not only numbers of businesses aware of/on OSM would increase, + people aware of Water Project. Water Project volunteers (if there are any) could direct businesses to onosm.org for ease of adding info, this way we would "kill two birds with one stone" - as we say where I come from. cheers, dzidek23 Dnia 13 marca 2020 16:03 talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org napisał(a): Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions totalk...@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gbor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' totalk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list attalk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: European Water Project - Introduction (Colin Smale) 2. Re: European Water Project - Introduction (Tony OSM) 3. Cancellation of Nottingham pub meetup scheduled for 17th March (SK53) 4. Re: European Water Project - Introduction (Peter Neale) -- Message: 1Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 13:12:15 +0100From: Colin Smale To: Daniel Holsey Cc: European Water Project ,talk-gb@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Re: [Talk-GB] European Water Project - IntroductionMessage-ID: <29886cc9030c6a1cc989733c3fbec...@xs4all.nl>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Daniel, that is completely uncalled for. If you can't live and let live,take your own advice and go procreate somewhere else. On 2020-03-13 12:27, Daniel Holsey wrote: Fuck Off On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 10:31, European Water Project wrote: Hello, My name is Stuart Rapoport. This my first message on the UK OSM forum, so I decided to give an introduction to our project before jumping into the thread regarding the tag drinking_water:refill = yes. A small group of us have recently started a project called European Water Project. Our project is 100% collaborative and 100% open data, powered by OSM and wikidata. Our goal is to help empower individuals to reduce single use waste in their lives. With the help of many (including OSM members in Italy, Switzerland, France, and Spain), we have written a set of instructions available in 7 languages for adding new water fountains to OSM and as well as instructions on how to add photos to Wikimedia Commons and link them back : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CH/Project/European_Water_Project We have developed a Progressive Web Application which allows individuals to find nearby locations where they can refill their sustainable water bottle for free anywhere in Europe.We strive to contribute to the builiding of a collaborative network of foutains, cafes, restaurants and other establishments which are willing to allow individuals to fill up their water bottle as part of the battle agains single-use waste. There are currently over 235,000 fountains and 70 cafés available on the App. Our web App is available directly at https://europeanwaterproject.org (installation instructions are in the hamburger menu). A description of the project and the project genesis : https://drive.google.com/open?id=1f0dts-RErPepgrEnddSAOh1rDqpxMYC3 Best regards, Stuart Rapoport ___Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-- next part --An HTML attachment was scrubbed...URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20200313/5e67a2fc/attachment-0001.htm> -- Message: 2Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:18:37 +From: Tony OSM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Re: [Talk-GB] European Water Project - IntroductionMessage-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" I completely agree with Colin On 13/03/2020 12:12, Colin Smale wrote: Daniel, that is completely uncalled for. If you can't live and let live, take your own advice and go procreate somewhere else. On 2020-03-13 12:27, Daniel Holsey wrote: Fuck Off On Fri
[Talk-GB] geomob podcast
Have you found the excellent geomob podcast yet? If not, it is worth checking it out. This week's episode showcases the cartographic career of Steve Chilton, and more importantly his work with and for the OpenStreetMap project over many years, including his thoughts on the good, and not so good, aspects of OSM. [And will he have got a mention in for his fell running books?!] Episode at: https://thegeomob.com/podcast/episode-6 Geomob is a series of regular events in European cities for location based service creators and enthusiasts.___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fw: European Water Project - Introduction
For the avoidance of doubt (and to retain my good name), can I please point out that "this swearing jerk" referred to by @BrianPrangle is not me but... >- Forwarded message ->From: Daniel Holsey >To: >European Water Project >Cc: >"talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" >Sent: Friday, 13 March >2020, 11:29:24 GMT>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] European Water Project - Introduction >Fuck Off Regards,Peter Peter Neale t: 01908 309666 m: 07968 341930 skype: nealepb - Forwarded message - From: Brian Prangle To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Friday, 13 March 2020, 18:00:10 GMTSubject: Re: [Talk-GB] European Water Project - Introduction Can an admin please remove this swearing jerk from the mailing list, for totally unacceptable behaviour? On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 16:03, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote: Well. That's a powerful, reasoned argument (NOT!). If you don't have anything constructive to add to the debate I suggest that you keep your opinions to yourself. Peter Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 11:29, Daniel Holsey wrote: ___________ 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 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] European Water Project - Introduction
Well. That's a powerful, reasoned argument (NOT!). If you don't have anything constructive to add to the debate I suggest that you keep your opinions to yourself. Peter Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 11:29, Daniel Holsey wrote: ___ 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 mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Suggestion - drink_water:refill
I understand there is an existing suggestion on the UK Quarterly Project talk page about drinking water but I wanted to add my support now that the drinking_water:refill proposal was approved. The tag is used to indicate if the establishment participates in a water refill network. I understand Refill.org.uk are unwilling to license their data. The drinking_water:refill tag is currently in use by the European Water Project's website and priceless.zottelig.ch <http://priceless.zottelig.ch/>. In addition OsmAnd have just added support according to their GitHub, I hope they will push an update to their apps soon. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adrinking_water%3Arefill <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:drinking_water:refill> https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd-resources/commit/15f5c919d3ac25cc048c4f3e0a569f7981999f65 <https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd-resources/commit/15f5c919d3ac25cc048c4f3e0a569f7981999f65> Many thanks Jake _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] March Meeting
