[Talk-GB] Ramblers Scotland - Mapping Scotland's "lost" paths

[Chris Fleming via Talk-GB]

I've just recently become aware of this project where they're finding
"lost" paths, although all the examples they've given so far have been
mapped on OSM for ages, there is also a great quote from there head:

"OSM has been a vital resource for this project & there is no doubt it has
the most complete public map of Scotland's paths that is currently
available"

So we know that they are using OSM. Michael Booth got in touch with them,
and apparently:

"We have been using OSM in our pilot areas and we’ve also made contact with
OSM to discuss the project further."

and "The final goal for the project is to release the dataset we create as
open data, I expect that there will be an interactive map on our website
but the intention is for the raw data itself to be downloadable so it could
be added to things like OSM."

Which is all great.

Just wondering if anyone has had contact with them?

https://www.ramblers.org.uk/get-involved/out-there/out-there-getting-paths-on-maps/mapping-scotland-paths.aspx

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Great North Trail MTB Route

[Chris Fleming]

On 12/07/20 at 02:17pm, Andy Townsend wrote:

  On 12/07/2020 12:32, Adam Snape wrote:

My main concern here is about whether we should be mapping unmarked
routes at all and especially whether it is okay to import them
without discussion or the explicit permission of the copyright
holder.

I'd agree with that.  Generally speaking, even aside from the
copyright issue, I don't believe that unsigned routes belong in
OSM.  Where I've personally come across them I've not removed them
(since someone thought it was valid to add in the first place) but
have added "name:signed=no" to e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6366232 to allow me to filter
"someone wrote a book once" routes from https://map.atownsend.org.uk
.  I'd also agree with Richard's point on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74330916 that this is not a
general bicycle route and shouldn't be tagged as such.

We have three points to consider, first is this not a NCN - there was
agreement from the user that made the original change to roll back this
change.

Secondly unsigned routes, these aren't necessarily great as they can't
be verified on the ground, and often tend to be informal however they
are useful, I cycled a day of the Capital trail last year and it was
great being able to pull the route out of OSM. My feeling is OK on
these. It would be intesting to know what the consensus is on noting
unsigned - most routes I've seen just use unsigned = yes rather and
name:signed=no

The third issue is of copyright, which is the one Adam brought up.
Personally I don't really know about this one. On one hand the route is
made of of ways already existing on OpenStreetMap; does that move us a
step outside of copying from whatever data source was used to derive the
route?

We also have copyright of the route itself, Cycling UK do seem to assert
copyright and therefore we probably do need them to ask them. (It's nice
to see that the cycling UK website does display the route over a OSM
map) but they link externally to OS maps.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

[Chris Fleming]

I've spotted some edits using this, such as:

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=82807938=true

After a ropey start, in general I've been quite impressed by Amazon's
edits, but this one looks quite ropey, the service road drawn in is very
ropey and it looks like you've missed the connection back to the main road
(shown in OS Openview), in addition I don't think that
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785788619 loops back on itself, or at
least I wouldn't draw that conclusion from imagery?

Cheers
Chris

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 10:02, Guthula, Jothirnadh via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi UK OSM community,
>
>
>
> As you might already know, Facebook released its AI-based detections
> publicly on 08/09/2019 (
> https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Available-Countries).
> With a team of mappers @Amazon we are planning to improve missing roads in
> UK using Facebook detections as a source. Please let us know if you have
> any ongoing projects using this data source. While adding missing roads, we
> will be adding all the associated access tags as per available on-ground
> resources. Our team will edit roads manually using a normal iD editor and
> satellite imageries available with FB detections as a background source and
> will not use RapidID editor or JOSM. Also changeset comments will be
> addressed by our team on top priority.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jothirnadh
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

[Chris Fleming]

On 08/03/20 at 08:22pm, Andy Townsend wrote:

  On 08/03/2020 19:57, Andrew Hain wrote:

Is there a resource I can point anyone who puts C numbers in the ref
tag of roads at?

Possibly the best place is previous discussions on this list, or
links from there?

  It's perhaps also worth mentioning that C roads in Scotland in OSM are
  still mostly unsigned but retain ref tags - that was a decision of the
  local community there, if I remember correctly. Northern Ireland
  (normally discussed via talk-ie rather than here) also has quite a
  few.

I don't think that we reached a decision in Scotland; just one
particular mapper that particular likes them, I generally move them to
highway_authority_ref if I see them.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] New Entertainment venue - what tags?

[Chris Fleming]

On 29/12/19 at 10:40am, Tony OSM wrote:

  Hi

  In Chorley a new entertainment business has opened -
  https://www.escapeentertainmentvenue.co.uk/

  It's primary offering is TenPin bowling, Gator Adventure golf (a form
  of indoor golf) and a bar & restaurant.

  What is the best way to tag? One node or three nodes?

  The new building is multi-tenanted and includes M Food and a cinema
  (already tagged).

I would tend to map these all as individual nodes. An example is here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/55.94187/-3.21604=N

Sometimes, it makes sense to tag the building with the main occupant
then add any cafe's or restaurants as nodes, in your case this would be
the bowling then add the others as nodes. I would also tend to do this
for a big store which may also have a cafe or restaurant.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] multiple GB lists

[Chris Fleming]

On 04/04/19 at 10:12am, Jez Nicholson wrote:

  Demonstrating my ignorance, I did not know until recently that there
  are other GB lists, shown here with their last used date:
  talk-gb-london/ 2019-03-14 14:35 talk-gb-midanglia/ 2016-06-17 15:15
  talk-gb-oxoncotswolds/ 2018-11-21 18:43 talk-gb-thenorth/ 2017-06-22
  11:44 talk-gb-westmidlands/ 2019-03-31 13:52 talk-scotland/ 2019-04-01
  11:48 This may be a perennial discussion, but I'll naively stick my
  neck out (again)   I, for one, would not be offended to read about
  regional activities in the main Talk-GB list. In fact, I would welcome
  seeing activity around the country even if i'm too far away to attend.
  They do not appear to be high volume. Could the owners of those lists
  consider culling them and merging with Talk-GB? Regards,              
  Jez

>From the talk-scotland point of view - we created it specifically as a
low-ish volume "alternative" to talk-gb at one of the meetups.

It currently has 42 folks, I suspect that a quarter to half-ish are also
on talk-gb So probably is useful for some level of communications.

But we should also try and cross-post about events on talk-gb.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] account disabled due to bounces

[Chris Fleming]

Yup same here. Although I had assumed that it was because I forward my mail
to gmail.

Cheers
Chris

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 09:16 Dan S  wrote:

> It happened to me too today, FWIW.
>
> Best
> Dan
>
> Op ma 14 jan. 2019 om 09:10 schreef Jez Nicholson  >:
> >
> > I get the occasional email from Talk-GB telling me that my email address
> has excessive bounces. I'm using gmail. Am I the only one with problems? Is
> there something I need to change?
> >
> > Regards,
> >  Jez
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Queensferry Crossing

[Chris Fleming]

I am just checking over it now.

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, 10:30 Tom Hughes  wrote:

> On 30/08/17 10:26, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> > As best I can tell from wikipedia the new bridge is the M90 and under
> > motorway conditions with the old bridge presumably expected to carry
> > non-motorway traffic as the A9000.
>
> So from
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-41086779 it
> seems it is non-motorway for now but will become a motorway once the old
> bridge has been "adapted for public transport".
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] New user renaming highway=cycleway with NCN references

[Chris Fleming]

Also meant to add to my last email. Has anyone been in touch with
tintin2873?

