Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki - contact: Tag Map Features
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:59:00 +0100 Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: Honestly the people supporting this contact: tag are annoying me more and more. FWIW I don't usually map contact related tags except for website which I use without the prefix (out of habit rather than merit). They try to push that tag everywhere even when the tag without the prefix is used 10x more. This is the ad populum fallacy. Any attempt to improve a tagging scheme will always start out being numerically weaker regardless of the merit of the proposal. To further confuse things there are people like myself who will sometimes tag *both* schemes because although we see the need for change we understand that there is a lot invested in the existing scheme. I'm not saying that established convention is not important, just that raw numbers shouldn't be the be-all and end-all when it comes to tagging. The try to make the Wiki page sound like they are still present more often in the database. Put it on the MapFeatures Page. On shop/craft Wiki pages they try to push it as supplementary tags. Another guy does a mass edit for all social media tags and puts the contact: prefix in front of it (still not sure all facebook tags have been reverted). Is there any solution to this? It's really no fun when I come back to edit a Wiki again and see that it happened again. Especially this replacing and not even trying to give the user a choice. What about creating a single wiki page that describes both schemes and provides a brief description of the pros and cons of each one? Once this is done other wiki pages can link to it and mappers can decide for themselves which is the most appropriate. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Wiki - contact: Tag Map Features
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 22:27:50 +0100 Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: We just need some rules when it comes to the wiki. We can't have anybody putting his tagging ideas there. Of course they can, otherwise the wiki ceases to be a description of the tags used in the database and starts becoming the aspirations of a clique of wiki-fiddlers. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:39:48 + Stuart Reynolds stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk wrote: My inclination would be to rip out the footpath and rely on the sidewalk tag, except that seems extreme and it isn’t wrong per se. I'd say that it is wrong on the basis that it implies that you may only cross where the path shares a node with another way. When mapping pedestrian access I always use the sidewalk tag except: * Where there is a physical barrier between the pavement and the road. * Where the pavement is separate from the rest of the highway - grass that you can step over in a single stride is still a sidewalk but anything greater is a path in its own right. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Great British Public Toilet Map
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 12:53:15 + Gail Ramster gail.rams...@network.rca.ac.uk wrote: Thank you OSM-ers for locating toilets. We couldn't have made a map without OpenStreetMap data as the location data from councils was largely useless. It's always nice to see new uses for our data. Out of interest, how regularly are you planning to import data from OSM? A quick skim over my local area reveals one or two that need updating already. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-2 mechanical edit: UK shop names
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 18:49:44 + Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: The 'name' is 'Brantano Footwear' unless there IS something different on the signage, and the 'operator' is 'Brantano (UK) Ltd'. Trade marks appear to use Brantano rather than Brantano Footwear: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmtext.htm I'd avoid using 'brand' since even the web site makes a big thing of the brands that they supply, and Brantano is just one of many brands. brand=Brantano (or Brantano Footwear) is perfectly correct. You are confusing the branding of the store with the branding of the products it sells. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset comment function
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:36:38 +0100 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: A much wanted and needed feature. I'm not attempting to disparage the hard work of those who contributed to this feature but it is not immediately apparent to me how this feature should be used. Perhaps one of those people who needed this feature could give a brief description of why it is useful and when it would be appropriate to use this method rather than sending a PM? -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-2 mechanical edit: UK shop names
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 13:24:46 + Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: - 'Brantano Footwear' versus Brantano Whilst company names do not necessarily reflect trading names I'd be inclined to take Brantano (UK) Limited as further evidence for Brantano over Brantano Footwear. - Capitalization of Aldi, Lidl, Spar, Asda We have the on-the-ground rule but it seems a stretch to try and match the formatting of a sign as well as its contents. We are happy enough to accept roads named High Street from street signs labelled HIGH ST. so I can't see why shops should be held to a different standard. What do people think about using upper case for names that are pronounced as a series of letters and mixed case for names that are pronounced as a word? Whilst not ideal (until the widespread adoption of the talking shop sign!) this would give us a rule of thumb that should be easy enough to follow in the majority of situations. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-2 mechanical edit: UK shop names
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 20:02:21 + David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: As such, the correct way of capitalising the name is what the owner of the name wants. True, and that could potentially vary depending on context. Arguably, if they are not prepared to step in and correct the names themselves, they don't particularly care. That was largely my thinking. With a general rule we can save ourselves the trouble of trying to wrangle with uninterested marketing departments for a blessed style and make exceptions as and when they are required. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] addr:place (was: UK Retail chains)
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 07:28:42 + SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: The tag addr:place has been used to locate one element inside another addressed element. See this example for shops within a Tesco Extra store http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/5CN. Surely that could be inferred from the fact that the object is spatially within the parent? This usage is useful but probably a little difficult to consume, particularly as there seem to be rather more usages of addr:place as a synonym of addr:city. The way I've always undersood addr:place was not as a synonym for addr:city but rather to specify the bit of the address between the road (addr:street) and the post town (addr:city). -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] addr:place
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:11:39 + Will Phillips wp4...@gmail.com wrote: My understanding has always been that addr:place is similar to addr:street, except when the unit in question isn't a street but some other grouping of addresses such as a business park, retail park or shopping centre, which serves a similar function to a street in the address. So far I've been tagging addresses like this: addr:housename = Enterprise House addr:site = The Business Park addr:street= High Street addr:place = Locality addr:city = Posttown addr:postcode = AB12 3CD addr:country = GB As far as I'm aware this has been what the wiki has said since the tag was first proposed and I remember mailing list discussions broadly agreeing. The wiki page - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:place - does explicitly state it shouldn't be used instead of addr:suburb. It certainly appears that I have been tagging wrongly given the wiki page you cite. Frankly I find the whole address tagging schema rather confusing as many of the tags are either too specific (housenumber needn't be a house nor city a city) or too vague (place). There is also an issue when reading the data of which way to order the various tags, especially when people mix in district, province, state, etc. It's unfortunate when a tag is used by different people to mean substantially different things, because it makes the data less useful. I think there should be a wiki page dedicated to UK addresses, which would suggest best practices for tagging more complicated addresses. The only reason I haven't already created one is the lack of discussion and consensus over issues like parent/subsidiary streets, usage of addr:interpolation on buildings, and so on. I've largely given up on adding addresses in OSM but if I were to resume then I'd certainly find it helpful if we had a wiki page with clear and concise examples of how to map GB addresses. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] addressing (was addr:place)
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:27:11 + Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: We in OSM can do SO much better and we must not use the imaginary, spurious and wholly wrong concept of Royal Fail's postal town. Postal towns are not real and have no place in OSM. Okay, now I'm confused! I know what Royal Mail considers my address to be and that includes a post town. If post towns have no place in OSM then presumably we have either adopted another addressing standard or created our own. Can someone please point me in the direction of a document describing how addresses in OpenStreetMap are derived? -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] addressing (was addr:place)
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 22:41:56 + Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: Addresses are allocated by Local Authorities, not Royal Mail. I use the address the LA recognise, plus the postcode which, AFAIK, Royal Mail do issue. I was aware that LAs have a role in numbering and naming new streets but I was unaware that they assigned full addresses. Perhaps someone could take pity on this poor simpleton and explain how this works. I've grabbed my GPS, wandered down High Street and added a waymark outside number 10. When I get back home how do I go about converting this data into a full address that I can add to OSM? Is this contentious? No, just confusing! ;) How can you determine the postal town from a survey? In my local area all addresses within a postcode district share the same post town. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] RFC Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names
On Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:44:17 +0100 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: I am proposing to unify the names of chain shops within the UK. For details, please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Math1985/UK_Shop_Names. Please let me know if you have any comments. A few thoughts: * The co-operative - Co-operative - As others have said, we should keep the definitive article. * Cotswold Outdoor - Cotswold - My local store and their website refer to the company as Cotswold Outdoor so it would be wrong to change it. * Would it be worthwhile expanding this proposal to also cover the brand tag? -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism in London
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 00:35:20 +0100 David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: I think iD has taken totally the wrong approach. If the concept is too difficult for the target audience, it should have refused the operation, rather than hidden the problem. Simply refusing to delete seems rather unhelpful. I'd much prefer the user to be presented with a dialog box that explains the problem in simple terms before allowing them to either continue with the delete or seek assistance. If the user requires assistance a note could be opened stating something along the lines of I require assistance deleting element x for reason y, please help me.. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Deletions and newbie editors (was: Vandalism in London)
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 12:47:29 +0100 David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: Newbies will tend to do what is necessary to suppress the error message, without thinking what they are doing. Alternatively, they will reject the editor as one of the big problem with creating dumbed down interfaces to complex software is that the market will select the product that appears to hide the problem over the one that puts them to the trouble of doing the right thing.** I agree; people will generally follow the path of least resistance. Newbies don't want to know the reasons, and I suspect most of them see the map as the standard rendering, and have trouble with the abstractions that underlie it and which need to be understood for such a message to make sense. Those who do want to know the reasons, would probably find an advanced editor much easier to use. Those reasons will still need to be explained when the editor refuses to delete some ways but not others so I don't see how you would get around that problem. The standard newbie response to an access violation in Unix/Linux is to set the file mode to 777. The standard newbie way of killing a process is kill -9. The standard newbie response to You cannot delete this way because it is part of a relation would be to delete the relation membership in the edit panel and try again. It is hard to make people engage with things they don't understand or that they feel are irrelevant. If we want people to care about relations then we need to explain to them why they are important and make the learning process as painless as possible. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM connection problems downloading/uploading data?