I plan to be there. Ian On Sun, 1 Mar 2020 at 14:17, Brian Prangle wrote: > Hi everyone > > Thursday March 5th 730 The Bull. Come with ideas for travelling meetings > in the summer > > Regards > > Brian > > ___ > Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list > Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands > ___________ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging showgrounds
As a local, I think it should be tagged as commercial. There is some event there most weeks. It's a very commercial organisation. On Mon, 24 Feb 2020, 09:58 Mark Goodge, wrote: > Morning all, > > Someone has commented on a change I made to the Three Counties > showground last year when I changed the tagging to landuse=grass rather > than landuse=commercial. Their suggestion is that it really ought to be > landuse=recreation_ground, with a secondary tag of surface=grass. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74103491#map=16/52.0834/-2.3235 > > I've responded to that comment on the changeset, but I thought it would > be worth throwing out here as well. > > I do think that tagging showgrounds as landuse=commercial is generally > incorrect; it doesn't match the description of 'commercial' in the wiki > and doesn't reflect the typical uses of showgrounds both when a show is > on and when one isn't. > > The reason I tagged the Three Counties showground as grass is because, > most of the year, that's precisely what it is - an open area of > grassland. Unless there is an event on (which only happens for a > minority of days in a year) it is just an open space. > > Looking at a few other showgrounds across the country, we don't seem to > have any consistency. > > The East of England Showground is tagged as landuse=recreation_ground: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.5456/-0.3170 > > The Suffolk Showground is tagged as a park: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0330/1.2277 > > So is the Staffordshire County Showgound: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.8255/-2.0643 > > The former Royal Showground at Stoneleigh is tagged as commercial, but > in that case that's probably now correct as it's no longer used as a > showground and is gradually being redeveloped as a business park: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3435/-1.5220 > > The Great Yorkshire Showground isn't tagged as an area at all, just a > network of roads and individual features: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.9830/-1.5065 > > Similarly with the Norfolk Showground > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.6490/1.1793 > > And the Bath and West Showground: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.1552/-2.5265 > > So, what do people think? Personally, I think that showgrounds ought to > be tagged as an area, because they do, typically, have clear boundaries > and are distinct from their surrounding context. But I'm less sure what > the area should be tagged as. I think commercial is usually wrong, for > the reasons I've already given, but I can see an argument for either > grass, recreation_ground or even park. > > Thoughts, anyone? > > Mark > > > _______ > 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] Cheers Drive, Bristol
On 15/02/2020 12:08, Borbus wrote: I've long suspected that local councils and other government bodies are giving data directly to Google. They're given to everyone. Look at the planning applications. They often have street names in the documents. Many OSMers are sensible enough not to add 'proposed' data, as developments are often severely amended or cancelled. It's much better to wait until there's ground evidence. Much rather be accurate than first. DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Cheers Drive, Bristol
I wondered if it might have come from OS OpenData so I downloaded the latest OS Open Names, but no it isn't there yet. Unless it's come from OS MasterMap (anyone on here have access to check?), it does appear the council are collaborating with the goog. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge
On 06/02/2020 16:49, Phillip Barnett wrote: And here is the email from the guy who did the original mapping, the last time this came up, including his reasoning for the amenity Tag rather than building tag https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017457.html Note the time it took to write just that one post was longer than it would have taken to convert the OSM data & a few lines code to rectify the problem. There isn't constant change. In this instance is was created incorrectly & needs to be fixed once. His claim about building=university is moot. 'One feature, one OSM element' has been long established. DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge
On 06/02/2020 15:48, Brian Prangle wrote: "OSM is not beholden to data consumers. They take the data 'as is'. That includes any amendments My planned amendment can always be reversed if there is a valid reason. Upsetting CU isn't one" Not a great way to build a community when the data user in question put in a lot of resource in order to create the OSM data in the firstplac <https://osmuk.org/case-studies/mapping-a-distributed-campus-for-the-university-of-cambridge/>e CU wanted a new site map. They paid someone to provide it for them. Which is fine, but please don't suggest they're contributions are superior to those of any anybody else. Especially when they decided to knowingly go against accepted tagging procedures. Many of us "put in a lot of resource". They should expect their incorrect data to be rectified just as any of contributor should. I'm mildly irritated that these corrections have to be done by those who didn't create the errors in the first place. DaveF _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt
On 31/01/2020 23:49, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: Hi Over the past few months I've been sorting & adding detail to the UK's National Rail railway stations so that OSM has the correct amount. As it's been a week, with no objections, I'm proceeding with the amendments. I'm keeping a copy of the stations.so they can be reverted in the unlikely event they require reverting. DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge
198-county-hall-cambridge#.Xjr8Fm52u01>,
built around 1910 and Grade II listed, the S part is a 17th century house
<https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101332167-christs-college-x-staircase-cambridge-market-ward#.Xjr7yG52u00>
(formerly 'X' staircase), also Grade II. The two buildings form a single
unit of student accommodation which presumably reflects the mapping.
