Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

On 20/09/2018 18:37, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

If these boundaries were purely of historical interest I doubt that 
you'd find many experienced contributors arguing for their inclusion 
in OSM. The argument is that these areas retain a continued cultural 
geographic relevance.


No, they don't. They have relevance to the past.

People with no particularinterest in history can and do still consider 
themselves as living in (for eg.) Wigan, Lancashire or Dentdale, 
Yorkshire (administratively in the Yorkshire Dales but not Yorkshire - 
how ridiculous!).


Great. Let them consider themselves so. It has little to do with OSM & 
nothing to do with this specific subject.




To me the best comparison is with loc_name and old_name, tags in which 
we appreciate the significance of older or alternate names for areas 
where they retain some current significance.


You disproved your own argument - old_name is used on current, still 
existing entities.




Btw, I'm surprised that we've got this far without mention (unless 
I've missed it) the Government's position on this issue, namely that 
despite ceasing to have administrative function, the traditional 
counties continue to exist and form an important part of of local 
identities: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/eric-pickles-celebrate-st-george-and-englands-traditional-counties


I'm sorry, but this is just descending into barrel scraping 
whataboutery. The views of a political point scoring MP is irrelevant to 
OSM decisions


Cheers
DaveF.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Waterway rel with mix of line & poly

[Dave F]

On 21/09/2018 00:31, Warin wrote:

On 21/09/18 06:11, Jem wrote:

Thank you both. That's very helpful.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 22:25, Dave F <mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:


Hi

Short answer: Yes

There's a few problems here:

Relations should not be used to collect thing together.


? That is what they can be used for. See the site relation as an example.


This reinforces my point. Site is repeatedly used to form unnecessary 
collections of things (such as braces of bus stops, one on each side of 
the road which already share the same name: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2726555)


...or by people who are unaware OSM is geospatially aware. Note the 
'site' example given on the wiki: "Relation to group elements of a site 
such as a school together.". If the school has a amenity=school polygon 
boundary, which it should, everything within it is a part of that school.


It wouldn't be so bad if people didn't give up half way through creating 
them.



There shouldn't be tags on the ways which conflict with those in
the relations


True.


MP relations require a 'type' tags and 'inners' & 'outers' roles


True


In this case the Southern section shouldn't be a polygon


Did not look.


Clarification: It shouldn't be a part of the multipolgon relation. It 
should still be a polygon.



MP relations should be restricted to the areas which have inners:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2571440#map=19/51.15275/-2.05045

No. They can be used to collect a series of outer ways to form the 
boundary of a feature e.g. an administration boundary usually shares 
ways with adjacent administrations.


Clarification: I was referring to specific examples of river MP's to 
include islets. It makes it much easier to maintain if the relations are 
kept as small as possible around any inners. If the MPs are large, some 
contributors mistake them as untagged ways and add duplicating tags to 
them. To help avoid this confusion I add a note tag to the way: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/431275464


Cheers
DaveF
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths: lagginess in Firefox 62.0 - use Chrome for now

[Dave F]

Can confirm. It's also occurring in Overpass Turbo.

An alternative to using Chrome is to:

Download an older version of Firefox from FileHippo 
https://filehippo.com/download_firefox_64/

In your current FIrefox turn off auto updates Options>General (Scroll Down)
Uninstall Firefox
Load old version.

Cheers
DaveF


On 19/09/2018 10:55, Nick Whitelegg wrote:



Hi,


Apologies for this: I've noticed that MapThePaths has become very 
laggy in Firefox 62.0, while in 60 and 61 it worked fine unless there 
was a large amount of data. Unsure of the reason but I've asked on dev 
in case the Leaflet developers can give some guidance.



In the meantime, I would recommend you use Chrome, which does not 
appear to have a problem.



Thanks,

Nick





___
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] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

On 19/09/2018 23:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Frederik Ramm wrote:
  It still is one today.


So there's no problem, then.


So:

Historic counties can and often do represent genuine, attested, useful
geographic information. If you're proposing to delete them, you need to come
up with a solution that will retain that information.


For the nth time - OHM.


if people went out and did mapping, rather than staying at home and doing
deleting.
These two are not mutually exclusive. When a building is razed & 
replaced with a new one do you retain the existing?


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

On 20/09/2018 13:24, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2018-09-20 14:12, Dave F wrote:


See the OSM Welcome page.

Quoting the law does not make a person guilty.


Misunderstanding 'the law' doesn't prove 'innocence'.


If it were that simple these boundaries would have been removed long ago.


Being 'difficult' is not a reason to keep them.


Are you offering to delete these boundaries then?


Unsure of relevance. Either way is, again, not a valid reason to keep them

As far as I can see there is no "decision" in this case yet, just a 
ever-growing collection of opinions.




Once again, please don't assume this is the first discussion on the 
subject. Being unaware of them doesn't invalidate them.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Waterway rel with mix of line & poly

[Dave F]

Hi

Short answer: Yes

There's a few problems here:

Relations should not be used to collect thing together.
There shouldn't be tags on the ways which conflict with those in the 
relations

MP relations require a 'type' tags and 'inners' & 'outers' roles
In this case the Southern section shouldn't be a polygon
MP relations should be restricted to the areas which have inners: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2571440#map=19/51.15275/-2.05045

The Islet, in this case, isn't included in the relation.
There are no defined 'outers'
There should be a complimentary tag to natural=water, such as 
water=stream/river etc.


Cheers
DaveF



On 19/09/2018 01:35, Jem wrote:
Is there any problem with defining a water feature that is a mix of 
polygons & lines? e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6447531


Should it be fixed, or is it ok?


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

See the OSM Welcome page.

On 20/09/2018 13:00, Martin Wynne wrote:
The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they 
can't be verified on the ground.