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:08:31 +0100 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 29/08/14 15:01, Richard Z. wrote: having frequent problems today, sometimes everything works and sometimes when downloading/uploading data JOSM says Failed to upload data to or download data from 'https://api.openstreetmap.org/api/' due to a problem with transferring data. Details (untranslated): java.lang.RuntimeException: Could not generate DH keypair Thank you - that explains a lot. You're the first person to provide the actual error details and it explains why the temporary fix I managed to come up with accidentally has solved the problem. FWIW I'm seeing a different error in JOSM: WARNING: java.io.IOException: Server returned HTTP response code: 401 for URL: https://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/25098566/upload.; The upload succeeds if HTTP is used instead of HTTPS. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM connection problems downloading/uploading data?
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:59:07 +0100 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 29/08/14 15:57, Andy Street wrote: FWIW I'm seeing a different error in JOSM: WARNING: java.io.IOException: Server returned HTTP response code: 401 for URL: https://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/25098566/upload.; The upload succeeds if HTTP is used instead of HTTPS. 401 is just it telling you to enter your password. There is no password; I authenticate using oauth. The oauth token is valid if submitted as HTTP but invalid if submitted as HTTPS. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
[reply-to set to talk-gb so we don't bore the rest of the world!] On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 12:23:47 +0100 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 24/08/2014 00:10, Andy Street wrote: That's not strictly true, we do multiplex routes but individual sections of road are only ever referred to by a single route number (usually the most significant route being carried by the road). Unsure what you mean by 'multiplex'. Do you have an example? Essentially it is where two or more separate routes join together and run along a single physical section of road before diverging and continuing on their separate routes. In the UK when this happens only a single numbering scheme is used (normally the more important route). To give you a concrete example of this, consider the A272[1] which runs between the A267 in East Sussex[2] and the A30 in Hampshire[3]. Working backwards from the western end, the route runs south-west until it meets the A34 where it multiplexes until the roundabout at junction 9 of the M3. There is a short non-multiplexed section heading south (Spitfire Link) before multiplexing with the A31 heading east. After about a mile the two routes diverge and the A272 heads off cross country towards Petersfield. Since major UK road numbers are intended to be unique with the first digit signifying the zone that the road starts in[4] it is clear that the most westerly sections described above are a continuation of the route that started in zone 2 rather than separate individual roads. [1] http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=A272 [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1685712401 [3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/683002 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_road_numbering_scheme -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:20:06 +0100 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=18159_noCache=on This route relation appears to be just for the B3070. Isn't that a waste of time as it's covered by the ref tags on the ways? I thought route relations were a way to allow tagging of journeys taken over numerous types of ways. Any reason why I shouldn't delete it? IIRC route=road relations were suggested to fix the problem of multiplexing (two or more numbered routes sharing the same physical road). In this instance the B3070 appears to be a route between Wareham and Lulworth Cove which multiplexes with the A352 at Worgret Hill. Simply doing an Overpass query for ref=B3070 would be insufficient to return all of the ways required to traverse the route from start to finish, hence the need for a relation. Ironically the the only section currently missing from the relation (the A352) is the bit that makes the relation necessary! -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:09:40 +0100
SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
On 21/08/2014 22:36, Janko Mihelić wrote:
This makes sense because you can have more than one route on
one way.
Some countries do this, but the UK (where the B3070 is) does not*, so
there's really no need for it.
That's not strictly true, we do multiplex routes but individual
sections of road are only ever referred to by a single route number
(usually the most significant route being carried by the road).
--
Regards,
Andy Street
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:36:51 +0100 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong before I continue? If you are changing ref = official_ref then you ought to change source:ref = source:official_ref as well. Other than that I didn't spot anything wrong from a cursory glance. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] HantsCC aerial imagery
Hi all, Does anyone know the current status of the 2013 Hampshire County Council aerial imagery? The URLs previously given on this list[1] were for host faffy.openstreetmap.org which suffered from hardware failure during the server move in July. Other services such as os.openstreetmap.org are back up and running but I've been unable to find out what happened to the HCC images. [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2014-May/016027.html -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] HantsCC aerial imagery
On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 15:13:27 +0100 Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: Last I had from Grant earlier in the week was that the faffy hardware had been replaced but still needed to be set up. Matt needed and he was AWOL :-) Thanks for the update. I wasn't sure if faffy was being revived or the services had been relocated to another server and my URLs were out of date. I'll hang fire and wait for the admins to finish their work. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Upcoming openstreetmap-carto changes
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:51:24 -0700 Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: * Cleaning up path rendering on low zooms (https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747) Is there any chance this could be tweaked slightly? A lot of the public footpaths near me are now disappearing completely at z13/z14 because they include access=private as part of their access tagging. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Upcoming openstreetmap-carto changes
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:58:18 +0200 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: It is a tagging error to tag public footways as access=private. Can you give an example? It seems that I miss something in this case. It's a public footpath i.e. private property over which the public has been granted a right of access (on foot). Since everything but pedestrian access is not permitted it therefore tagged as access=private, foot=yes. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Upcoming openstreetmap-carto changes
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:16:34 +0200 Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: No, it is not a tagging error. It is a direct result of the unholy mess created by the definition of the path tag. Often the only way to tag working access restrictions on highway=path, is to first close it with access=no/private and then opening it up with more specific tags like foot=permissive. This really has nothing to do with highway=path as it could equally apply to other tags including highway=footway and highway=track. The issue is that the style sheet does not take into account all access tags but merely the most general access tag. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Upcoming openstreetmap-carto changes
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:41:44 +0200 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO it is a tagging error as it should be tagged as [highway=footway; foot=permissive] Using yes rather than permissive also seems to be wrong in this case. It isn't permissive as the landowner does not have the right to refuse access. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Upcoming openstreetmap-carto changes
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:18:16 +0200 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: [highway=footway; vehicle=private] it can be used by pedestrians but some people may drive here The trouble is that you are merging the distinction between highway and access. Your example above would, to me, indicate a way for use by single-tracked vehicles and therefore not something that you'd attempt to drive a car along. I've done this sort of thing a lot for what is known in England as a byway open to all traffic where you have the legal right to drive a motorcar but often the condition of the way has become so bad that it is physically impossible for any dual-tracked vehicle to do so. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Upcoming openstreetmap-carto changes
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:01:40 +0100 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: On 25 July 2014 12:52, Andy Street a...@street.me.uk wrote: * Cleaning up path rendering on low zooms (https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747) Is there any chance this could be tweaked slightly? A lot of the public footpaths near me are now disappearing completely at z13/z14 because they include access=private as part of their access tagging. Thank you for your comments. At first sight, this seems to be a tagging problem, but if you still disagree, feel free to open an issue on Github. Yes this is a bug. I would have reported it myself but it appears that you need a GitHub account to do that rather than a standard OSM account. Please feel free to report it on my behalf. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] os.openstreetmap.org down since at least Sunday
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:05:56 +0100 David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: os.openstreetmap.org has been down every time I've tried since last Sunday. I've tried from two completely unrelated ISPs. I've googled for news, but found none, and the wiki still quotes it as the official tile server for OpenData StreetView. It failed to restart after the planned maintenance on Saturday: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-July/070133.html -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] faffy.openstreetmap.org down?
I attempted to do some mapping this morning and found I was unable to access various imagery layers that are normally hosted on faffy. Was there a problem during the server maintenance yesterday? -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] faffy.openstreetmap.org down?
On Sun, 6 Jul 2014 11:32:55 +0100 Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Yes, we were unable to revive server faffy after the server move. I will try see what imagery layers I can re-create today, else it may take just over a week before we can swap out the server for replacement hardware. Ok, thanks for the update. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Drop rendering of permissive access?