Cheers,
Jerry
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 15:15, Dave F via Talk-GB
wrote:
On 04/02/2020 14:28, Dan S wrote:
Hi Dave,
I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about
what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from
building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?
That's correct. I'm going to load the 1050 return by this overpass query
into JOSM:
[bbox:{{bbox}}];
nwr[amenity=university][building=university];
out meta geom;
plus another 7 which are still tagged as building=yes.
(Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)
There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QnH
These are the remaining 117 amenity=university which will need to be
rectified at a later date..
Cheers
DaveF
Op di 4 feb. 2020 om 14:15 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
:
Hi
There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html
Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes
A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance
with the wiki.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767
This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.
The user who created his disparate tagging schema has had plenty of time
to rectify. I think this should be performed now.
___________
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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Mappa Mercia this Thursday
Daer all, > > By my calendar it is the next meetup this coming Thursday. I am assuming > central Birmingham, likely at The Bull...? I'll be there as well. Eike > > *Rob* > > _______ > Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list > Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature _______ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge
>On Tuesday, 4 February 2020, 16:40:21 GMT, Andy Townsend wrote: > >On 04/02/2020 15:37, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote: >>There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch >>IMHO, it would be a waste of time, if you tried to create a single area object (do I mean "closed way"?) to be the >>university. That would just be most of the city centre. >>The University is a collection of colleges, so could be a relation... ...except that each college is probably in >several buildings and they may not be in a contiguous area, so each college might have to be a relation of >buildings. So you would have a hierarchy of relations. >... or, if the general feeling is to go ahead with this change, just add a node in the vicinity of the Senate House / St Mary's >Church for it. It'd be no less wrong. >By the way, there is at least one "sensibly mapped" university in Cambridge: >https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/3987047 >Best Regards, >Andy Yes, that indeed is fine, but then it is a single campus, which even a tourist could identify. The problem with THE Cambridge University (as with Oxford,also) is that the colleges are all over the town and there is no campus. Blame the founders in of the colleges in the thirteenth and fourteenth Centuries, who clearly gave no thought to the poor mappers in OSM. ___ 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] Still too many universities in Cambridge
Feb 4, 2020, 16:37 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org: > >> (Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see > >> if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a > >> relation or area covering a large swathe of them.) > > > >There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch > IMHO, it would be a waste of time, if you tried to create a single area > object (do I mean "closed way"?) to be the university. > Or multipolygon, like for https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3830877 > The University is a collection of colleges, so could be a relation... > ...except that each college is probably in several buildings and they may not > be in a contiguous area, so each college might have to be a relation of > buildings. So you would have a hierarchy of relations. > Or areas that belong to multipolygon of college and multipolygon of university (?) > We used to enjoy the look of puzzlement on the faces of (mostly American) > tourists, who stood in the middle of town, surrounded by colleges, mixed in > with shops, offices and other buildings, and asked which way to go to the > University. > :) In this case university multipolygon (or closed way) covering most of city center sounds correct and would help OSM-using tourists. _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge
Feb 4, 2020, 15:14 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org: > Hi > There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others. > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html > > Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes > A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance with > the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767 > This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data. > +1 I assume that individual buildings are not separate universities? I would expect one area (maybe multipolygon) for one university. ___________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge
>> (Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
>> if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
>> relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)
>
>There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch
IMHO, it would be a waste of time, if you tried to create a single area object
(do I mean "closed way"?) to be the university. That would just be most of the
city centre.
The University is a collection of colleges, so could be a relation...
...except that each college is probably in several buildings and they may not
be in a contiguous area, so each college might have to be a relation of
buildings. So you would have a hierarchy of relations.
Then, I assume that there will be some buildings that belong to the University,
but not to any college. That was certainly true of my Uni (it lies about 70
miles West of Cambridge and is a darker blue), where the Engineering Building,
Physics labs, Museum, Examination Halls were all University assets. We used to
enjoy the look of puzzlement on the faces of (mostly American) tourists, who
stood in the middle of town, surrounded by colleges, mixed in with shops,
offices and other buildings, and asked which way to go to the University.
Regards,Peter
On Tuesday, 4 February 2020, 15:15:38 GMT, Dave F via Talk-GB
wrote:
On 04/02/2020 14:28, Dan S wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about
> what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from
> building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?
That's correct. I'm going to load the 1050 return by this overpass query
into JOSM:
[bbox:{{bbox}}];
nwr[amenity=university][building=university];
out meta geom;
plus another 7 which are still tagged as building=yes.