Cheers
Chris

On Tue, 10 May 2016 at 23:15  wrote:

> On 10/05/16 at 08:59pm, Eric Grosso wrote:
> > I removed the NCN names associated to the roads/paths in Edinburgh (at
> > least until the City By-pass) modified this week-end and I also re-added
> > the railway=abandoned parts as it was before tintin2873's edits --
> > changeset #39226002.
> >
> > I discovered that some parts of the Union Canal Towpath and the Water of
> > Leith Walkway are mapped as highway=path, some others as
> highway=cycleway.
> > tintin2873 changed all of these highways in cycleways (tagged previously
> as
> > paths). Despite the fact that these highways became part of the NCN, I
> > still consider that these highways are still primarily paths by nature.
>
> Think parts of the towpath are debatable, but given the narrow width and
> shared use. path with designanated bicycle is probably most correct.
> >
> > What do you think? Do we, OSM contributors, tag all the highways part of
> a
> > NCN as cycleways? What to do when in some cases, a highway is both part
> of
> > a NCN route and a hiking route (e.g the John Muir Way)?
>
> I think it depends of the width of the path and likelyhood of being
> shared, needing to slow down for pedestrians. On a cycleway, it should
> not normally be necessary to reduce speed to pass.
>
> Cheers
> Chris
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [UK Chapter] Board of directors

[Chris Fleming]

Yes great notes. Unfortunately the calls are just when I doing "bedtime" so
I've not been able to make any.  In practical terms a variable size board
allows a bit a flexibility to size the board according to how many people
are available. I do think it's useful to have an even odd sized board. But
my feeling is also that 5 feels like a good size.

Setting a budget at the start of the year and getting it accepted by
membership does sound tempting. But personally I feel that we will vote for
the board and I would be happy for them to set budgets and spend as they
feel fit. Trying to set a budget in advance of the first year or two might
actaully prove to be very difficult?

Cheers
Chris



On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 at 07:39 Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> Thank you for taking quality notes. I am lurking and reading your
> discussions.
>
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 at 23:55, Gregory  wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Discussion in the meeting tonight[1], included how many directors there
>> should be and how their power is managed.
>>
>> How many should there be?
>> The OSMF's AoA[2] clause 35 defines a range from 2-8 board directors by
>> the end of an election. Scenarios at an AGM are: the size doesn't change;
>> the board wants to increase but that requires at least 1 newly elected
>> (could be someone who stands against future board changes, could even be
>> someone who retires once elected); the board wants to decrease but this
>> requires someone choosing to step down (getting kicked out is controlled by
>>  different clauses?). So the board wouldn't be changing size on a whim. It
>> gives some ability to adjust on an annual basis the board size to reflect
>> the membership size (e.g. <10 members on the books and a board of 3 can
>> potentially keep the board in quorum/function) or to reflect the workload.
>>
>> I liked Rob's view of a smaller board implies more is done by members
>> (whether they be as committees or just as members). The board should be
>> focused on the admin of being a CIC/org. This still makes me think 5 is
>> good. A smaller board and it's easier to find acceptable meeting times or
>> have less replies to get in on a query.
>>
>>
>> What power should the board have?
>> When Jerry briefly described the France group proposing an annual budget
>> for acceptance by the membership, I really liked that. It has the side
>> effect of a clear budget having to be made each year. It seems reasonable
>> to combine this with spend over £1k has to be approved by the membership.
>> So if a hypothetical server renewal budget is £10k but in the year only £8k
>> was spent, the board could impulse order £2k of pretty lights for the
>> server before the end of the year. The pretty lights weren't authorised by
>> the membership but they were within the budget for the year, so all is
>> acceptable. The membership have the options to insist on more restrictive
>> budgets, not re-elect the board member(s) that were impulse buy, or just
>> blame the committee that pestered the board for pretty lights.
>>
>> What happens if a proposed budget is not accepted, and alterations
>> continue to be unaccepted by vote? I imagine this is rare, but does the
>> previous year's budget count as the default or does the organisation become
>> unable to spend more than £1k amounts until resolved?
>>
>>
>> [1] Notes of our meeting
>> https://hackpad.com/2016-03-17-OSM-GB-Meeting-UGWMWunxvTb
>> [2] OSMF's AoA
>> http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#BOARD_OF_MANAGEMENT
>>
>>
>> From my sofa,
>> Gregory
>>
>> --
>> Gregory
>> o...@livingwithdragons.com
>> http://www.livingwithdragons.com
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] New mapper causing problems

[Chris Fleming]

Hi Neil, I had spotted him and have sent him a message and a changeset
comment.http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31024226

Actually looks like his edits are getting worse.

I'm on a flight in 4 hours, but should be back home tomorrow.

Cheers
Chris
On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 00:01, Neil McManus neilmcma...@outlook.com wrote:

 A new user has burst onto the scene in my local area and has made lots
 of bad edits.

 For example:
 http://osm.org/go/evfACGRIT

 They added the outline of the road around the mini-roundabout and have
 disconnected the footpaths from the roads.  They have deleted the
 footpaths/cycleways that I added and replaced them with path.   Or
 sometimes they run in parallel with the original.

 Anyway, I tried contacting them politely and their reply was basically
 I know what I'm doing, I'm making it better.  Their changeset comments
 are either add icon or updating wrong information on map i live here
 i know the layout of most of what is here.

 Could someone undo their bad work by removing their changesets?  Or how
 is the best way to proceed?  I get the feeling if I try and correct
 their errors they will just put it back the way they want.

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] NLS Historical Maps

[Chris Fleming]

I don't think there is any reason not to use any of the NLS's out of
copyright images.

and it's listed as one of the layers available on the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Library_of_Scotland

I've been using the town plan layer in Edinburgh and the detailed plans for
old bits of town are really lovely.

Cheers
Chris


On Thu Nov 13 2014 at 1:37:45 PM Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I know we have access to some of the National Library of Scotland's
 historical map layers, e.g. OS one-inch and 1:25000.

 What about this layer: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=6layers=171 ?

 --
 Steve

 ---
 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
 http://www.avast.com


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

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

[Talk-GB] Introducing talk-scotland mailing list.

[Chris Fleming]

After the topic has come up several times I'm pleased to announce the
creation of the talk-scotland mailing list.

We have a lot going on, and current topics seem to be around planning of
events such as the upcoming mapping parties general chat around various
specific local bits 

Anyway, come and join us at:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-scotland

Cheers
Chris 

PS: It was considered if we should be talk-gb-scotland, the dropping of
the gb is future proofing and is not a statement for or against any possible
future changes to Scotland's admin levels.


-- 
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
m: 07980 214061
w: http://chrisfleming.org/
t: @chrisfl

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

Re: [Talk-GB] A9 West of Perth - Vandalism - robbief14 again.

[Chris Fleming]

Having a look, I had fixed up some of his stuff around there.

Cheers
Chris 

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:16:16PM +, Alasdair McKinnon wrote:
  
 
  Hi,
 
 First post so excuse me if my etiquette is wrong and Hi to
 all.
 