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:23:59 +0100 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: We are currently considering dropping the rendering of access=permissive (currently rendered as green dashes) from openstreetmap-carto, the main map on opensteetmap.org. See here for the discussion: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/682 We would welcome any feedback from the community on this decision. I'd go one step further and advocate dropping all access=* rendering from the map. As access rights frequently vary depending on the mode of transport used it really only makes sense to show such information on specialist maps that cater for a particular class of user. To keep the discussion centralized, we would prefer replies on Github rather than on the mailing list. Sorry, I don't have a GitHub account. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] HampshireCC aerial imagery and height data
On Fri, 9 May 2014 00:23:32 +0100 Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Hampshire County Council have now put their 2013 aerial imagery (plus height data and near infrared data) up online under the Open Gov Licence: Great stuff! I've already used it to improve the accuracy of a new housing development that is too recent to show up on Bing or OS StreetView. FWIW I intend use source=HantsCC_OpenData_Aerial for this dataset. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town v City
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:13:59 + Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: If anything, I'd like to amend the UK use of place=city to come up with a use of the tag that fits in with global OSM usage. We can add a tag for 'ceremonial status' or similar to indicate they are a 'city' according to the weird UK rules but aren't actually cities in the main meaning of the word. So long as it's all agreed and documented, I'd be in favour of a change. +1 I see similarities between this and admin areas where I've tagged admin_level=* to denote place within a global hierarchy then supplemented it with designation=unitary_authority etc. to record regional intricacies. Perhaps we could use designation=GB:city in this instance? -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Addresses: tagging query
Hi All, I'm attempting to add an address which has the following format: Building Retail Park Road Place County Post Code While I'm able to match most parts of the address to their corresponding addr:* tags the Retail Park line has me stumped. Does anybody have any suggestions for how to tag something greater than a building but less than a street? -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:32:50 + SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: For the sake of clarification: Robert Whittaker's interpretation of the Ordnance Survey Open Government License is not widely accepted in the community. Overall in the past 3 and a half years we have traced, imported or otherwise derived large quantities of data under this license. Mike Collinson spent considerable time discussing our use of the license with the Ordnance Survey on behalf of the OSM Foundation. AIUI that agreement only covers datasets released by the Ordnance Survey (with the exception of Code-Point Open), it does not cover other organisations that choose to release data under the OS-OGL. Without further clarification you cannot be certain why an organisation chose OS-OGL over the OGL and if they consent to us using their data in that way. In the case of Norfolk I'd be inclined to contact them to ask for a clarification of what the licence actually is; their website has it listed as OS-OGL but data.gov.uk has it listed as OGL. As always it is worth noting that surveyed data are better than imports: this is particularly true of footpaths where the local council and OSGB data may be at variance with what is on the ground (as I discovered a while ago in Carmarthenshire). Using Open Data to establish whether an existing mapped path is a ProW is a different matter. +1 -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:25:14 + SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: I for one prefer to rely on the formal and informal approaches taken on behalf of OSMF by the LWG. I also defer to the experience of Mike who has a long experience of running managing organisations generating and exploiting a variety of Intellectual Property RIghts. (This position also accords with my own experience working with a portfolio of IPR issues at a major electronics company along one of the firm's specialist lawyers in the field). Lastly this theme was done to death only 6 months ago ( http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-July/015022.html). Taken from that very thread[1]: On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:18:25 + Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: LWG view on use of data in OSM under OS OpenData License: Yes: OS OpenData product except CodePoint No: CodePoint (a Royal Mail response to Chris Hill needs further investigation) You need to formally ask: Any other dataset published under the OS OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or by OS if any). There are also pages on the wiki[2][3] which advise caution when using OS-OGL licensed data from other organisations. I find it rather tedious that instead of giving a straightforward answer to a straightforward question as to what the OSMG/LWG/OSB GB community consensus is, we continually hear about your own interpretation. Please try and keep things civil. [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-July/015028.html [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Licensing/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData_License -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Royal Mail Parcelforce delivery offices
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:52:02 + John Aldridge j...@jjdash.demon.co.uk wrote: Is there a consensus on how to tag Royal Mail Parcel Force delivery offices? Are these amenity=post_office, or something else? If there is a facility that allows the general public access to collect or send mail then I'd consider amenity=post_office to be appropriate. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Royal Mail Parcelforce delivery offices
On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:48:36 + Brad Rogers b...@fineby.me.uk wrote: On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:30:42 + Andy Street a...@street.me.uk wrote: If there is a facility that allows the general public access to collect or send mail then I'd consider amenity=post_office to be appropriate. Royal Mail, Post Office and Parcel Force are three separate companies, and have been for a number of years now, so care should be taken when using the word 'or' in that way; Not only that but there are other companies in the UK post/parcel market. I'd absolutely agree that setting the correct operator= and/or brand= tags is important. Royal Mail Sorting Offices have the facility for customers to collect post, but can't be described as Post Offices, since you can't, for example, tax your car there. FWIW I can't tax my car at my local Post Office nor can I get my passport checked. Not all post offices will offer the same range of services but what they do all have in common is that the public will visit them for sending or collection of mail. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] 'Allowed data'
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 15:20:58 + Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I would like to request that 'start_date' is automatically populated with ad the very least, the current date, but with an option to update it based on what is being traced from? if you are refering to the tag start_date than I strongly oppose this idea. Hardly ever will the start_date of an object be the same than the time the mappers adds it. I am referring to using 'start_date' is it is currently documented http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:start_date At a very minimum putting a current timestamp in will give a starting point since we know it is valid today, although a future start date is also possible. It is creating the habit of populating it and encouraging the addition where it is known. The start_date is the date that it feature came into existence not the date it was mapped so automatically populating it will just lead to junk data that is indistinguishable from the real valid data. What you really asking for is an auto-generated start_date_sometime_before tag but that data is already logged in the changesets. There is also the matter of *what* started. Take the following example: building=yes amenity=pub name=The Mappers Rest start_date=2013-11-15 Was the building first opened on that date? or was it when the pub began trading? Perhaps that was when the name changed? To do this properly you'll need to automatically add a start_date_sometime_before tag for every tag in the database! -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence use of data
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:53:15 + Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Pragmatically though is it really going to do any harm? Particularly if we are just adding a designation tag rather than using the HCC data to identify the course of a path? If you only interested in path designation (and possibly ref) wouldn't it make more sense to ask the council to release the definitive statements under the OGL? Given that the OS has publicly announced that it asserts no copyright over them and HCC is willing to release RoW data as OpenData I don't foresee this being too hard to achieve and it would eliminate any risk for OSM. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence use of data
On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 21:36:03 + Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote: An interesting question is how much? (Compared to the Hants CC). There is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hampshire/Rights_of_Way but that was last updated over 2 years ago :( I used to update page manually each month but lost interest during the whole licence change saga. :( I suspect in terms of raw highways it's mapped98%. In terms of designation these are quite well tagged, I can only hazard a guess maybe as much as 66%. A quick comparison of HCC's numbers with the latest Geofabrik Hampshire extract yields the following: 51% designation=public_footpath 60% designation=public_bridleway 58% designation=restricted_byway 111% designation=byway,public_byway,byway_open_to_all_traffic The OSM extract includes the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton as well as bits of other counties near the border but it's probably good enough to get a feel for current progress. Some of the 'Green Lanes' (ex Roads Used as Public Path?) are a bit mysterious - (seemed to be called 'Public Ways' in West Sussex speak). These don't seem appear in OS Locator or OS Streetview, nor are they covered by the ROW datasets. It's not clear to me where the designation of care lies with these or the legality of using them (especially in terms of Cycling). Public roads? Around here there are a number of unmetalled tracks that appear in Hampshire's maintained highways list and are drawn on an OS Explorer map as green dots. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence use of data
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 22:00:20 + Jonathan bigfatfro...@gmail.com wrote: Can someone clarify the situation for me. I'm in Worcestershire where permission was previously sought to use the Worcs CC PRoW. However, what is the advice in a situation where you can't use official PRoW data, Bing shows a path across a field, a ground survey also shows a clear path across the field but the signs show a Public Footpath along the edge into another field and rejoining on the other side. Do we map where people are trespassing, maybe with a bland highway=path tag and source=bing;survey or just map the official PRoW. Further more, if there are no clear signs somewhere (often the case), do we just leave it blank, even though the CC show it on their copyright map or again show a highway=path marking the tresspassing. Map what you know, leave whatever remains for other people or a later date. If you know they are trespassing then it's highway=path, access=private, otherwise just add highway=path as it could be either permissive or private. If you are unable to follow a PRoW on the ground then please consider submitting a fault report to the council. Not only will you be helping fellow mappers who follow in your footsteps but other path users too. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence use of data