> (Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
> if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
> relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)
There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QnH
These are the remaining 117 amenity=university which will need to be
rectified at a later date..
Cheers
DaveF
> Op di 4 feb. 2020 om 14:15 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
> :
>> Hi
>> There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html
>>
>> Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes
>> A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance
>> with the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767
>> This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.
>>
>> The user who created his disparate tagging schema has had plenty of time
>> to rectify. I think this should be performed now.
>>
>> _______
>> 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge
On 04/02/2020 14:28, Dan S wrote:
Hi Dave,
I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about
what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from
building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?
That's correct. I'm going to load the 1050 return by this overpass query
into JOSM:
[bbox:{{bbox}}];
nwr[amenity=university][building=university];
out meta geom;
plus another 7 which are still tagged as building=yes.
(Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)
There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QnH
These are the remaining 117 amenity=university which will need to be
rectified at a later date..
Cheers
DaveF
Op di 4 feb. 2020 om 14:15 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
:
Hi
There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html
Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes
A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance
with the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767
This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.
The user who created his disparate tagging schema has had plenty of time
to rectify. I think this should be performed now.
_______
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] Still too many universities in Cambridge
Hi There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance with the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767 This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data. The user who created his disparate tagging schema has had plenty of time to rectify. I think this should be performed now. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Mappa Mercia this Thursday
I hope to be there. Ian On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 18:14, Brian Prangle wrote: > Good for me - I'll be there > > On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 13:12, Rob Nickerson > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> By my calendar it is the next meetup this coming Thursday. I am assuming >> central Birmingham, likely at The Bull...? >> >> *Rob* >> _______ >> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list >> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands >> > _______ > Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list > Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands > ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] Soild fuel
There's shop=chandler, and waterway=fuel. On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, 15:48 Nick Allen, wrote: > Hi, > > The main usage that I'm aware of is to do with the waterways network in > the UK. Many narrowboats, and others, have solid fuel stoves on board, and > buy from Chandler's or narrowboats that work the waterways supplying gas, > solid fuel and other consumables. > > Mapping the mobile suppliers would be difficult, add they mover on after a > few days, but the Chandler's, and petrol stations that supply the boaters > could do with a consistent tagging scheme. > > Nick > (Tallguy) > my phone is responsible for any spelling mistakes! > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, 13:49 SK53, wrote: > >> There's one <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3727937526/history> >> fairly close to me (or at least their sign is still there, I've not >> recently verified that they still exist). We used shop=coal (but see >> below), which is not far off the more generic shop=fuel. >> >> It's over 20 years ago since I bought coal. I ordered it and was >> delivered, perhaps 1 cwt which lasted the winter. I think that's how most >> solid fuel will be sold, so most are not really shops but coal merchants >> yards. I have no idea how these should be tagged, but shop is probably not >> particularly correct. Similar things will be true for suppliers of LPG or >> Oil for heating systems in rural areas. In Spain people used to buy butane >> for cooking (probably still do) largely through Butano SA which became a >> Repsol subsidiary. I ought to know how this worked as a relative worked for >> them, but don't. I suspect it's possible to get regular deliveries (just >> like the old Corona >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_%28soft_drink%29> vans - fizzy pop >> I hasten to add). >> >> Jerry >> >> On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 21:28, Andy Robinson wrote: >> >>> Solid fuel; as in a coal merchants. Yes, still a few of those around, >>> probably many of them in some countries. >>> >>> amenity=fuel / fuel=solid perhaps but that will receive a petrol pump on >>> the map for your efforts. >>> >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7171642306 >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Andy >>> ___ >>> 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 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] Soild fuel
shop=fuel + fuel=coal ? 2 Feb 2020, 22:27 by ajrli...@gmail.com: > > Solid fuel; as in a coal merchants. Yes, still a few of those around, > probably many of them in some countries. > > > amenity=fuel / fuel=solid perhaps but that will receive a petrol pump on the > map for your efforts. > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7171642306 > > > > > > Cheers > > > Andy > >_______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Soild fuel