 I've spotted that the A9 West of Perth is wrongly designated as
 the M9 and A93. It has also been re-routed over a short length.
 
 From
 looking at the history in Potlatch I can see that Robbief14 was
 responsible for some edits so this looks related to the new Forth Road
 Bridge thread.
 
 Can someone more experienced than me, revert those
 changes too?
 
 Al. 

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


-- 
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
m: 07980 214061
w: http://chrisfleming.org/
t: @chrisfl

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Possible vandalism? New Forth Road Bridge being changed to motorway from construction

[Chris Fleming]

On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 08:32:25PM +, Donald Noble wrote:
 Hi All,
 
 The user robbief14 [1] has changed sections of the M90 around the New Forth
 Road Bridge which are still currently under construction to live motorway.
 They had also deleted all of the tags for the current road bridge.
 
 I therefore reverted this changeset before further changes were made, and
 send a polite email asking why they had done it and if they realise they
 were affecting the map for everyone.
 
 No response to this message, however they have changed the crossing back to
 motorway. See [2] below for relevant changesets.
 
 I would appreciate somebody else trying to contact this user.

Not good. Definitly not open for some time, I'm going to revert the
changeset and get in touch with him again.

This is the user:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/robbief14

Only been signed up for 5 days  Looks like edits in Australia and
Scotland...

Cheers
Chris 
 
 [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/robbief14
 [2]
 original changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20442315
 my revert: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20452252
 changed back to motorway again:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20458591
 
 -- 
 Donald Noble
 http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble

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


-- 
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
m: 07980 214061
w: http://chrisfleming.org/
t: @chrisfl

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Lloyds TSB

[Chris Fleming]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:28:36PM +0100, Dan Karran wrote:
 Handy tool, thanks. It might be good to limit it to items tagged
 amenity=bank and amenity=atm though, as I've spotted some Lloyds pharmacies
 showing up here in southeast London as well as the banks.

Although, at the moment it also picks up Office buildings, which is useful as 
presumably these will need to be renamed to one or the other (in Edinburgh 
there are 4 of these), planning on checking out one of these on my way home.


Cheers
Chris

 On 4 October 2013 11:01, Ed Loach edlo...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Matt wrote:
 
   This looks really useful, thanks. It might also be worth checking the
   'operator' tag as well as many banks have that tagged rather (or
   maybe
   as well as) than the name
 
  All suggestions greatfully received. If you refresh now, an operator
  starting Lloyds TSB will trump whatever is in the name field (as this is
  for remapping). Other operator values are ignored still. If you click on an
  icon the name value is in quotes and the operator in brackets (so you might
  have 'Lloyds Lloyds (Lloyds TSB)' if the name has been updated but not
  the operator - that first Lloyds I should probably lose as it is a hangover
  from when the page I used as a source showed hotel or whatever as the type
  before the name, whereas my types are based on the name so tend to match).
 
  Ed
 
 
  ___
  Talk-GB mailing list
  Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Dan Karran
 d...@karran.net
 www.dankarran.com

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


-- 
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
m: 07980 214061
w: http://chrisfleming.org/
t: @chrisfl

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Wish LIst for Mapnik Stylesheet (overmapping of private features)

[Chris Fleming]

On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 02:45:51PM +0100, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote:
 Is there a mechanism for getting requests onto the wish list for the
 Open Street Map Mapnk style sheets?
 
 The particular issue is that now that people can trace quite small
 features, some areas are getting overloaded with private foot paths
 and private car parks (not to mention alleys and driveways),
 particularly where apartment blocks are involved.  These make it
 difficult to find public ones and pollute the landuse colouring.
 
 I've added a comment to the access Wiki page, but comments on wiki
 pages don't seem to get looked at.  What I'd like to do is to get onto
 the wish list that private features like this should require a higher
 zoom level, before they render, than equivalent public ones. (A thin,
 dotted footpath can be difficult to spot in a sea of dashed ping
 lines.
 
 (A secondary problem is that people map these all with no access
 restriction, or name them Private, but that can be fixed in the source
 data without destroying information - the only problem is that it
 needs verifying on the ground, whereas they can map, particularly car
 parks, from aerial imagery.)

I would look at adding an Issue to the github project:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto

Cheers
Chris



-- 
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
m: 07980 214061
w: http://chrisfleming.org/
t: @chrisfl

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Making iD the default editor on osm.org

[Chris Fleming]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 08:59:28AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 Hi,
 
 it has been proposed to make the newly released iD v1.1 the default
 editor on openstreetmap.org, meaning that if someone doesn't explicitly
 chose an editor they will open iD instead of Potlatch.

I say go for it, from all the conversations I've had with new and old
(non mailing list) mappers locally the consensus is that iD is a much
more accessible tool for newbies and is a pleasure to use.

Yes there is still a lot of work to do; we need to move forward and stop
looking over our shoulders 

Ban Potlatch!

Cheers
Chris


--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
m: 07980 214061
w: http://chrisfleming.org/
t: @chrisfl

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] GSoC 2012 - Regarding CycleStreets Projects

[Chris Fleming]

From the sounds of this tweet: 
https://twitter.com/#!/cyclestreets/status/183262141237833728


It looks like Cyclestreets are very close to opening up their source code.

Cheers
Chris

On 23/03/12 07:50, Graham Jones wrote:


Pryanka,
If you have not heard from the author of cyclestreets, it would be 
worth looking at other OSM routers which are open source.  Search our 
wiki for routers or routing.  You should find things like gosmore and 
osrm.
You coold experiment with them to see how they do with cycling or 
walking routing.   There was a gsoc project a couple of years ago to 
calculate the 'hilliness' of routes - you could look at including that 
into the routing algorithm too?   You will have to remember that some 
people will want to go over hills and others avoid them.
The surface of tracks could also be a good parameter for cycle routing 
if existing routers so not use this.


Just a few thoughts so you can work up a gsoc proposal if cyclestreets 
does not get back to you,  or if you would prefer to work on a 
different route calculator.


Graham

from my phone

On 23 Mar 2012 06:17, Priyanka priyanka.mengh...@gmail.com 
mailto:priyanka.mengh...@gmail.com wrote:


Thanks Graham :-)

If the mentors of the Cyle Streets projects are reading this, please
let me know. I would be delighted to discuss the 'Less Wiggly Routes'
project with you. :-)

Thanks  Regards,
Priyanka


On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Graham Jones 
grahamjones...@gmail.com mailto:grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Pryanka,
 I h...




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 route

[Chris Fleming]

I do have a contact who I know is working on HS1, I could ask him if he 
knows of any sources of this data for HS2?


Cheers
Chris


On Tue Jan 10 11:14:08 2012, Andy Robinson wrote:

Latest HS2 announcement today means that there will be a lot of discussion
about the route (generally and specific locations) over the coming years.
Currently the new route plans [2] have the usual OS copyright notice. What
we need is the bare bones of the proposed infrastructure released under the
open government licence. Any ideas or avenues for achieving that? I'm not
suggesting we rush to put the proposed route into OSM but it would be nice
to be able to do so when the time is ripe.

Cheers
Andy

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16485263
[2] http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-maps-20120110/


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




--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org

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

Re: [OSM-talk] twitter handling

[Chris Fleming]

On 08/09/2011 00:20, SteveC wrote:
There are a bunch of people asking things on twitter about OSM that we 
miss. Or people saying nice things that we should be retweeting.