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 00:35:30 + Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote: Some of the 'Green Lanes' (ex Roads Used as Public Path?) are a bit mysterious - (seemed to be called 'Public Ways' in West Sussex speak). These don't seem appear in OS Locator or OS Streetview, nor are they covered by the ROW datasets. It's not clear to me where the designation of care lies with these or the legality of using them (especially in terms of Cycling). Public roads? Around here there are a number of unmetalled tracks that appear in Hampshire's maintained highways list and are drawn on an OS Explorer map as green dots. Case in point (green dots on OS Explorer, sort of track on NPE, nothing in OS Streetview, perfectly good track for 4x4s (maybe even cars - memory is fuzzy now) mountain bikes). Something I've mapped (Potlatch2 claims AndyS has modified it - but then I've never quite understood Potlatch2's change list compared to one from the OSM website). I don't think it was marked as a Byway hence I did not mark it as such but feels like one (presumably the reasons for the additions Sailor Steve has made). http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41984943/history I'm not 100% but I think that is T183 Chalk Hill (sourced from HCC's website so probably not a OSM compatible licence). 'Hampshire's maintained highways list' Are you referring to http://www3.hants.gov.uk/roads/highway-factsheets/maintained-roads.htm ? Or something else? Yes that is the list I was referring to. However it's hard to search for unamed/unknown ways, such as the above. And seems to be getting harder as it no longer returns an OSGB grid reference for the start and end of each road. :( -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Upcoming changes to OpenStreetMap.org website
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:42:02 + Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 November 2013 21:14, Oliver Jowett oliver.jow...@gmail.com wrote: Is the response to Here's a usability issue with the proposed changes really use something else then? Not at all. I am trying to help you by communicating the fact that this change is upcoming, and I am collating responses and feeding them back to John. Duly noted, I'm not trying to shoot the messenger but I'll add my 2p. I simply noted that this request has been made previously and it was rejected on the basis that the OSM.org website's primary focus is to spread the message of how OSM is different. I can understand the reasoning for putting the message there in the first place but the apparent resistance to allowing it to be dismissed once it has been acknowledged strikes me as rather perverse. It is possible that such a design may lead to an increase in account creation but if the user's motivation is something other than editing the map then I fail to see how this helps the project. I will feed these comments back, and ask for the issue to be reconsidered, but please this is by no means a guarantee that thing will be changed. Of course it would be preferable to do the right thing by default but it is hardly the end of the world if the welcome box is not closable. Overall I think the new design is an improvement over the current site and I can easily nuke the welcome box via userContent.css should the need arise. :) -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Food Hygiene Rating System
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 15:02:01 +0100 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Importing much of another database seems a bit pointless to me when much of the data can change. I feel just a reference back to it is suffice. +1 A quick look at taginfo suggests that fhrs:id would be an appropriate way to tag this: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/fhrs%3Aid Whether it should be a full URL, or just FHRSID=516821, I'm not sure about. Which would be better for web page design/rendering? I'd opt for just the id rather than a URL. Database primary keys are generally changed infrequently and the URL may well change if the FSA decide to redesign their website. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] ISO3166 on GB admin boundaries
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 07:42:26 -0700 (PDT) cquest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr wrote: Hello dear GB neighbours (I'm from the other side of the channel, the froggy side). Bonjour. In order to simplify data reuse, I've started adding ISO3166-2 codes to admin boundaries in many countries. It as been quite easy on many, but GB is a complex case as there is a mix of different admin_level (4/6/8) matching ISO3166-2. Perhaps someone in the know could clarify but I was under the impression that ISO liked to exercise copyright on their standards in order to fund their work. How did we end up with the full ISO3166-2 under such a permissive licence? -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 00:36:00 +0100 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: I've noticed that locally a number of GB:nsl_single, GB:nsl_dual, and GB:motorway maxspeed:type values have been consolidated into gb:national, so that that gone from nowhere to being the second most-used value: From a quick skim through the data near me it appears that changes are limited to ways that used to have non-numeric maxspeed values, e.g: maxspeed=GB:nsl_single = maxspeed=60 mph,maxspeed:type=gb:national Has anyone unearthed any that are actually changing an existing maxspeed:type tag? Is this how we're mapping national speed limits now? I've been using the maxspeed=60 mph,maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_single form when mapping and I thought that I was following the herd. Other than simple Garmin maps I'm not a consumer of the data, so am happy with whatever people decide. Actually, I was happy using maxspeed=national until some people (writing routers I think) complained that they couldn't figure out whether national meant 60mph or 70mph and what other restrictions might apply, and insisted on a numeric value in maxspeed, but I was happy to go along with that as long as the fact that it's a national limit rather than a numeric one wasn't lost. I'd agree that maxspeed=national is insufficient as it is impossible to tell what speed you can do in a built up area. I'm also not a huge fan of the current practice of placing single or dual in the maxspeed:type tag either as I consider the number of carriageways to be feature of the road rather than the speed limit. I guess if I had the luxury of redesigning the way we tag speed limits it would look something like this: maxspeed=x mph - where x is the posted speed limit or 30/60/70 mph for national speed limit roads. maxspeed:type=GB:(zone|limit|national) - The type of limit in force. carriageway=(single|dual) - The type of road. Apologies if this has already been discussed at length somewhere else, but if so I never got the memo :) Not to my knowledge. -- Regards, Andy Street type of limit in force. carriage ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Phone numbers in little England
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:35:17 +0100 OpenStreetmap HADW osmh...@gmail.com wrote: My question is, given that I have good programming skills, and would manipulate a local .osm file, for JOSM, rather than directly using the API, are there likely to be any objections to my changing all London, and later, all UK local format geographic numbers to international, and adding and correcting area codes for London and director areas (I assume there are database copyright issues with a table lookup for the full set of national number group codes, to get the right lengths)? +1 for converting to international format and removing bogus 0. We are an international project so it makes sense to make use of international addressing schemes where such things exist and the structured nature of the data should make it easy to make the change without introducing errors. I'm slightly more hesitant when it comes to fiddling with whitespace. Since most data consumers will likely strip whitespace altogether or reformat it for display to end users I don't see the value in making this change unless there is a need to edit the item for some other purpose. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Gaping hole in New Forest District
On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 10:52 +0200, Colin Smale wrote: Is there anyone in the area or otherwise in the know who can confirm or deny that this is represented correctly in OSM? I think this is quite clearly a mistake; if it isn't part of NFDC then it would require either its own district authority, or even more bizarrely, unitary authority. I also can't find it in the OS Boundary Line dataset[1]. Cheers, Andy [1] http://www.itoworld.com/map/193 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Updated Geofabrik Download Server
On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 11:11 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: I've made some updates to the download server at download.geofabrik.de. Thanks for providing this service, it's really handy to be able to grab medium sized extracts without having to resort to downloading the entire planet. You'll now get a map preview of the area you're downloading One small suggestion: In areas with a lot of sub-regions (like Europe) the map will scroll off the top of the page if you are looking for something at the bottom of the list. Using position:fixed might be more appropriate. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Highways Leading to Farms and single residential properties in rural areas
On Mon, 2013-03-11 at 23:11 +, Jonathan Bennett wrote: I'd say that a track only exists because vehicles have passed that way, and will only exist while vehicles continue to use it (which in some ways implies it's unfenced), whereas an unsurfaced/dirt service road has been constructed in some way, even if it's not been sealed or metalled. To me a road is something that I can comfortably drive my normal non-4x4 car along at roughly the same sort of speed that I could on a regular well maintained sealed highway. A track on the other hand would be probably passable by a normal car (but not always), slower speeds and a desire to use it only if it is required to reach my destination. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 10:09 +, John Aldridge wrote: All this discussion of rights of way reminds me: is there a consensus about how (and whether) to map rights-of-way which are either impassable or invisible? I've encountered examples of both round here, and have so far chosen not to map them at all, on the grounds that we're trying to map the actual state of the ground, not some legal fiction. Do people concur? Broadly, yes. IMHO: Impassable - If you can't traverse a right of way then it shouldn't have a highway tag. There may be a case for adding a way with just the designation tag but I would consider it to be the exception rather than the rule. If someone is interested solely in the definitive legal status of a path then they will use the definitive map not OSM. Invisible - I suppose this would depend on why it is invisible. I've mapped plenty of paths that were invisible because the grass was too short to leave footprints or the ground had recently been ploughed. Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 13:58 +, Dave F. wrote: Blockages of ways are often just temporary. I disagree with Andy Street's comment: If you can't traverse a right of way then it shouldn't have a highway tag. Okay perhaps I could have been clearer but I wasn't suggesting omitting the highway tag on paths that have the occasional fallen tree or something that is likely to be rectified quickly, what I had in mind was when someone builds a house over a public right of way or where you'd need power-tools because the path is completely non-existent. It's the same principal as roadworks where we don't change how we tag unless they are going to close the road for a significant length of time. As Chris Hill suggests contact your L.A. I've done it a few times they did act on it, but only after a bit of difficulty explaining their own path reference numbers to them. +1 If there is a problem with the path notify the local authority regardless of how you tag it in OSM. Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 19:01 +, Henry Gomersall wrote: On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:52 +, Andy Street wrote: when someone builds a house over a public right of way Does that happen often? Is there not some requirement to then knock the house down again if it's blocking a right of way? Not all that often but there are occasions when someone drops the ball. The case I was thinking of when I wrote that seemed more accidental than deliberate and was fixed by the local authority making a diversion order to move the path around the edge of the property. Other interesting paths I've seen include going through the side wall of a barn and across the middle of an effluent pond in a sewage works! Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] When is a police station not a police station?