amenity=fuel is specifically for fuel sold for immediate use by road vehicles (air, water and rail fuel stations have their own tags). Unless you're running a steam car, I think you want shop=fuel. On Sun, 2 Feb 2020, 21:27 Andy Robinson, wrote: > Solid fuel; as in a coal merchants. Yes, still a few of those around, > probably many of them in some countries. > > amenity=fuel / fuel=solid perhaps but that will receive a petrol pump on > the map for your efforts. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7171642306 > > > > Cheers > > Andy > _______ > 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] railway=halt
On 01/02/2020 12:40, Tony OSM wrote: Hi Great to see your station work. Thanks I agree they should all be station. If DfT classifies stations as A-F or whatever then a tag to indicate that would be useful. These DfT classifications seem to be used by the rail industry to indicate roughly importance by passenger numbers, from which they base some decisions/discussions as to whether they should be staffed or unstaffed or the hours of staffing. There was a recent discussion about Chorley which from the publicly reported discussion I believe to be class C. This would be a useful addition. The last publication date was 2009, however & missing about of the 50 newest stations. Are you aware of a later issue? Has another organization squired responsibility? DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt
On 01/02/2020 10:39, Gareth L wrote: Just to throw in some awkward cases, there are stations which are request stops in one direction only. E.g. Llanwrda is request stop southbound but always stops northbound. Basing use of this tag on service pattern, which changes every 6 months seems not so easy to maintain. Hi Your first point is true, but it's still classed as a request stop. Basic variations in when trains don't stop can be dealt with in other secondary tags if really required. I'm unsure twice a year is frequent enough to consider updating as difficult. DaveF. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt
Feb 1, 2020, 00:49 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org: > I've now added them with the more explicit tag 'request_stop=yes'. > BTW, I just created wiki page for this tag at it appeared to be undocumented and it seems to have no competing versions: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:request_stop%3Dyes ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt
On 01/02/2020 00:05, Martin Wynne wrote: The traditional distinction was that Halts were unstaffed. These are now classed as DfT F, which is also worth adding. DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] railway=halt
Hi Over the past few months I've been sorting & adding detail to the UK's National Rail railway stations so that OSM has the correct amount. I'm unsure of the benefits of tagging some of them as 'halts'. I'm proposing they should all be 'station'. All 2567 NR Stations with 96 halts in blue: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qik https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dhalt Determining based on size, as the wiki suggests, is too subjective IMO. How is 'size' determined? The number of platforms? Tracks? Passenger usage (which fluctuates)? Note, OSM doesn't have an equivalent tag to distinguish really big stations.. Another factor is if they're request stops. This is a much more appropriate criteria. I've now added them with the more explicit tag 'request_stop=yes'. All 137 Request Stops in blue: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qil 65 of these are already tagged a stations. British Rail remove all references to halts (1974?) There are only two which have since been renamed to include halt. It appears to be for purely cosmetic reasons. (The locals probably think it'll increase property values). I've contacted Thunderforest and OpenRailMap. Neither make a distinction between halts & stations in their renders. Carto label them the same but display halts at a higher zoom level, which personally, I find irritating. Opinions/Suggestions? Cheers DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?
On 31/01/2020 11:41, Martin Wynne wrote: On 31/01/2020 11:13, ael wrote: OK. I agree that parking=layby is much better. Thanks for the comments. But the places I was asking about can't really be called laybys, or car parks. Somewhere that a car could be left for a few hours out of anyone's way on an otherwise long narrow lane: https://goo.gl/maps/nSTAbnE4nYXTBAz59 But that's not a parking spot. Because a vehicle just happens to be there, it doesn't make it one. By your logic we should be tagging pavements as such, because lazy drivers think they're entitled to break the law. DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Update bus stop names
Hello, I've recently found an open data set with more accurate bus stop names than OSM. Based on my limited survey of differences in OSM data and this data, theirs has been more accurate. Not really surprising, since it's there network, and most of the OSM data hasn't been updated since the naptan import nearly a decade ago. I intent to start updating OSM based on this data. The legal mailing list has OK'ed this as it's OGLv3. I won't be importing any nodes, but I do intend for it to be "machine assisted". I will create a report similar to https://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhrs/ where I will then go through on a node by node basis and decide if the node should be updated. Any tag I edit I will add source:name=Southern Vectis, and leave the naptan:CommonName untouched. While I do this I could also upgrade from highway=bus_stop to public_transport=platform, bus=yes. Keeping the legacy tags as the wiki recommends. I will be using this data set https://www.islandbuses.info/open-data the same data set is available for more regions, but at the moment I don't intent to use them, a local mapper would be better suited. https://www.discoverpassenger.com/2019/06/25/open-data-portals-go- ahead-group/ Any comments? Thanks Cj _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Stale Developments