I'm looking for a solution. Mozilla has this:

http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/army-of-awesome

and I'm in touch with them to see if the src is available.



I have a saved openstreetmap twitter search and keep an eye on it. I 
think only twice I've actually replied to people looking for help on 
opensteetmap most of it's people talking about osm or various bots.


Have I missed something here?

Although I can't see setting up the mozilla army of awesome doing any 
harm, although excluding various OSM bots will be needed. Helping people 
into the community isn't a bad thing; most people won't signup the first 
time they land on the openstreetmap page, and once they've signed up it 
may be some time before they edit. One regular at our Edinburgh meetups 
signed up after seeing a talk I did, but didn't start to edit for 2 years.


So, using channels to remind people and about OSM and give them a gentle 
push in the right direction won't do any harm; and a professional use of 
twitter is just part of that.


The @OpenStreetMap account has over 6000 followers (although a good 
number are certainly spam) and I would like to see a bit more posting 
than when there is a blog posting and the occasional retweet. So 
interesting press coverage or uses of OSM, etc.




Cheers
Chris

--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org



--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] twitter handling

[Chris Fleming]

On 08/09/2011 16:20, SteveC wrote:

Chris

* Remote searches aren't guaranteed to be accurate. Therefore you're 
probably missing posts. I do all the time.
* There are lots of search terms, OSM, openstreetmap, #openstreetmap, 
open streetmap, open street map ... Therefore you're probably missing 
posts.
* Chicken and egg. No OSM answers supplied today - so why would there 
be lots of questions?


Personally I want the OSM attitude to be that's a fun idea, let's try 
it. This costs us basically nothing, if it doesn't work we can kill 
it. With a bit of luck though, it will result in more mapping.


I didn't mean my comments as criticism, I actually think it's a good 
thing to setup, so count me in. I'm already vaguely doing this and it 
seems so are others, so having a more co-ordinated approach is a good 
thing. Especially if we can filter out stuff.


Cheers
Chris



On 9/8/2011 8:43 AM, Chris Fleming wrote:

On 08/09/2011 00:20, SteveC wrote:
There are a bunch of people asking things on twitter about OSM that 
we miss. Or people saying nice things that we should be retweeting.


I'm looking for a solution. Mozilla has this:

http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/army-of-awesome

and I'm in touch with them to see if the src is available.



I have a saved openstreetmap twitter search and keep an eye on it. I 
think only twice I've actually replied to people looking for help on 
opensteetmap most of it's people talking about osm or various bots.


Have I missed something here?

Although I can't see setting up the mozilla army of awesome doing any 
harm, although excluding various OSM bots will be needed. Helping 
people into the community isn't a bad thing; most people won't signup 
the first time they land on the openstreetmap page, and once they've 
signed up it may be some time before they edit. One regular at our 
Edinburgh meetups signed up after seeing a talk I did, but didn't 
start to edit for 2 years.


So, using channels to remind people and about OSM and give them a 
gentle push in the right direction won't do any harm; and a 
professional use of twitter is just part of that.


The @OpenStreetMap account has over 6000 followers (although a good 
number are certainly spam) and I would like to see a bit more posting 
than when there is a blog posting and the occasional retweet. So 
interesting press coverage or uses of OSM, etc.




Cheers
Chris




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Are you coming to London on Sunday?

[Chris Fleming]

On 07/06/11 19:18, Steve Coast wrote:

or saturday night

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Board_Meeting_June_2011

Would be awesome to see you there

Steve


With a little bit more notice I would have been able to make it down :(

:(

Cheers
Chris

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

Re: [OSM-talk] April fools that should have been

[Chris Fleming]

On 02/04/11 16:46, Steve Coast wrote:

* HOT announce zombie apocalypse response team


There is already an Zombie Reports Ushahidi instance 
http://www.zombiereports.com/ which does use OSM.


Cheers
Chris


--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] UK, Cardiff and Edinburgh, change capital=yes to capital=4

[Chris Fleming]

On 04/02/2011 13:48, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

RTFM!

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level

Wales/Scotland/England are 4, regions are 5

To be quite honest I really, really don't care that much at all: but, 
by word of explanation I was only suggesting what I *thought would be 
sensible* as England/Wales/Scotland/NI all have significant national 
identity of their own. Looking at the wiki article, one could argue 
for the removal of level 3 altogether to be quite honest as the vast 
majority of countries have no entry. But once again, I really, really 
don't care that much.



I'm pretty much with Nick on the not caring.

Personally I think the Admin Level system is unintuitive and hard to 
understand.  I'm not a fan of putting codes into tags. Yes I know 
tagging is over there ===


Having said that if the consensus is that this is the right way to go, I 
have no objection to changing Edinburgh from a yes to a 4. I may even do 
so later this evening.


Cheers
Chris

--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?

[Chris Fleming]

On 09/12/2010 22:16, Gregory Arenius wrote:
The city of San Francisco has made a bunch of geo data available.  I 
plan on importing the address nodes so that we can have door to door 
routing for San Francisco and for geocoding purposes.  I just want to 
see if the click through is compatible.  My understanding is that the 
data is basically public domain and the agreement is mostly a hold 
harmless type of thing.  This is based on my reading of it and what 
they city has told me they intend it to be. I have asked about this 
before and there were problems but the city changed the click through 
to address those problems.  The agreement is located here: 
http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp.  Thoughts?




I would tend to agree with you, from my quick read it looks like a big 
disclaimer. It does say that individual elements may have there own 
terms so I would ensure double check that none of these apply to the 
data you're looking at.


Cheers
Chris

PS: Usual disclaimers apply

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Bing - Terms of Use

[Chris Fleming]

On 01/12/10 08:52, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Andrew Harvey wrote:

Just to clarify is this
http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html the document
which contains the license grant?

No; the document is the one embedded in the OpenGeoData posting
(http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details). Like I say I'd envisage
it might be firmed up a little in the coming weeks.



 It's worth noting that this is more than we've had for the Yahoo 
imagery


Cheers
Chris


--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Response to A critique of OpenStreetMap

[Chris Fleming]

 On 15/10/10 12:30, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

Elizabeth Dodd wrote:

No, I cannot create the nice map.
It doesn't belong in MY skill set.


Fair enough. If you don't have the skills or the computers or the 
money to create a nice map, then you have to talk someone else into 
creating a nice map for you.


But I don't think this should be OSM. That would mean diverting 
resources from creating valuable geodata to creating pretty end 
products. I would rather see someone else take up that work, using OSM 
data to create nice maps of all kinds.


I'm not saying it should not be done, but I don't see it as a task for 
the OSM project. Much as the opencyclemap or the various hiking maps 
are not organised or funded by the OSM project.




I agree that creating a pretty map is not at the core of what OSM is 
about, and as time goes on there are more and more options for viewing 
openstreetmap data. However we can all agree that we want to provide 
data, and we want to improve data, and many of us will do whatever we 
can to plug openstreetmap whenever we can.


These people will head straight to the website and probably try and find 
there house; we want to capture these people so that OSM is there first 
choice for online mapping by providing the services that they expect. 
Hopefully over time some of these casual users will become editors 
over time. This is how we will continue to grow. I think it would be a 
mistake to ignore these users.