Evenin' all, Like most forces Hampshire Constabulary is trying to save money and one of their initiatives has been to reduce the number of police stations. My local station is one of those affected by the cuts and while the building is still in use for parking patrol cars and has the odd plod in residence all public facing services have been transferred elsewhere. I'm now left wondering what the most appropriate tagging is: * amenity=police - duck tagging, after all it does have a sign saying police station outside. Perhaps with counter=no, public=no, or some-such. * building=police, operator=Hampshire Constabulary - Perhaps better in light of the fact that it's no longer a directly accessible public amenity. Has anyone else dealt with this before? What did you do? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OSOpenData licence
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 23:11 +0100, David Groom wrote: On talk-gb Nick Whiteleg recently announced what initially seemed to be some good news , that Hampshire County Council have released their Rights of Way data under the OS OpenData licence. However, my initial thoughts, and those of Robert Whittaker, was that this might not seem as good news as at first appeared, because the OS OpenData is not compatible with ODbL, and OSM had to seem explicit permission from OS for the use of their data to be covered by OSM's ODbL licence. Since this explicit agreement only covered the OS products, it seemed to be, and Robert, that this could not be extended to the Hampshire County Council (HCC) Rights of Way (ROW) data. As OSM's agreement is with the OS and not HCC I'd concur that strictly speaking the HCC dataset is not compatible with the ODbl. I do wonder though just how keen HCC would be to enforce attribution of a third party, especially when that party had previously stated that it had no objections to it's data being used in that way. I did have one further thought, which was that I could not see how HC ROW data could be released under the OS OpenData (OSOD) licence, since the OSOD licence is quite explicit in that in covers use of OS OpenData made available at https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendatadownload/products.html and at http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ , and its difficult to see how this could cover HCC data. Yes, that thought had occurred to me too. However I am now wondering if the statement on HCC web site [1] The data has been published as Open Data under the Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence. is in fact a slightly badly worded statement. A possible scenario which occurs to me is as follows: HCC used OS Opendata to derive the HSS ROW data. By this I mean that HCC used the OS VectorMapDistrict rasters, over which they then drew the ROW data which HCC had from their definitive statements. Comparing the OpenData and non-OpenData versions of the definitive map makes this seem highly unlikely. What I suspect happened is that the OS agreed that HCC could licence their derivative work of a non-OpenData product under the OS OpenData licence. I guess what this boils down to is the question of whether our ODbL compatibility agreement with the OS is for anything they release under the OS OpenData licence (except Code-Point Open) or just for the stuff that had released at the time the agreement was made. My reading of Michael Collinson's post to the Talk-GB list[1] leads me to believe that it is the former. Cheers, Andy [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-July/011995.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 10:46 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Some good news! As from yesterday, Hampshire County Council have released their Rights of Way data under the OS OpenData licence. Good news indeed. This must be the reason why they've been too busy to answer my licensing query despite me chasing them about it! ;) Details here: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/communications/mediacentre/mediareleases.htm?newsid=534104 Slippy map, and downloadable raw data (shp or kml format) at: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps.htm I think we can import OS OpenData stuff into OSM can't we? I think that the general consensus is that we can. If so, I'd imagine what we need to do is: - convert this data to .osm files with OSM tagging, and - manually (not automatically!) add any paths not already in OSM to OSM. I could develop a tool for the former, and do some, at least, of the latter though in other areas of the county it would be better done with people with local knowledge. While I believe that this data release is a good thing may I take this opportunity to remind people that legality is not always reality. If you intend to use this dataset then please do a ground survey to ensure that the path actually follows the route recorded in the definitive map. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 13:29 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hence, unfortunately, I don't think we can use the Hampshire data (going forward under ODbL) unless we get explicit permission from the copyright holders. For the maps, this would presumably mean both the council and OS. It's a real pain that OS felt it necessary to fork the Open Government License. :-( Any other opinions on this or is this definite? The guy I've been in contact with at Hants CC was giving the impression it was OK, I could ask him explicitly if that's any help. While HCC could theoretically include any odd request they like in their licence (all members of your organisation must dance the fandango every Friday?) I can't see that they'd want us to enforce attribution of a third party for any other reason than to satisfy licence conditions imposed on them. Since the OS has already given us the green light to include OS OpenData in ODbL then I don't see this as a problem. If the terms stated that we had to enforce attribution of HCC too I'd be more concerned. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way - Image vote
On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Barnes wrote: On Sat, 2012-05-12 at 10:00 +0100, Robert Norris wrote: I've added my 2 penneth. Maybe we should gather more samples of signs - e.g. to show differing Councils styles (and then hopefully agreed tagging) to give better guidelines. I've have a look my photos but I think I tend to delete these types of pictures after use. If I remember, next time I'm out walking I may take more such type of pictures. There may some samples on flickr / whatever (with friendly copyrights) we could use. They do vary between highway authorities, but well worth getting some photos of samples. The one thing waymarks have in common, and I can only claim knowledge of England and Wales here is that a public footpath has yellow arrows, public bridleways have blue arrows and the hardest to find of all are red arrows, used on B.O.T.A.Ts. I passed an orange BOAT waymarker yesterday morning but didn't bother to photograph it. Sod's Law that this was the first email I read when I got home! I will get some of Shropshire, Leicestershire and counties inbetween. Can also pop over the border and see if see if I can find some bi-lingual ones somewhere. Wrexham borough which is very close, use symbols with no words. As people are expressing an interest in collecting examples of their local waymarking I've started a new wiki page[1] to collate them. I've kicked things off with the Hants CC waymarkers that I have at home and will add fingerposts and other signs once I've dug through my photos. Cheers, Andy [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom/Identifying_Rights_of_Way ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Problems in Farnham, Surrey
Hi All, I've just noticed that parts of Farnham, Surrey above the A31 have been deleted. A quick skim through the history reveals that the damage was done in changeset 11477559. The account concerned was created recently so this is likely to be a mistake rather than vandalism. Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to contact the user and revert the changeset. Is there anyone here who is willing to take this on? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: On 03/05/12 21:34, Andy Street wrote: No. Designation tags imply nothing in OSM right now, as currently documented, and by design IIRC. Also, I refer you to the recent mailing list post regarding other countries and what they might mean by designation=public_footpath. So if I told you there was a way in Hampshire tagged highway=path, designation=public_footpath you'd have no idea if you could walk it? Obviously I would, but how does what one person can infer matter for the general case? It just demonstrates my point that tagging in this manner provides sufficient information to draw such conclusions without the need to clutter up the highway tag. I would say that it is not tagged sufficiently to allow generic data consumers which do not have special knowledge of what that local designation=public_footpath means to determine whether it can be walked legally. Big difference. I would also say that tagging it highway=footway, designation=public_footpath instead would say more about the usage or build, but not much more. I'd agree that generic consumers will struggle with highway=path, designation=* but that is a wider OSM issue and not limited to the path/footway, etc. debate. Anyone using OSM data should be pre-processing it to take into account local laws/customs and their particular use case. For example, you are probably going to come a cropper if you go around assuming that roads across the globe without an explicit maxspeed tag all have the same default value. I also fail to see how highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway would help here either. Looking at this[1] wiki page shows all manner of different default permissions dependent on different geographical regions. The only way I can see to completely eradicate this problem would be a full set of access tags (foot=*, horse=*, etc) on every way but that is not something either of us would find desirable. If it's not a made cycleway or something used by horse riders, then that leaves footway by exclusion in this country, or no mappable path at all. Which would have us tagging things as highway=footway, designation=public_bridleway or highway=bridleway, designation=public_footpath! I fail to see any problem here. There are plenty of public footpaths out there which are well-used private horse gallops, and not every public bridleway has a predominance of horse rider traffic. I thought you were trying to simplify things for newbies. Giving them two values which appear to contradict each other isn't going to help. Perhaps you'd like to tell me how I should map this (and why): http://andystreet.me.uk/osm/canyouguesswhatitisyet.jpg Not really, no. Your mapping is your business except where it directly conflicts with mine, at which point we would have to come to a suitable agreement. On a more practical note, there's not really enough of a view of the ground to determine what those tracks are or even what the surface is, I've almost not visited it myself, and you've purposefully obscured the waymarker, hiding the official intent behind the way's existence. My point here was that a large percentage of the time it can be nigh on impossible to tell a footpath from a bridleway based on physical characteristics alone. I know from previous experience that horses use that path but when I visited there was absolutely no indication (other than the waymarker) of their use. If we tag highway based on designation alone then all we are doing is duplicating data and had I been visiting for the first time using your tag for the primary user rule then I'd assume highway=footway, which would be incorrect. I'm not anti highway=footway/bridleway and have tagged a large number of ways with them in the past. I simply feel that the richer tagging scheme that has evolved since their introduction has made them redundant. What does peeve me though is the attitude that highway=path is somehow wrong and we shouldn't tell newbies about it in case they get into bad habits. Cheers, Andy P.S. It would appear that this thread is at risk of turning into a difference of opinions between two individuals rather than a discussion amongst the wider community. Out of consideration for the other users of this list I will therefore not be making any further replies to this thread. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 12:58 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: We both agree on using designation. This is good. +1 Would you also agree that h=paths are generally too narrow to use in a 4-wheeled vehicle? After all, that's what h=tracks or the other road types are intended for. Generally, yes. By now, h=footway seems merely a specialisation of h=path. The _only_ information it adds is that it's normally used by pedestrians, or that it is built to be used by them. Using the more specific tag conveys useful information information about the footpath's place in the transportation network. The same sort of specialisation applies to h=bridleway and h=cycleway. The thing I dislike about footway, bridleway, etc. is that they mix the physical characteristics with access information. Using your definition above I can think of a number of foottracks, bridletracks and even a footunclassified. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 18:02 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: The thing I dislike about footway, bridleway, etc. is that they mix the physical characteristics with access information. Using your definition above I can think of a number of foottracks, bridletracks and even a footunclassified. Well, yes and no. If the signed public footpath across Farmer Giles's field has great big ruts along it from the pigswill tractor, I'd say _that's_ the primary defining use, not its signage as a footpath. Plus in my book it's probably too wide and vehicled-up to honestly call a h=path or a h=footway. This hypothetical track follows the route of an ancient pathway and is used more by the plethora of dog walkers from the nearby village than by Farmer Giles. Surely by your logic this should be a foottrack? What I'm suggesting for new or intermediate users is having the documentation recommend roughly the same approach (designation and fine-grained highway), minus the plethora of access tags you have to use to represent EW RoWs fully. Sure, unless there is a TRO, or similar anomaly, then it is sensible not to add access tags as all you're doing is duplicating what is already implied by the designation tag. Keep the instructions really simple to attract new users, and don't confuse them with details about implications or full access values. h=footway and the other more specific kinds of h=path fit into this structure best; they're really simple, and make the information that new users can gather as useful as possible very minimally. h=path is somewhat useless unless it's used as a genuine dunno value like h=road, and we shouldn't be recommending it. Why is path useless? What exactly does highway=footway, designation=public_footpath tell you that highway=path, designation=public_footpath doesn't? If anything I'd say that highway=footway etc. are damaging as it duplicates what we already record in the access/designation tags. It is also confusing to new users that need to remember that at track and above highway is the physical characteristics only whilst below it is physical and access. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 20:08 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: On 03/05/12 19:11, Andy Street wrote: This hypothetical track follows the route of an ancient pathway and is used more by the plethora of dog walkers from the nearby village than by Farmer Giles. Surely by your logic this should be a foottrack? No, unless it's defined somewhere and in widespread use. If it's wide enough to drive a 4-wheeled vehicle along, and people do, it quacks like a highway=track, and should be tagged as such. So you are saying that we should tag paths by who uses them but not do the same for tracks. IMHO that is rather inconsistent. Sure, unless there is a TRO, or similar anomaly, then it is sensible not to add access tags as all you're doing is duplicating what is already implied by the designation tag. No. Designation tags imply nothing in OSM right now, as currently documented, and by design IIRC. Also, I refer you to the recent mailing list post regarding other countries and what they might mean by designation=public_footpath. So if I told you there was a way in Hampshire tagged highway=path, designation=public_footpath you'd have no idea if you could walk it? h=path is somewhat useless unless it's used as a genuine dunno value like h=road, and we shouldn't be recommending it. Why is path useless? What exactly does highway=footway, designation=public_footpath tell you that highway=path, designation=public_footpath doesn't? That it is _used enough_ on foot to leave a mark, or is _made to be suitable_ for use by foot. Also that it isn't more something else... highway=path is sort of useless on the ground because it is normally possible to figure out what a path primarily is by looking at it. Yup, it's a path! If it's not a made cycleway or something used by horse riders, then that leaves footway by exclusion in this country, or no mappable path at all. Which would have us tagging things as highway=footway, designation=public_bridleway or highway=bridleway, designation=public_footpath! Perhaps you'd like to tell me how I should map this (and why): http://andystreet.me.uk/osm/canyouguesswhatitisyet.jpg Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Have you contacted a UK local authority in regards to Rights of Way?
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 16:22 +, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: The second of a few emails from me today (apologies)! As part of the Public Rights of Way work I have added a table of all the English surveying authorities responsible for maintaining the Definitive Map and Statement, to the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils Please use this table to add details on council map services (free or otherwise - there are clear copyright warnings on this wiki page), and also email here if you have previously contacted a council in regards to releasing the Def Statement under the OGL licence. I will then work through all remaining councils over the coming months. I contacted Hampshire County Council last week but haven't had a response yet. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Hampshire County Council (Was: Rights of Way Tagging [Was Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest?])
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 13:44 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: Maybe we could have a wiki page with a list of authorities, links to the Definitive Statement where available, details of requests made where not, and whether permission to re-use the information has been requested and/or granted. Sounds like a good idea. Has anyone approached Hampshire County Council yet? I intend to write to them regarding the definitive statement and the maintained highways list but I don't want to waste their time if others have already asked. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest?
On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 19:39 +0100, Robert Norris wrote: Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:27:31 +0100 From: openstreet...@jordan-maynard.org To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest? On 29/03/2012 19:30, Robert Norris wrote: I've just noticed Bere Forest (and trails) has been wiped from the map: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.91178lon=-1.15578zoom=15 It's literally empty space! Probably most where Andy Steets initial trials, but he's agreed so was there some over zealous deletion by some one? Unfortunately the history service contains to many world edits to be of use, and the general OSM history is quit slow at the moment. I think user monxton has tried to repair stuff. If it helps, I don't mind if you revert my changesets to get back to a better place. I reinstated the roads, but clearly there's a lot more that went missing too. This afternoon I went to the Forest of Bere in search of Bluebells as recommended by the Woodland Trust website [1] However it didn't live up to it's 5 star rating, but it was quite nice nevertheless - maybe I'm a bit late for Bluebells - there were some but not that many. I've not been down there this year but IIRC the Upperford Copse/Woodend bit is often a good area for Bluebells. So I've had a good wander and should be able to redo most main tracks (there's also loads of little paths - which where never in before anyway - not that I walked many of them). Great stuff! What's all nice is the Forestry Commission allow you to cycle on *all* paths, and horse riding is by permit only (tag as 'horse=permit' ?) Be careful as not all parts of the forest have the same access permissions. As a rule of thumb I'd say that it is worth double checking any part of the forest that you have to cross a road to access. I'll remap it time permitting tomorrow morning (out and about tonight) plus fixing the longer routes that go through it from previous outings / and renewed knowledge. I didn't go to the north parts of the Upperford Copse section though. [1]http://visitwoods.org.uk/en/visit-woods/Pages/get-involved.aspx It looks like the rain is clearing here so I'll probably try and get out this afternoon to put some of Swanmore parish back on the map. I've started up the Bishop's Waltham Dundridge valley end and slowly making my way back towards the village. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest?
On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 13:04 +0100, Robert Norris wrote: IIRC the OSM map before had the Upperford Copse as footpaths only which is correct (I remember once going to cycle there several years ago but found out I was not allowed). The Southern section (name North Boarhunt?) only has signs about 'Riders needing permits', which previously I thought applied to cyclists. But now I think means Horse Riders. Yes, I mapped the paths in Upperford Cose as highway=footway when I originally surveyed them years ago. I guess it is understandable that the FC want to discourage riders in that area as the paths are generally much narrower than the rest of the forest. Well I've now finished my edits (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/robbieonsea/edits) and hopefully got them right, but still many more paths there and the 'Oak Trail' is only partly surveyed. It's looking great. From what I recall there are some more paths in the South-West corner near the A32 but it certainly looks like all the main ones are covered. Maybe we should organize an East Hampshire OSM people (maybe for a pub walk / or mapping party ) get together some time this summer - it would be great to meet AndyS, NickW and any other like minded individuals. I'm up for it. Finding enough to sustain a mapping party might be difficult (South Hants is more or less road and footpath complete) but we could make it a social. Anyone else interested? Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest?
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:12 +0100, monxton wrote: On 29/03/2012 21:38, Andy Street wrote: Yes, there were some rather over zealous remappers in this area. Swanmore, the Forest of Bere and the surrounding area was left in a right old mess which I'll have to fix. Sadly with the number of overlapping changesets it's not going to be a simple revert job so this weekend I'll probably end up going scorched earth on the whole area followed by a proper on the ground re-survey. Andy, some large sections of the outline of the South Downs NP have also gone for walk. Do you have the data to repair them too? My original import of the SDNP boundary came from the OS OpenData Strategi product and I am currently in the middle of repairing the missing sections. The Strategi data is rather low-res so if anyone has some free time and fancies some armchair mapping then improving the quality of the data would be a useful task. It is quite easy to see where the boundary follows the edges of fields, woods, residential areas, etc; just use the Strategi data as a guide and think like a planning inspector! Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest?
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 19:30 +0100, Robert Norris wrote: Probably most where Andy Steets initial trials, but he's agreed so was there some over zealous deletion by some one? Yes, there were some rather over zealous remappers in this area. Swanmore, the Forest of Bere and the surrounding area was left in a right old mess which I'll have to fix. Sadly with the number of overlapping changesets it's not going to be a simple revert job so this weekend I'll probably end up going scorched earth on the whole area followed by a proper on the ground re-survey. Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 09:25 -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this at their most recent meeting... They have now done so! snip statement Looks interesting, I'll certainly be reviewing it once the minutes have been adopted but doesn't section 8 (This is the entire agreement between You and OSMF which supersedes any prior agreement, whether written, oral or other, relating to the subject matter of this agreement.) bit of the CTs invalidate this? Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-legal-talk] CT/ODbl compatibility with the OS Opendata Licence
OSMF LWG, I have recently become aware of your announcement[0] regarding Phase 4 of your plan to re-licence contributions to OSM. Although I broadly support the principals of the new licence I have, so far, been unable to accept as there are certain provisions within the new terms which I am concerned may be incompatible with OS OpenData. It is my understanding that there are others who share this opinion and that the OSMF LWG had agreed to a legal review into the compatibility between the CT/ODbl and the OS Opendata licence. With this in mind please can you answer the following questions? * Has the legal review been completed? If so: * What was the result? If not: * When do you expect it to be complete? * Will the OSMF pledge not to begin, nor encourage others to, delete data from OSM on the grounds that it is not CT/ODbL licensed until the review is complete? * What is the OSMFs position regarding the compatibility of CT/ODbL with the OS Opendata licence? I politely request that you answer to these questions before the beginning of Phase 4 so that I, and others in a similar situation, can continue contributing with the minimum of disruption. Regards, Andy Street [0] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-June/058727.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 11:44 +0100, Andy Street wrote: On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote: As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). Can someone please point me to the outcome of the OSMF legal review into the compatibility of the CTs with the OS Opendata licence? I've been waiting patiently for it to be announced but must have missed it seeing as phase 4 is about to begin. I was expecting at this stage in the game that there would have been a simple answer to this. Seeing as this appears not to be the case I have emailed the LWG[0] and anyone wishing to follow this further can do so on legal-talk. Regards, Andy [0] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006181.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] source tags (was Can I say yes to the ODbL if I can't account for 100% of my data?)