In that case wouldn't it be handy to add 'survey:date=-MM-DD'? Plus that bumps the edit date that'd push it out of this, and related out-of-date tools. On 10 January 2020 14:42:11 GMT, Andy Robinson wrote: >Excellent Robert, very useful. > >Note that brownfield sites can remain that way for many many years >before eventually being developed. I recall investigating brownfield >sites in Birmingham as part of my degree in the 1980's (photogrammetry >module). Some of those sites are still brownfield. Many heavily >contaminated sites in our urban sprawls require cleaning up before they >can ever be reused. > >Cheers >Andy > >-Original Message- >From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) >[mailto:robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com] >Sent: 10 January 2020 14:10 >To: talk-gb >Subject: [Talk-GB] Stale Developments > >I'd like to announce a new mini QA tool that I've put together for UK >OSMers: Stale Developments: https://osm.mathmos.net/developments/ > >It finds OSM UK highway and landuse tags with tags values of >construction, brownfield and greenfield, which haven't been edited for >over a year. The idea is that such objects should correspond to >real-life developments, whose status is likely to change on that >timescale. Hence the OSM objects probably need reviewing and updating. > >To keep the numbers reasonable, the page above only lists the most >stale objects (no edits for over four years), but the full set of the >data is exposed through my Survey Me tool at >https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/ . > >Do take a look if you're interested. I hope this is useful to some of >you. > >Robert. > >-- >Robert Whittaker > >_______ >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 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Stale Developments
Hi Robert, Thanks for producing this new tool. I had already spotted the Bulldozer icon on the "Survey Me" map and, in my local area, I have already: Updated one Brownfield Site to Construction Site, where work has started after years of nothing.Deleted one Construction Site, where there is nothing happening on the ground and the local council GIS shows no planning permission for development.Updated one small Construction Site of about 15 houses that is now complete. Please keep up the good work providing tools to help us identify where work is needed. Regards,Peter On Friday, 10 January 2020, 14:12:33 GMT, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: I'd like to announce a new mini QA tool that I've put together for UK OSMers: Stale Developments: https://osm.mathmos.net/developments/ It finds OSM UK highway and landuse tags with tags values of construction, brownfield and greenfield, which haven't been edited for over a year. The idea is that such objects should correspond to real-life developments, whose status is likely to change on that timescale. Hence the OSM objects probably need reviewing and updating. To keep the numbers reasonable, the page above only lists the most stale objects (no edits for over four years), but the full set of the data is exposed through my Survey Me tool at https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/ . Do take a look if you're interested. I hope this is useful to some of you. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______ 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] Landuse between fences?
I forgot to mention that linear ways do have an implied width. It can be explicitly declared with the width tag. Although, other than waterways I don't /think/ any renderers take advantage of it. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:width DaveF On 01/01/2020 00:49, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: Yes I *know*, Martin I was trying to intimate, *personally*, I wouldn't bother obsessing with mapping every *square inch* of land. Each to there own, of course, map as you see fit, but I find most renderings of areas obscure thin centre lines. Adding surface tags enhances the opacity of tracks/footpaths o the 'standard' rendering. On 31/12/2019 18:45, Martin Wynne wrote: On 31/12/2019 18:10, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: I would add the appropriate surface=* tag to the way. Thanks Dave. But a way is a *line*. I want to tag the *area*. I've got 3 ways - 2 fences and a track. Tagging ways is easy. Finding a meaningful tag for areas seems to be much more difficult. If the landuse is the same on both sides, a field of cabbages on the left and a field of potatoes on the right, I can just let "farmland" flow across the track area. But if it is a wood on the right, where is the boundary between the wood and the cabbages? The track? Stitching things to highways is frowned on. Or one of the fences? Which one? cheers, Martin. _______ 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 mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
Yes I *know*, Martin I was trying to intimate, *personally*, I wouldn't bother obsessing with mapping every *square inch* of land. Each to there own, of course, map as you see fit, but I find most renderings of areas obscure thin centre lines. Adding surface tags enhances the opacity of tracks/footpaths o the 'standard' rendering. On 31/12/2019 18:45, Martin Wynne wrote: On 31/12/2019 18:10, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: I would add the appropriate surface=* tag to the way. Thanks Dave. But a way is a *line*. I want to tag the *area*. I've got 3 ways - 2 fences and a track. Tagging ways is easy. Finding a meaningful tag for areas seems to be much more difficult. If the landuse is the same on both sides, a field of cabbages on the left and a field of potatoes on the right, I can just let "farmland" flow across the track area. But if it is a wood on the right, where is the boundary between the wood and the cabbages? The track? Stitching things to highways is frowned on. Or one of the fences? Which one? cheers, Martin. _______ 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] Landuse between fences?
I would add the appropriate surface=* tag to the way. DaveF On 31/12/2019 16:38, Martin Wynne wrote: Here is a track/public bridleway: http://85a.uk/coffin_way_960x520.jpg which I can easily map as such. But that is just a *centre-line*. If I add the fences, what is the correct landuse tag for the area between them? I can't find any tag which seems to apply. Everywhere I look on OSM such areas are left blank. But it can represent a significant area, sometimes 20 feet wide -- much larger than other areas on OSM which are mapped in great detail. If it was a canal for example, its banks could be separately mapped and the area between them mapped as water. Tracks and fences/hedgerows don't seem to have anything comparable. Thanks. Martin. ___ 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] New Entertainment venue - what tags?