Obviously other users of the data are providing a lot of this I see 
Cyclesteets, Cyclemap, Mapquest and Cloudmade all point back to OSM and 
the editable-ness of the map underneath. But do we really want to leave 
these types of users to external sites?


Cheers
Chris



--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Bike Shop dataset obtained: please merge in locations in your area

[Chris Fleming]

Quick question on this what are poeple doing with this data in cases 
where a shop is showing correctly in the list and is on the ground but 
isn't really a bike shop?


The example I found is TISO:
http://shaunmcdonald.dev.openstreetmap.org/bike-shop-locator/shop/2549

Which is an outdoor shop, but you would be disappointed if you turned up 
looking for an inner tube.


Cheers
Chris


On 03/10/10 16:32, Shaun McDonald wrote:

On 25 Sep 2010, at 15:32, Andrew wrote:


Martin Lucas-Smith - CycleStreetslist-osm-talk...@...  writes:


Andy Allan and Shaun McDonald have created a webapp for the specific
purpose of merging (manually) this data into OSM.

http://shaunmcdonald.dev.openstreetmap.org/bike-shop-locator/

Could you add a name search? Moving the map is clumsy.

It's on the todo list. At the moment you can search for cycle shop names using 
the full list, and the text search in your browser.


If we add a tag like network=Association of Cycle Traders to the shops, it
would be possible to highlight shops that disappear from future revisions of
this list that may have closed.

I don't know if we are going to be getting updates. It may be possible to get a 
separate list of shops that have been removed from the list, however I would 
recommend doing a ground survey to verify that the shop has closed, as it may 
just be that they are no longer a member of the Association of Cycle Traders. 
At this stage the tool will need to be made more advanced.


Is anyone pointing out to Halfords that other bicycle shops are going into OSM
and would they like to follow?

I'm not aware of anyone who has spoken to Halfords, however it wouldn't 
surprise me if they would charge for this information for use by various POI 
aggregation companies.

Shaun


--
Andrew




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


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



--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Use of OS OpenData in OSM

[Chris Fleming]

On 22/07/10 16:25, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Ed Avis wrote:
   

As an aside, I think the 'source' tag is a bit misconceived; it would make
much more sense to tag source on the changeset, not on each object it
touches.
 

Only if you solely use one source per changeset. I'll typically use at least
a mix of NPE, OS OpenData, GPS survey and personal knowledge, and sometimes
more.
   
I tend to do the same - although if I have a track for a road that was 
previously  source = not survey I will generally modify it to match 
the tracks and either delete the source tag or edit it to be source=survey


Although I don't think I'm consistent.  What do people tend to do?


One I did recently is 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4981553/history and shows the 
evolution of what is initially a traced name = FIXME into a fully 
surveyed way by 4 people over nearly 3 years :)


Although this is a good case of where an area appears done and so I 
didn't visit it, until the the OS comparsion stuff came out. At which 
point I've discovered lots of missing stuff.


Cheers
Chris





--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Chris Fleming]

On 17/07/10 10:00, 80n wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org 
mailto:m...@chrisfleming.org wrote:



Although the intent of ODBl is to provide the protections we
thought we were getting with CC-BY-SA; if we were to go to
something *completely* different then I can image these
discussions getting *really* nasty.

Chris
Do try to pay attention and keep up with the thread ;)

opps :)

Just reading that now.



Diane Peters of Creative Commons posted the following statement in 
this thread a few hours ago:
There are a number of fundamental differences between CC's licenses 
and ODbL that at least from CC's point of view make the two quite 
different.


ODbL is something completely different.  In addition the content 
license and the contributor terms have no parallel with CC-BY-SA.  
Structurally there are big differences.


I don't disagree, I think that I was just trying to make the point that 
the *intent* in terms of having a Share Alike component and having some 
form of Attribution is present in both licenses? Admittedly in a very 
different way.


Anyway, it looks like it's stopped raining outsite so I going to go out 
and do some mapping :)


Cheers
Chris



--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[Chris Fleming]

 On 17/07/10 20:40, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

Michael Barabanov wrote:
A poll could be something like: Would you find a it acceptable if 
OSMF relicensed the whole dataset to ODBL without any data loss.


It should really be Would you find it acceptable if OSMF relicensed 
the whole dataset to ODbL without asking for consent from individual 
contributors, thereby making sure that there is no data loss, but 
disregarding individuals who might be against the change?


If OSMF were to do that, they would likely be sued by a number of 
principled objectors; we'd have to factor in a legal budget to deal 
with that. It should not be too much because those legal advisers that 
have told us that the CC-BY-SA would likely not hold in court would 
simply have to tell the judge the same ;)


Problem is, the principled objectors could also decline to sue OSMF 
and instead threaten to sue users of OSM data that contains their 
contributions. *We* believe such threats to be empty, but consider our 
users - one of the reasons for ODbL is to achieve a legal certainty 
about using our data. Would all this not lead to people *again* shying 
away from OSM for fear of some poisoned bits of data?


I don't think that Michael was actually proposing that we actually do 
this, more just use it to get an idea of if people agree to the 
principle of moving to ODbL if the data loss issue wasn't an issue.


I think that the majority would, there will be a few exceptions but IMHO 
ODbL is a much better license. From what I can tell most of the current 
descent is around what to do about CC-BY-SA data imports where the 
provider can't or won't relicense, or contributers that we can't contact.


Cheers
Chris




--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Chris Fleming]

On 16/07/10 14:03, TimSC wrote:

James Livingston wrote:

/  Although, as Simon Ward said Everyone has a say on whether their contributions 
can be licensed under the new license., I am uncomfortable with the ODbL process and I 
resent not being polled before the license change was decided. OSMF has gotten this far in 
the process without checking they have a clear majority of contributors behind the process 
(and not just OSMF members).
/
How would you actually poll the contributors? The only way I could see it being done that 
satisfies everyone is in exactly the same way that the actual relicensing question is 
going to be asked, and that is a very heavyweight thing to do just for a what do 
people feel poll.

If it were just a choice between CC-BY-SA and ODbL, I might agree. But this is 
a false dichotomy. We could write any number of licenses or revise ODbL based 
on feedback (except it would be better to resolve this soon). We could go PDDL, 
CC0 or PD. We could fork. We could do different licenses for different regions. 
We could do a single transferable vote or majority wins. The current 
relicensing question also doesn't distinguish between what I want for the 
future and what I would tolerate. So the question might ask in a poll is far 
from obvious.

   


Although the intent of ODBl is to provide the protections we thought we 
were getting with CC-BY-SA; if we were to go to something *completely* 
different then I can image these discussions getting *really* nasty.


Cheers
Chris

--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-GB] [Edinburgh] Road Names

[Chris Fleming]

Cool I've hooked up a script to do a comparison with the street names in 
OSM and have put the results up at:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4ejhysSkMOdDktM0Jyb3Z5TGFQTjZkOHJ4RHlnVGchl=en

Overall on the first pass we match about 75% of the road names, although 
there are lots of 'Z' Class roads that we don't have.

I have also done a area by area comparison and have included this on the 
second tab of the spreadsheet some area's look very good and some quite 
poor. I hope to spend some time looking at an area and figuring out 
where we don't match in order to get any bugs out, but if anyone wants 
to make any comments then the spreadsheet *should* be writable.