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 18:50 +0100, SomeoneElse wrote: On 16/06/2011 18:00, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: You can also put this information in the change-set-comment. IMHO this is where this belongs to. AFAIK the source-tag is disputed and it is recommended to use the changeset comments. The problem with the changeset source tag is that there's no granularity - one tag applies to the whole edit. Presumably the only time that this would be valid would be an entirely armchair tracing session with no local knowledge and no other on-the-ground evidence (surely not recommended) or an import (which should surely afterwards be tidied up with local knowledge anyway). I'd go so far as to say that source tags on individual objects is too general. In my area there are a number of country lanes which I surveyed with GPS and did not have signs showing their name. Since then other contributors have added names from other sources and included a source tag. The trouble with this is that it gives the impression (unless you go digging in the history) that the whole object is from a single source. My personal preference is to use the source:name=... (or equivalent) for each different data source. It might be long winded but it's accurate! Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Announce: Beginning of Phase 4 of license change process
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 22:33 +0200, Michael Collinson wrote: As per the implementation plan [1], we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. This will mean that anyone who has explicitly declined the new contributor terms will no longer be able to edit, (unless they decide to accept). Can someone please point me to the outcome of the OSMF legal review into the compatibility of the CTs with the OS Opendata licence? I've been waiting patiently for it to be announced but must have missed it seeing as phase 4 is about to begin. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Road route relations in the UK
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 09:29 +0100, Andy Allan wrote: On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: 2) Why the need for even one? After all, the ref tag on all the component parts of the A1 should identify them without the need for a relation. True. A relation should only be needed if a stretch of road is shared by several numbered routes (don't know if that happens at all in the UK). It doesn't, although I'll lay money on some people arguing about some exception somewhere or another that turns out to be wrong anyway. Is that my cue? ;) I suppose it depends on whether you consider the ref to belong to to a road or a route. While it is true that each piece of road will only have a single ref the traffic using that road might be following several routes. For example, I think most people would consider there to be only one A32 rather than two despite the fact that it looses it's number as it multiplexes with the A27 for about half a mile in Fareham[0]. If those A1 relations describe a route I'd keep them otherwise I'd delete them. Either way I can't see why we need four of them. Cheers, Andy [0] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?way=11847682 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] South Downs National Park
The boundary for the South Downs National Park[0] has recently been added (more precisely it has been made to render) but is in need of some TLC. With the exception of a small section at the western end it is generally of very poor quality. It is therefore my intention to delete all but the western end and import the rest from OS OpenData which, while less than perfect, is a vast improvement over what is currently there. I know this is a drop in the ocean as far as imports go but as this affects mappers in three counties I thought I'd err on the side of caution and post here first. Anyone have any objections? Cheers, Andy [0] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/102860164 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mapdust Newbie Question
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 18:58 +0100, Kevin Peat wrote: Well I find it encouraging that people are using OSM otherwise what is the point of us making it? The fact they are too stupid to work a satnav is probably true as most members of the crowd are unfortunately idiots. The mapdust folks just need to take that into account by stopping people raising bugs with no descriptions or vague bug types. I think it is unfair to blame the general public for what appears to be bad design on the part of Skobbler. They put a report a bug button on the user interface of their iPhone app and that is what people are doing (however badly). Unfortunately, rather than routing those bugs to their tech support team and then promoting the relevant issues to the OSM community they seem to have decided to dump the whole lot on us. I'm at a loss to work out what they expect me to do about bugs like Great app. Was working fine, but no longer tracking my route. Alec.. Despite that I have picked up a couple of missing turn restrictions and some missing speed limits in my area so I think it has value even if you have to search for it. I'm glad you've managed to find some wheat amongst the chaff, personally I gave up looking a long time ago. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] inferred single-carriageway NSL?
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 16:48 +, Peter Miller wrote: On 13 March 2011 15:55, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 13/03/11 15:41, Ed Loach wrote: You've probably seen the numerous edits by chriscf. Can anyone explain the purpose of these edits what the the tags below even mean? I can try, but The bot appears to be adding a source:maxspeed to roads that have speed limits of 60 mph and 70 mph deducing that these are actually 'national speed limits' rather than numeric speed limits. I am not aware of there being any numeric 60 and 70 mph limits in the UK so that does seem to be a reasonable sound deduction actually. It might be a sound deduction for 70mph but not for 60mph. One example of a numeric 60mph speed limit is the A31 over the Hogg's Back near Guildford: http://osm.org/go/eurRbMm Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Wiki - United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines
On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 19:26 +, Andy Allan wrote: On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Andrew andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: The great strength of OSM is that it can be a platform for many (and hopefully more to come) applications written by people all round the world. Country-specific tagging guidelines make it more difficult to share applications with the rest of the world. I'd say that country-specific guidelines are worthwhile, so long as they are helping mappers converge on global standards. For example, I think you'd support country-specific guidelines similar to In France, tag Autoroutes as highway=motorway. In Germany, tag Autobahns as highway=motorway. In the UK, tag Motorways as highway=motorway and so on. You're mistaking country-specific guidelines with country-specific tagging. I'd agree with this. What I think would be useful is a local_norms file to accompany planet.osm listing default values for certain geographical regions that could be automatically processed by software. One example is highway=mini_roundabout which the wiki states is anti-clockwise by default. I've not checked but I'd wager that we're missing direction=clockwise on a fair few in the UK. Surely it be easier to state all mini-roundabouts in the UK are clockwise unless specified otherwise. Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Yahoo! areas (was pay_scale_area)
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 10:26 +, Dave F. wrote: On 08/02/2011 16:54, Andy Street wrote: On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 10:40 +, Bob Kerr wrote: I am presently doing some tracing in Dumfries and there is a way which is marked public_transport=pay_scale_area. It is part of a Naptan import. The area seems to be vague and is cutting across a number of areas where I am doing some detailed work. Is there a good reason that this should still be kept? I've got a similar problem with ways showing the extent of hi-res Yahoo! imagery (tagged boundary=yahoo, area=yes). I can't see any real use for having this data in the database and if we were to do the same for other imagery sources then it'd soon become a right old mess. Any objections before I hit delete? Yes, possibly. As has been posted before, this is useful while editing at a high zoom factor to know where you can change background, especially when mapping long linear ways such as rivers. This may have been superseded by Bing, but I'm not sure if UK coverage of it is fully high-res (zoom 21). Okay, seeing as this is still in use I wont delete it. What I have done on the way near me is remove the area=yes tag. I think that this can be inferred from boundary=yahoo anyway and it stops JOSM from painting a background colour over huge areas of map. Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Yahoo! areas (was pay_scale_area)
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 10:40 +, Bob Kerr wrote: I am presently doing some tracing in Dumfries and there is a way which is marked public_transport=pay_scale_area. It is part of a Naptan import. The area seems to be vague and is cutting across a number of areas where I am doing some detailed work. Is there a good reason that this should still be kept? I've got a similar problem with ways showing the extent of hi-res Yahoo! imagery (tagged boundary=yahoo, area=yes). I can't see any real use for having this data in the database and if we were to do the same for other imagery sources then it'd soon become a right old mess. Any objections before I hit delete? Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath reference numbers
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 14:37 +, Nick Whitelegg wrote: I think some discussion of this has come up before (some time ago) but how many people are tagging footpaths with their council reference numbers? Reason I ask is that I'm in the process of overhauling Freemap and one thing I'd like to do is allow people to tag footpaths with (perhaps subjective) comments which would be out of place in the main OSM database, such as whether it has a nice view, whether there are any problems with the path, etc. I do this already to some extent but the only problem is that the comments are linked to the path's OSM ID. Obviously if the path is split, or deleted and redrawn, the OSM ID then becomes invalidated so it's tricky to ensure that comments remain associated with the correct footpath. However council footpath reference numbers can uniquely identify a footpath, so obviously if comments were linked to ref numbers the problem would be much simplified. AFAIK the path numbers in Hampshire are only unique within parish boundaries. Although not impossible, it might be a bit of a PITA to add RoW numbers to paths that either cross the boundary multiple times or are themselves part of the boundary. I know one or two people have been tagging ref numbers but where have they got the info from? A couple of councils round here (Hants, West Sussex) publish the path numbers on their online maps but it's unclear whether copying from them would be infringement of copyright. If anyone has been extensively tagging paths with ref numbers let me know where as it would be a good test bed for the system. Have a look at the Isle of Wight. The signs over there often include the path number and I know at least some of them have been entered into OSM. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Visualising speed limits