Hi In your example they're all different companies with different addresses & contact details, FHRS etc Tony's is one company, one address etc, so I think it should be one node, or if mappable, a building part area.. The facilities should be listed in sub tags - bar=yes, restaurant=yes etc On 29/12/2019 11:20, Chris Fleming wrote: On 29/12/19 at 10:40am, Tony OSM wrote: Hi In Chorley a new entertainment business has opened - https://www.escapeentertainmentvenue.co.uk/ It's primary offering is TenPin bowling, Gator Adventure golf (a form of indoor golf) and a bar & restaurant. What is the best way to tag? One node or three nodes? The new building is multi-tenanted and includes M Food and a cinema (already tagged). I would tend to map these all as individual nodes. An example is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/55.94187/-3.21604=N Sometimes, it makes sense to tag the building with the main occupant then add any cafe's or restaurants as nodes, in your case this would be the bowling then add the others as nodes. I would also tend to do this for a big store which may also have a cafe or restaurant. Cheers Chris ___ 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] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
Hi https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ This OS map render only shows a selection of paths. Does anyone know what criteria OS used to decide which to render? Initially, it appears random. I've a contributor who says it's evidence that some PROWS don't exist any more. They're still shown in Bing's OS Explorer map & in the local authority's digital database. Cheers DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabouts one piece or segregated
On 23/12/2019 18:28, David Woolley wrote: On 23/12/2019 18:15, Nick Allen wrote: I may be missing something here, but https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/477263099 looks okay to me. The OP was proposing that <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/477263099>, <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/757674481>, and <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/757543147 should be merged into a, single, closed loop. Are you sure? If so, that's a definite: No from me. The bus routes go through the bus lay-by/pick up point, not here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/757543147 As it stands,I believe this way:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/757674481/history can be merged with the this way:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/477263099 Slight aside: I disagree with contributor MacLondon's "role=forward to cycle routes at roundabout" on the relation is required. Being one way, it doesn't need relation roles - direction can be ascertained from the way itself. BTW the bus lay-by /can/ be joined & should be tagged as one way . Cheers DaveF ___________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabouts one piece or segregated
On 23/12/2019 03:08, Warin wrote: I'm looking at Wivenhoe B1028 way 477263099. This is a segment of a roundabout. Would it not be better for the way to be a single feature in OSM? It is rarely a good idea to revert from more concrete to more abstract, so I would say no. Incidentally, many things mapped as roundabouts aren't legally roundabouts, but rather traffic circles. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fw: Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51
Having unexpectedly found myself with a spare hour, I have had a go at amending NCN 51 in central Milton Keynes. There are 3 Changesets involved: #78646743. The main changes. I marked this to be reviewed, but I do hope that nobody wants it reverted because I got a bit carried away. As part of the edit I had to correct a one-way road that isn't really one-way, but I then carried on resolving issues flagged by the iD editor; sorry! #78651993. Mopping up. After the main edit, I spotted a few ways that I had not removed from the relation, so removed them here. #78647795. I have flagged some ways with "fixme". They were part of the old route, but now form a spur off the main route. I have asked Sustrans whether they consider the spur to be part of NCN 51 and await their response. I could tag them with "approach", but I'm not clear whether that would mean that all >1000 other ways in the relation would then have to be tagged "main ". Open for comments / suggestions. Regards, Peter Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android - Forwarded message - From: "Peter Neale" To: "Talk-gb OSM List" Cc: Sent: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 13:54 Subject: Fw: [Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51 Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for their encouragement and help. I will have a go at making the amendments using the iD Editor. I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that Christmas is coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time with their families, not on the computer. Before I start, I have one more question: @Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is unambiguous, i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary branches and loops." However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably to link into other infrastructure, such as roads and other cyclepaths). There are 2 that are relevant here; one is marked on the ground (probably because it was part of the old route), but the other is not. I do not propose to include the unmarked one, but what about the one that is marked? Should I include it, or not? Regards,Peter _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] No Through Road Ahead
The advice to tag the tight corner is correct. There's no requirement to tag the whole road as any router/sat nav worth their salt should search well ahead for any such restrictions. Are there chevron signs at the corner? You can always map the actual sign, but personally I don't bother as I've yet to see how any routers can make use of it. Cheers DaveF On 19/12/2019 14:06, Martin Wynne wrote: How to tag this road? https://goo.gl/maps/B4kUxoR83ej9JXWQ8 There is no actual barrier, just a very sharp corner. Thanks. Martin. ___ 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] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing
Good idea - I've added a pull request to Osmose https://github.com/osm-fr/osmose-backend/pull/714 - please take a look and weigh in if you think it could be improved. On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:47 PM Ken Kilfedder wrote: > Is it worth adding this to Osmose and the other QA tools? > > --- > https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain > spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, at 4:31 PM, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote: > > Further to this - if you want to look for barrier=kerb + highway=crossing > nodes in your area, which may be disrupting routing, the Overpass query > is node["barrier"="kerb"]["highway"="crossing"] : > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/P5Y > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:20 PM Edward Catmur > wrote: > > Returning to the original issue, I think I've worked out what the problem > is. It's that on a crossing node, kerb=* is fine (it describes the > presence/attributes of the kerb on the subsidiary highway) but barrier=kerb > should *not* be used. > > Combining kerb=* with highway=crossing is blessed by Wiki: > > If the kerb is identical on both sides of a crossing, it is possible to > add the kerb=* tag to the highway > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=crossing > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing> node, which > sacrifices accuracy for simplicity, consider using kerb:left and kerb:right > if the kerbs differ. > > > but this doesn't say that barrier=kerb should be included on the crossing > node! > > I think barrier=kerb + highway=crossing should be regarded as a mistake. > Taginfo shows ~ 1000 of them (0.47 of barrier=kerb nodes; 0.03% of > highway=crossing nodes) which should fixable. > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Philip Barnes > wrote: > > On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote: > > On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote: > > > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied > sports > > > cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at > low > > > speed. > > > > Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and the > > resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London. As > > such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs. > > Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly > acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles over lowered kerbs > to access private property. > > Phil (trigpoint) > > > > _______ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > -- > Sent from my Sailfish device > ___ > 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 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] No Through Road Ahead
I can see the logic of placing the restriction on the bend, but how long is a "long vehicle"? Is there an official definition? Peter Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 14:30, SK53 wrote: _______ 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 mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments
On 19/12/2019 02:09, Warin wrote: On 19/12/19 13:01, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: On 19/12/2019 01:41, Andy Townsend wrote: Aside from this particular question, that's actually a problem that happens all the time with things like "amenity=pub; tourism=hotel" - I'd rather the mapper make a clear choice as they know what is there, the render makes a 'best guess'. Not really. pub & hotel are synonymous but building=yes (which indicates it's operational) is antonymous to disused:building Some pubs are not hotels - no accommodation. I was referring to Andy's example where both tags are on the same object I have taken to mapping the building as a close way with building=* and then adding separate nodes for pub and another for the hotel if it has that. Note I am not consistent in this (but I should be)! I have done similar, but never felt it an ideal situation. it ends up with three detached objects representing one establishment. Where would you add the FHRS:ID tag? I try & do 'the duck test'. I ask 'what is it most known for' If it's a pub, which happens to have a few rooms, then amenity=pub, accommodation=yes, & alternatively tourism=hotel, bar=yes Cheers DaveF _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fw: Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51
Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for their encouragement and help. I will have a go at making the amendments using the iD Editor. I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that Christmas is coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time with their families, not on the computer. Before I start, I have one more question: @Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is unambiguous, i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary branches and loops." However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably to link into other infrastructure, such as roads and other cyclepaths). There are 2 that are relevant here; one is marked on the ground (probably because it was part of the old route), but the other is not. I do not propose to include the unmarked one, but what about the one that is marked? Should I include it, or not? Regards,Peter _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments
On 19/12/2019 01:41, Andy Townsend wrote: Aside from this particular question, that's actually a problem that happens all the time with things like "amenity=pub; tourism=hotel" - Not really. pub & hotel are synonymous but building=yes (which indicates it's operational) is antonymous to disused:building Cheers DaveF _______ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51
NCN Route 51 has been changed in Central Milton Keynes. It no longer goes through the intu Shopping Centre! I would love to amend the Route Relation, but have no idea how to go about it. From following the Tagging Discussions, I think that elements should be added in the order that they are traversed, but I would not know where to start. Do I need to use the JOSM Editor? I have only used the iD Editor so far Would some kind person either: a. Teach me how to amend the Route Relation (and be prepared to hold my hand from time to time)or, b. Take on the task of amending the Route Relation for me? I have surveyed the new route on my bike and generated a GPS trace, which I am happy to make available (I have already uploaded it to OSM, but can also email a copy).I have written a 3-page brief, with maps, which I can, of course, provide. Regards,Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing
Further to this - if you want to look for barrier=kerb + highway=crossing nodes in your area, which may be disrupting routing, the Overpass query is node["barrier"="kerb"]["highway"="crossing"] : https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/P5Y On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:20 PM Edward Catmur wrote: > Returning to the original issue, I think I've worked out what the problem > is. It's that on a crossing node, kerb=* is fine (it describes the > presence/attributes of the kerb on the subsidiary highway) but barrier=kerb > should *not* be used. > > Combining kerb=* with highway=crossing is blessed by Wiki: > > If the kerb is identical on both sides of a crossing, it is possible to >> add the kerb=* tag to the highway >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=crossing >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing> node, which >> sacrifices accuracy for simplicity, consider using kerb:left and kerb:right >> if the kerbs differ. > > > but this doesn't say that barrier=kerb should be included on the crossing > node! > > I think barrier=kerb + highway=crossing should be regarded as a mistake. > Taginfo shows ~ 1000 of them (0.47 of barrier=kerb nodes; 0.03% of > highway=crossing nodes) which should fixable. > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Philip Barnes > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote: >> > On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote: >> > > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied >> sports >> > > cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at >> low >> > > speed. >> > >> > Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and >> the >> > resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London. As >> > such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs. >> >> Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly >> acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles over lowered kerbs >> to access private property. >> >> Phil (trigpoint) >> >> >> >> ___ >> > Talk-GB mailing list >> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > >> >> -- >> Sent from my Sailfish device >> ___ >> 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