Also let me know if there are any other fields that it would be useful 
to pull out of OSM.

Cheers
Chris



On 18/03/10 23:14, Dair Grant wrote:
 Hi,

 At this week's Edinburgh meet-up we discussed the Council's public road name
 list, and how to cross-reference it with OSM to check coverage/identify
 missing roads.

 Unfortunately the council data is only available as a set of tabular PDFs,
 which is hard to do anything useful with, so I've converted them into a
 single csv file:

http://bit.ly/99py7c

 I won't have time to do anything with it for a while, but have put it up in
 case anyone else from Edinburgh wants a go (the script is on github in case
 other councils have a similar problem).


 Sorry for spamming all of -gb, as this is pretty local to Edinburgh, but
 there's no talk-scot and everyone is on talk-gb.

 Having said that, we also discussed having a mapping party in/around
 Penicuik on April 10th, so for anyone in central Scotland/visiting the area
 then I think Bob will be sticking the details for that on the Edinburgh page
 on the wiki.


 -dair
 ___
 d...@refnum.com  http://www.refnum.com/



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



-- 
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Glasgow Meetup Tuesday 17th November 2009 at 7:30pm

[Chris Fleming]

On 10/11/09 12:10, Bob Kerr wrote:

Hi All,

Just a reminder we will be having a pub meetup next Tuesday in Glasgow

Please see

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Glasgow#Social_Events



I'm going to be in Atlanta that week so won't be able to make it.

:(

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Virgin Train Traces

[Chris Fleming]

On 29/09/09 10:52, Richard Mann wrote:
A quick look at oepnvkarte indicates we have all of Virgin's operating 
routes already. Maybe some of the traces aren't great, but I think 
some tracing off NPE ought to fix that, surely?
While positional info is probably in the trains (though I don't 
remember it ever being discussed in the context of Pendolino or 
Voyager), the effort required to extract it is probably several times 
greater than simply carting your own GPS around.

Richard


___
   
This is one of the downsides of having things traced from NPE (or 
tracing in gerneral) as at first glance it appears that coverage is 
good. However some of the detail will be missing. For example I recently 
cycled up from Edinburgh to Inverness, and actually only left my GPS on 
by accident as it looked like the train line was well covered. However 
as I've been going through my trip, I can't see any other GPS traces 
covering the train route and it does appear to be NPE traced


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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Grant for usage of a google mapmaper users data to me

[Chris Fleming]

On 28/09/09 14:29, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
 is the one project where kosovo is ahead of serbia.
 We have now 6-8 GPS devices on the ground and a motivated team.
 we are using yahoosat and training mappers.
 We are importing GNS features and other things.

 I dont know about the GMM people, but they dont seem to me informed
 about anything.
 I would just like to inform them and also get rights to use the POIS
 they have given google. I dont want all the data, just to know the
 names and general locations of the features, I can have the ground
 team doublecheck them and redo them.

I'm not sure what you're going to achieve here. You can't use there 
POI's directly as they will have probably been derived from google's 
aerial imagery. If you are planning on visiting the places anyway then 
just go on a visit (which you will probably be doing to get street names 
and traces?) and add them then.

Cheers
Chris


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Edinburgh Meetups: Glasgow Central Scotland

[Chris Fleming]

On 26/08/09 16:29, Callum Noble wrote:
 Hi Bob,

 Sounds like a good idea.

 I organized a meetup in Glasgow back in Feb '08. There were a few
 Edinburgh people came through but in the end there weren't as many
 people came as had posted to the list or on the wiki (there were only
 4 of us in the end I think). Despite the poor turnout was good to put
 some faces to the edits.

 Since then I've not done much mapping but am going to start to try to
 get back on top of things. I'd try to make it along to anything
 organized in Glasgow.


I was trying to figure out when that was, I remember there were 4 or 5 
of us. It woll be well worth getting together and look at organising 
some mapping parties outside of the cities.

Cheers
Chris

 On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Bob
 Kerropenstreetmapcraigmil...@yahoo.co.uk  wrote:

 Hi,
 Kick starting a place for regular meetups in Edinburgh
 I have added some basic information about people getting together in
 Edinburgh
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Edinburgh#Mapping_Parties
 The main aim of this is to get more people to add the catagory Users in
 Edinburgh to their profile so that it is easier to let them know if there is
 a meetup in Edinburgh.
 After that I hope to organise a monthly or bimonthly meeting for Edinburgh,
 if successful then meetups in Glasgow and Central Scotland.
 I hope to use the calendar feature of the wiki as the local schedule
 Please send your thoughts to me or edit the wiki
 Cheers
 Bob





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


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



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

Re: [Talk-transit] JOSM Plugin

[Chris Fleming]

It's amazing that they seem to make the data so hard to get at, given 
that the objective is to get people to use public transport.

Are they really generating serious revenues from this data?

Cheers
Chris


On 24/08/09 21:45, Peter Miller wrote:
 On 24 Aug 2009, at 20:18, Péter Connell wrote:


 Wonder if we need some openjourneyplanner thing - obviously a
 massive task.

 ... but who owns bus timetables?
  
 The argument is raging as we speak This is a great blog post on
 the subject which shows how hard the agencies are being pushed at
 present:-
 http://news.cnet.com/8301-19882_3-10315749-250.html?part=rsssubj=newstag=2547-1_3-0-5

 At ITO we are pushing transport authorities virtually every day to get
 hold of the data under a commercial agreement where we pay them, but
 even that is hard! I am sure that in time the deal will be that the
 information is available without charge.

 Imo, we can't expect to maintain accurate timetables without access to
 the official data. It just isn't practical and sustainable to track
 all the detail and all the changes over time without it.

 And of course, the range of services which are suddenly available to
 authorities who release their data is growing by the day.



 Regards,



 Peter




 *strokes beard*

 ___
 Talk-transit mailing list
 Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
  

 ___
 Talk-transit mailing list
 Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit



___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-GB] printing from website

[Chris Fleming]

On 15/07/09 19:36, Nicholas Barnes wrote:
 Tom Hughes wrote:

 Page splits will be entirely dependent on the size of your browser
 window
  
 Unless the 'print' link generated a PDF, of course!

Except this is overkill in most cases when you just want a quick print 
out. As a user if I click on a print link I don't expect to have a PDF 
downloaded which I then need to open in another bit of software before I 
can print.

We could link to a page with a fixed width map (I think this is what 
google maps do) rather than the variable width, but this fails as the 
width would need to depend on what paper is being used and the 
orientation of the page...

Cheers
Chris

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

Re: [Talk-GB] printing from website

[Chris Fleming]

On 14/07/09 12:07, OJ W wrote:
 In firefox, the 'view image' -  'print preview' commands on a static
 map works very well -- the map image is scaled by firefox to fit
 whatever paper you are using.

 Of course, the resolution of the image doesn't necessarily match that
 of your printer...

 ___

I find that the print in firefox works very well. The print stylesheet 
ensures that only the required parts of the page get printed. The only 
caveat, is that if I switch from portrait to landscape mode then the 
attribution is printed on the second page, and there could be a little 
tidying up of the fonts to match the fonts used on the front page.