On Sat, 2010-10-30 at 01:40 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote: On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:22 +0100, thomas van der veen th.vanderv...@gmail.com wrote: Has someone actually done something like this already? Or does someone would like to join me and making a custom version of a map renderer that can do this? should be relative simple, just looking for a couple of tags and assign a colour accordingly. I have started looking at the Perl SVG converter (couldn't get any of the XSLT converter produce proper SVG), but it is a big beast. One option: Use JOSM, and download the area you are interested in, and use a JOSM map style that highlights things with different speed limits in different colours See for instructions: http://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Styles Note there are separate map styles for default maxspeed (kmh) and mph maxspeeds. I find this is very useful while editing, as you can easily see how complete maxspeeds are for an area, and if there's any gaps etc. Now that's interesting. I've been using JOSM for ages but I hadn't spotted that feature hidden away in the prefs. Does anyone know if there is a way to toggle the styles without having to restart JOSM? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Visualising speed limits
On Sat, 2010-10-30 at 01:04 +0100, Andy Street wrote: I've produced a similar map for the Hampshire rights of way network ( http://hants.openstreetmap.org.uk/ ) so if I get some spare time this weekend I might have a go at creating a maxspeed version. Okay, here we go: http://maxspeed.openstreetmap.org.uk/ Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Visualising speed limits
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 16:44 +, Gregory Williams wrote: Looks great. I think an OpenLayers Permalink anchor would make it even better. Done. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Visualising speed limits
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 21:22 +0100, thomas van der veen wrote: Hi, I recently started mapping in South Hampshire and enjoying it, great fun. Hello Thomas, welcome to OSM. It's always nice to hear of new mappers in my neck of the woods. :o) I started adding some maxspeed tags to some roads as sometime the type (primary, secondary, tertiary) doesn't always match the actual speed limit of the road in question I noticed. Or sometime the speed limit changes for certain stretches of road. To make this a bit easier I thought that having a map (no pun intended ;) where I can see based on the colour of the road what speed limit has been set in the database (either implicit or explicit) . That way I can could easily tell where it is incorrect and fix it. Has someone actually done something like this already? Or does someone would like to join me and making a custom version of a map renderer that can do this? should be relative simple, just looking for a couple of tags and assign a colour accordingly. I have started looking at the Perl SVG converter (couldn't get any of the XSLT converter produce proper SVG), but it is a big beast. As others have said there are a number of maxspeed maps already. The best one I've found that covers this area is: http://maxspeed.osm.lab.rfc822.org/ Unfortunately I don't think it was designed to work with mph units and is therefore quite difficult to distinguish between different speeds until you've zoomed in a lot. I've produced a similar map for the Hampshire rights of way network ( http://hants.openstreetmap.org.uk/ ) so if I get some spare time this weekend I might have a go at creating a maxspeed version. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Provisional footpaths mapping party - Midhurst area, West Sussex - UPDATE
On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 13:04 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote: (Andy - are you interested in this BTW?) Sorry Nick, I must have missed your original email. Yes, I can make the 16th if there is enough interest to make it feasible. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] A quick question for the cyclists
I was out and about at the weekend when I came across this[0] sign for a cycle route and I'm not quite sure how to tag it. I was under the impression that national routes had red backgrounds and regional/local routes had blue but it seems to be a rather large number for a national route. Can someone please explain to this poor confused pedestrian if this is ncn, rcn or lcn and why? Cheers, Andy [0] http://www.andystreet.me.uk/DSC00728.JPG ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] A quick question for the cyclists
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 07:12 -0700, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hi Andy, You were in the same place as me this weekend more or less!!! I recognise that. I walked from Andover to Winchester on Sunday afternoon and walked a small section of this cycle track near the Mayfly at Fullerton. You weren't in the area then? I passed the Mayfly on Saturday while walking the Test Way between Andover and Mottisfont. That photo was taken where the railway line meets the A30 just North of Stockbridge. I'd just suggest ncn_ref=246. I think, rather like the A road system, route 246 is a branch off route 24 which IIRC goes from Southampton to Salisbury. Thanks to everyone who replied, ncn_ref=246 it is. Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] TV programmes
Hi All, Not strictly OSM related but I spotted the following television programmes whilst setting my PVR to record and thought they might be of interest to the people on this list: BBC Four - 2010-04-18 21:00 - Maps: Power, Plunder and Possession http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s2wvh BBC Four - 2010-04-19 20:30 - The Beauty of Maps http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s3v0t Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Andover, Hampshire mapping party - 15-16 May
Hello all, I'd like to announce a mapping party in Andover, Hampshire over the weekend of the 15th 16th of May. Andover is a UK mapping priority. http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/UK_Mapping_Priorities Further information can be found at: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Andover_Mapping_Party Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes map moribund?
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 13:27 +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote: On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Ciarán Mooneygeneral.moo...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, Seen this map before, very cool. Do you use the postcode=* or add:postcode=* to pull out the areas? postal_code and addr:postcode taken from either nodes or ways -- they all get turned into points then it creates a giant voronoi diagram and pieces together polygons from continuous cells. There's lots of streets tagged postal_code in the UK (mostly with just the prefix from a street sign) and then recently there's lots of buildings and points tagged with addr:postcode so those are included too. There are layers for data from the NPE and FTP projects too. Last updated in May. Dave When you find time to fix the map would it be possible to add post boxes as an additional data source for the OSM layer? Many thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] Tagging hazardous routes
When the A3 bypass[0] was constructed the route crossed several existing rights of way. Rather than building bridges or underpasses it appears that the planners struck on the novel idea of asking pedestrians to walk across four lanes of heavy traffic moving at 70-80 mph. I'd like to include these paths in OSM[1] as they do exist on the ground but would like to tag them in such a way that their use is discouraged (e.g. higher cost in routing, warning signs on walking maps). Has anyone mapped something similar? Cheers, Andy [0] http://www.osm.org/?lat=50.98727lon=-0.95844zoom=16layers=B000FTF [1] They have been added but currently do not connect. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] OT: Britglyph project
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 12:09 +, Ben Ward wrote: Effectively it's a bit like geocaching except you take your own stone and photograph it there. Perhaps this is too far off-topic for most, but I did map some roads in Berkshire while I was at it, which I just wouldn't have done otherwise. Bear in mind the deadline is the 9th Jan. It's a shame this wasn't posted last week. I live in Hampshire was walking on the South Downs Way near Brighton last weekend so I could have grabbed a couple of the outstanding Hants/West Sussex ones while I was out and about. Sadly I don't think I'll be able to find the time but I'd love to have a go at the one on the M271 in Southampton. Watching the faces of the passing commuters as I take a photo of me and my pet rock would be absolutely priceless! :o) Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Collecting public transportation time tables
On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 19:59 +, OJ W wrote: How about making an iphone app where people can just type in I just saw the 555 bus go past? After a few samples you have a timetable. Not if they run their services like one or two bus companies I know! ;o) I suppose it could be quite interesting to compare the official timetables to crowd-sourced data to see who would be the most accurate. Regards, Andy Street (ex bus user!) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Data oddness
Hi All, I've noticed something strange occurring with the Northbound A3 near Petersfield, UK[0]. The way in question[1] seems to appear in different states in different programmes. In JOSM and the data browser the way has just two nodes but in Potlatch there are many more. Also, a history call to the API[2] also appears to be missing the current version of the way. As this appears to be some sort of data corruption issue can anyone advise the best way to revert the way without making things worse? Regards, Andy [0] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.0413lon=-0.9116zoom=14layers=B000FTF [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/way/28755575 [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/way/28755575/history ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] mkgmap makes routable garmin maps
On Sat, 2008-12-06 at 17:12 +0100, Robert Vollmert wrote: there seem to be a few Garmin users around here. If you'd like to give routable OSM-derived maps a try, there's some instructions on the wiki at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mkgmap/routing . The support is still quite incomplete both because the Garmin format isn't completely understood and because of bugs. More the latter, probably. Help on either topic would be appreciated. First off I'd like to thank everyone who has been working on this, it's a great addition for anyone using OSM on a Garmin device. I had a go at producing a routable map for my local area but whenever I transfer it to my eTrex Vista HCX it always routes on the in-built basemap no matter what I try. I built the maps with the following commands[0]: * wget -O meonvalley-20081207.osm http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/map?bbox=-1.2514,50.8892,-1.0928,50.9916; * perl osm2mp.pl meonvalley-20081207.osm meonvalley-20081207.mp * java -Xmx512M -jar mkgmap-route-779/mkgmap.jar --route meonvalley-20081207.mp The image is then transferred to the Garmin via USB mass storage. If anyone who has successfully built a routable map can shed any light on what I'm doing wrong I would be most grateful. Cheers, Andy [0] I've uploaded copies of the files created in the process to http://www.andystreet.me.uk/garmin/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