My print output:
Portrait Format: http://www.chrisfleming.org/osm_print_portrait.pdf
Landscape Format: http://www.chrisfleming.org/osm_print_landscape.pdf

Cheers
Chris

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

Re: [Talk-GB] MK mapping party

[Chris Fleming]

On 18/05/09 11:06, Andy Allan wrote:

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
ajrli...@googlemail.com  wrote:
   

I'm expecting to organise another 6 parties through the rest of this year so
people's preference for locations please shout up again.
 


Scotland! I was just browsing around on z10 (i.e. the last level
before vmap0 built-up areas disappear) and was somewhat dismayed to
find that even towns big enough for vmap0 don't even have a place=town
node in them yet (c.f. Mallaig)! The main cities are progressing, but
there's lots of areas that could do with some TLC.

South of the M8 - the Ardrossan/Prestwick/Kilmarnok/Ayr/Troon arc,
Stranraer, Dumfries, Berwick (OK technically that's in England)
North of the M8 - some places have started but might need some help,
like Falkrik Stirling and Perth
   
Agree - most of Scotland needs a lot of work. While the Central belt is 
well covered most places outside of this area need some work, for 
example Inverness and Aberdeen have been fully traced from the yahoo 
imagery; however not much groundwork has been done, and most towns in  
Northeast have barely any coverage. So we need to get more activity 
kickstarted in those area's.


Although sometimes I'm surprised; on as trip up to Killin earlier this 
year I discovered that not only had it been mapped but an article had 
also been written in the local newsletter! (http://twitpic.com/1duux)


It's probably up to those of us living here to get some mapping party's 
up and running to cover these area's.


Cheers
Chris

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

[OSM-talk] Reverting Changes....

[Chris Fleming]

In just spotted a pile of changes that someone made that seem to have 
done more harm than good:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1008885

What's the current thinking on un-doing changes; is it worth 
contacting the person involved, Checking if anything useful was done?

or should we just undo it?

Cheers
Chris


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] People's Map

[Chris Fleming]

On 09/04/09 10:15, Mike Harris wrote:
 Thanks - rather what I had thought but it was new to me. A quick comparison
 of areas I know well shows OSM streets ahead (if you'll pardon the weak pun)
 ... I also found that it was difficult to actually do much with their data
 for free other than link to them from a web site. Sounds like GetMapping
 have found a way to enlist the innocent to enhance their commercial aerial
 photography products by providing tags!


One thing I did notice is that while they have excellent imagery, if 
something changes they don't seem to have any alternative methods (such 
as GPS traces) for updating the map until someone takes a plane up and 
gets new pictures. I had a look at the M9 Spur which has been open since 
October 2007 and in OSM since then but even if someone wanted to add it 
to people's map then it wouldn't be possible.

The same thing applies to getting all the interesting data that can't be 
seen from the air.

Cheers
Chris

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] People's Map

[Chris Fleming]

On 09/04/09 10:15, Mike Harris wrote:
 Thanks - rather what I had thought but it was new to me. A quick comparison
 of areas I know well shows OSM streets ahead (if you'll pardon the weak pun)
 ... I also found that it was difficult to actually do much with their data
 for free other than link to them from a web site. Sounds like GetMapping
 have found a way to enlist the innocent to enhance their commercial aerial
 photography products by providing tags!


One thing I did notice is that while they have excellent imagery, if 
something changes they don't seem to have any alternative methods (such 
as GPS traces) for updating the map until someone takes a plane up and 
gets new pictures. I had a look at the M9 Spur which has been open since 
October 2007 and in OSM since then but even if someone wanted to add it 
to people's map then it wouldn't be possible.

The same thing applies to getting all the interesting data that can't be 
seen from the air.

Cheers
Chris

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using highway=path for country footpaths

[Chris Fleming]

On 03/04/09 13:43, Gregory Williams wrote:

-Original Message-
From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Earl
Sent: 3 April 2009 13:02
To: Richard Mann
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using highway=path for country
footpaths

Well, you know my view on this. A cycleway is a cycleway if it is
signed
as a cycleway, not because it appears to be constructed to a standard
that happens to be suitable for carrying bikes. Likewise bridleway,
which in the UK permits cyclists to use it (by default).

And where did this arbitrary 2m come from? That would mean some signed
cycleways in Cambridge wouldn't be marked as such because they are
wider
than 2m. Perhaps you are trying somehow to distinguish between a
specially constructed cycleway and a road which has been converted for
cycle use. But in my mind that's just a wider cycleway.

It will come as no surprise to you that I completely disagree with
 

your
   

approach to this whole subject.
 


Indeed. Current guidance (though admittedly not always heeded) in the UK
is for a minimum of 2.5m wide for a cycleway. So only applying
highway=cycleway to ways less than 2m wide would mean that we can't add
any new cycleways that follow the guidance.
   
Yes for example my route to work goes along a long section of NCR which 
is probably only 40 cm wide. But it's very definitely a cycleway.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] [SOTM] Train ticket: couldn't ask a small favour?

[Chris Fleming]

Dermot McNally wrote:

Hmm. Fair suggestion. Details now on the transport page. I'll be
departing between 16:00 and 18:00 on Friday evening from
Blanchardstown. Car will take 3 passengers, or a fourth at a squeeze.
Departure from Limerick will be on Sunday evening, but I have
ambitions to take a long route home and fill in some map gaps. Caveat
passenger.
  
At least any potential passenger will be likely to have been on the 
other side of long diversions home.


Cheers
Chris

(not making SOTM this year as my (South African) passport is somewhere 
within the Home Office and will no doubt will probably end up back with 
me on Saturday morning)





2008/7/10 Iván Sánchez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
  

El Jueves, 10 de Julio de 2008, Dermot McNally escribió:


On the matter of lifts - I will be driving down on Friday after work,
  

And when exactly is that? When are you going back? Please add yourself to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/State_Of_The_Map_2008/transport


Cheers,
--
--
Iván Sánchez Ortega [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Windows is the answer, but only if the question was 'what is the intellectual
equivalent of being a galley slave?'






  


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Edinburgh/Glasgow meetup

[Chris Fleming]

Shaun McDonald wrote:

 On 12 Feb 2008, at 23:49, Chris Fleming wrote:


 I was think of going for beers, in order to scheme and  talk about 
 mapping :)

 How would the 28 March, suit people?

 I would like at least one micro mapping party to be done by then! You 
 don't know what I'm shoving up my sleeve for Bike Week.

 I'm currently thinking of sometime in the next ~fortnight as it is a 
 more local meetup, rather than a larger one.

 Sorry if I'm moving things forward a bit too fast.
I had meant to say the Thursday 28th Feb (this gives people with a busy 
schedule 2 weeks notice) , we could arrange to do a few hours of mapping 
and then meet in a pub at 8 or 9?

Cheers
Chris



 On Feb 12, 2008 11:46 PM, Callum Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Shaun McDonald wrote:
 
  On 8 Feb 2008, at 17:09, Chris Fleming wrote:
  [...]
  Anyone in Edinburgh/Glasgow up for some beers in the next few
 weeks?
 
 
  I'd love to have a meet up soon. I know that Chris Hill is
 hoping to
  have Edinburgh mapped well enough so that an Edinburgh version
 of the
  Camden cycle planner can be launched during Bike Week.

 What were you guys thinking for a meetup - just some beers rather
 than a
 mapping thing?

 I'd be up for meeting up with some local mappers. When/where were you
 thinking of?

 --
 Callum





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Edinburgh/Glasgow meetup

[Chris Fleming]

I was think of going for beers, in order to scheme and  talk about mapping
:)

How would the 28 March, suit people?

Cheers
Chris

On Feb 12, 2008 11:46 PM, Callum Noble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Shaun McDonald wrote:
 
  On 8 Feb 2008, at 17:09, Chris Fleming wrote:
  [...]
  Anyone in Edinburgh/Glasgow up for some beers in the next few weeks?
 
 
  I'd love to have a meet up soon. I know that Chris Hill is hoping to
  have Edinburgh mapped well enough so that an Edinburgh version of the
  Camden cycle planner can be launched during Bike Week.

 What were you guys thinking for a meetup - just some beers rather than a
 mapping thing?

 I'd be up for meeting up with some local mappers. When/where were you
 thinking of?

 --
 Callum

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Scouts Mapping in Central Scotland

[Chris Fleming]

Callum Noble wrote:
 Hi All,

 I was speaking to someone involved with the Scout Network in Scotland, 
 which is an organisation for ex-Scouts aged 18-25.


 He suggests a joint mapping weekend/party somewhere in Central Scotland 
 between the Scouts and some OSM contributers. With some of us to give a 
 talk on the project and a demo of how to go about mapping/editing. (They 
 have there own supply of GPS)


 A brief discussion suggests that this might be better based at a larger 
 town which is pretty blank on the map, rather than in Glasgow/Edinburgh 
 - which for the most part - have their centers mapped quite well now.

 Falkirk came up as a possibility but anywhere central could work out. I 
 understand they have access to accommodation for themselves in quite a 
 few places - not sure of the exact details of this though.


 Any Glasgow/Edinburgh/Central Scotland people interested in this?
   
I'm definitly up for this, depending on the dates.

Somewhere on the train between Glasgow and Edinburgh, would probably 
work out well, At a quick glance Livingston and Falkirk might to good 
places to start. People with cars could head out a little futher afield 
if neccessary.

I'm also more than happy to do a talk in the run  up to any event.

Anyone in Edinburgh/Glasgow up for some beers in the next few weeks?

Cheers
Chris



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

Re: [Talk-GB] How do I tag this cyckeway?

[Chris Fleming]

Dave Stubbs wrote:
 On 16/08/07, *Rik van der Helm* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   My own suggestion is:
   whateverkey=road/track/path/trail (4m/4m/2m/1m)
   cycle=yes;foot=yes
   network=ncn;byway;burnswalk;kmtrail;
   network_ref=ncn7
   and if you like to gather info on the pavement, also:
   surface=tarmac/concrete/cobblestone/grid/lime/shells/..
 
  Hmmm.. seems like you're twisting the problem to fit a different
  problem to me :-)
 
  highway=cycleway
  route=ncn;byway;burnswalk;kmtrail;
  ncn_ref=7
  foot=yes
 
  has a basic equivalence but using the existing tags.

 I doubt whetter Dave's whole 'route' fits in 'highway=cycleway',
 where
 it is reserved for 'cycleways exclusive for cycles'. His posting makes
 clear the route is mainly shared use. So Dave will have a hell of
 a job
 defining all those highways he's running along like
 residential/service/track/tertiary/bridleway. 



 Ah, well, I've never actually come across a track/road/lane whatever 
 you want to call it that was *exclusively* for cyclists. That's not to 
 say that they don't exist, just that they're obviously not common 
 where I live. I don't interpret highway=cycleway to mean exclusively 
 for bikes... I interpret it to mean signed, suggested, and good for 
 bikes. Given the number of other cycleways that are around the place 
 that I know for a fact are shared paths, I think that that's a pretty 
 common interpretation too.
I'm with you on that, if a route is wide enough for and bikes are 
allowed then it's a highway=cycleway, if it's not really really wide 
enough for bikes or bikes would need to be carefull then I go for 
highway=footway  bicycle=yes (We have a local organisation (SPOKES)  who 
produce a really good cycle map with cycle routes (highway=cycleway) as 
full purple line and cycle route but cyclists may need to get off or be 
careful as a dotted purple line I think of this as highway=footway  
bicycle=yes.

I assume that highway=cycleway allows both bicycles and foot, as this is 
most common and that highway = footway is just for foot, unless 
otherwise stated.

Cheers
Chris

-- 
http://www.chrisfleming.org/


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridges (Edinburgh)

[Chris Fleming]

Minty wrote:
 I've noticed many bridges around Edinburgh appear to be done using
 three seperate Ways

 See George IV Bridge, and also Castle Terrace if you pan to the
 left a little.

 http://tinyurl.com/298f7t

 * way_before_bridge
 * way_for_bridge
 * way_after_bridge

 all three have highway and name attributes set to identical values
 with the middle one also having bridge=yes.
 Mapnik appears to be able to deal with this, but the
 informationfreeway / [EMAIL PROTECTED] appear to get confused and render the
 street name three times (once per way), which tends to look rubbish.

 But it also seems wrong and over-complicating things to me.

 Would it not be better to have:

 * one way for the whole of the street, with highway and name set.
 * A second Way for the segments covering the bridge with the only
 attribute being bridge=yes (and name= if the bridge itself has a namereas
 distinct from the road).

 Yes/No?

   
No. It's complicated to draw, extra rules would need to be added to the 
renderer to define if this is or isn't a bridge. Route finding 
algorithms would get confused. I'm sure there are more reasons.

As you have pointed out, Mapnik can draw these correctly now, there is 
already a script in the osmarender4 svn directory that will 
automatically remove these, and hopefully osmarender5 will be able to 
cope even better

If you *really* want to stop these from being disabled then you can use 
tags to stop osmarender from drawing the names: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Osmarender/Tags

Cheers
Chris

-- 
http://www.chrisfleming.org/


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Edinburgh

[Chris Fleming]

Daniel Glassey wrote:
 Hi,
 I can't remember who has been doing Edinburgh but there is a talk
 about OSM at Debconf[1], the Debian conference. afair it is on 18th
 June. Sometime during the week following that it would be great if a
 group of us could help with mapping.

 For the folks there in Edinburgh what is the best thing we can help
 with - most people will be on foot and public transport? And will you
 be able to get along and help?

 Also, would it be possible to get some GPS up there?
   
I'm living in Edinburgh, and was just composing a message to ask who was 
doing the talk at Debconf!

I'm doing a talk for the Edinburgh Linux Group this Thursday and hoping 
to generate additional interest in Edinburgh, and it would be great to 
hook up to any activity happening over Debconf as well as meeting up 
with others :)

In terms of mapping there are a few holes in the city center that need 
filling, in order to produce a complete City Center Map. But pretty 
much the Northern Half of the city (from George Street to Leith) is 
still needs detailed mapping, all this this is within walking distance 
or a simple bus ride. I'll be more than happy to help to co-ordinate and 
provide local knowledge.

Also if there are any others in Edinburgh it would be great if you could 
make it along to my talk this Thursday, 7:30pm sharp at Edinburgh 
Training and Conference Venue on St Mary Street, then it would be great 
to see you.
http://www.informationfreeway.org/?lat=55.95071336586124lon=-3.1828041321902503zoom=16layers=B000F00

Cheers
Chris

-- 
http://www.chrisfleming.org/


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