No, Martyn. It's that they are not current.



Make up your minds!

Previously:

> > On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > I'm puzzled by this insistence that we can map only that which
> > is "current or real".

> Usually people don't say "current or real" but "verifiable on the
> ground". The fundamental idea goes like this: If two mappers disagree
> about a feature, they can simply go there and the conflict can be
> solved immediately.

Martin.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

Sure (green tick):
https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome

On 20/09/2018 12:52, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2018-09-20 13:22, Dave F wrote:


As I noted previously, many discussions have been had & a decision made.


The discussion is clearly ongoing Could you point me to the 
"decision" please?




___
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] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

On 20/09/2018 12:07, Martin Wynne wrote:


The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't 
be verified on the ground.


No, Martyn. It's that they are not current.

Current boundaries aren't visible on the ground either. No one's painted 
dashed lines across the fields, but they're still real & verifiable via 
LA's documentation.


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

On 20/09/2018 11:57, Dan S wrote:

Poohsticks.
(How did the conversation get to this...)


OSM threads *always* go off track, often from the first reply.

Could we all please /try/ to keep on topic, or start a new thread?

Cheers
DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

Hi all.

There's appears to be a misguided belief this hasn't been discussed 
previously. It has, numerous times, and the consensus of those who took 
part was so clear it's now included in the first page every new users sees.


I feel there is nothing to discuss/vote on as it all been said & done 
before. Transference to OHM is the only option.


As Frederick & others point out - It will open the floodgates for other 
irrelevant data to be added.


Cheers
DaveF


On 18/09/2018 09:53, Adam Snape wrote:

His,

I think I said earlier in the thread but I've never viewed OSM as a 
strict majority rule, more a do-ocracy or rule by consensus. 
Certainly, I think anybody proposing the deletion of others' mapping 
ought to be sure of clear community consensus, not just a mere 
majority opinion. Future mappers should not be bound by the views of 
7/12 mappers participating in a Loomio vote in 2018.


Kind regards,

Adam


On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, 09:11 Dan S, > wrote:


Though I've no particular expertise to add, this thread has tipped me
in favour of being happy with these boundaries. Colin very rightly
emphasised process - how do we come to some decision rather than
simply expressing our views and then sitting back waiting for it to
erupt again in 18 months? I'm not a big one for voting eg on tagging
but this seems to be a great case for a Loomio vote or a wiki vote, as
has already been suggested. Can someone perhaps set one up? Maybe a
Loomio vote, and we'd probably want to paste its outcome into the wiki
after to make sure it wasn't lost?

Dan

___
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: [OSM-talk] 46 errors on OSM

[Dave F]

Hi

As OSM is a 'DIY' contribution project, here you go:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=17/59.91777/10.80644

There's a help icon on the right hand side with a walk through on how to 
detail buildings


Cheers
DaveF

On 04/09/2018 11:25, Stadia Arcadia wrote:

Hi, I found some errors on OSM, can anyone fix those?

Missing stadiums:
1 Colorado State Stadium
2 Balikesir Atatürk Stadyumu
3 Intility Arena
4 Right to Dream Park
5 Aalborg Portland Park
6 Ariake Coliseum
7 Estadio Centenario Ciudad de Quilmes
8 Estadio Nacional de fútbol (Managua)
9 Habiganj Adhunik Stadium
10 U Arena
11 Stadion Utama Gelora Bung Karno
12 Spor Toto Akhisar Stadyumu
13 Yeni Malatya Stadyumu
14 King Saud University Stadium
15 Nizhny Novgorod Stadium
16 Kaliningrad Stadium
17 Stade Kashala Bonzola
18 East Bengal Ground
19 Tau Devi Lal Football Stadium
20 Jimma University Stadium
21 Barbourfields Stadium
22 Dinamo National Olympic Stadium (Minsk)
23 Kottappadi Football Stadium
24 Estadio de fútbol Municipal El Alto
25 Ekana International Cricket Stadium
26 Velayat Stadium (Semnan)
27 Bangkok Arena
28 Hamad bin Khalifa Stadium

Stadiums have been completely renovated:
29 Estadio Nacional Dennis Martínez
30 Generali Arena (Vienna)

Demolished stadiums (should be removed):
31 Stadio Sant'Elia

Missing sports fields/athletics tracks:
32 Estadio Akron
33 Sakarya Atatürk Stadyumu
34 Banc of California Stadium
35 JYSK park
36 Xinzhuang Baseball Stadium
37 SunTrust Park
38 Wallace Wade Stadium

Missing stands:
39 Stadion Bumi Sriwijaya
40 Estadio Nemesio Díez
41 Bornova Stadyumu
42 Stade Charles-Mathon
43 Toyota Stadium (Frisco)
44 Estadio Olímpico Andrés Quintana Roo
45 Estadio Julio Humberto Grondona

One stand is much larger:
46 Estadio Huancayo


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[Dave F]

On 29/08/2018 20:32, Toby Speight wrote:


I consider it a "niche" that wants them hidden.


The vast, vast majority are hidden on the ground.


  I don't see
that we have to mis-tag them all to have them hidden - I can see it
would be useful to have a map with less clutter, but it shouldn't be
hard to do that without having to mangle the underlying OSM database!


Separating tags isn't "mangling" It makes the database more detailed & 
accurate.


How would you propose to do it?


Yes, I appreciate that if the highways_authority_ref were documented and
somehow agreed to be correct, then for mkgmap it would be a simple
matter of "add ref ${highways_authority_ref};" near the beginning; it
would be a bit harder to get a workable tag template for Merkaartor, but
tools like KeepRight and Geofabrik QA aren't so easily adjusted, and
unlikely to adopt new tagging until it's at least documented.


I'm sorry, but this is poppycock. All data users should have ability to 
responded to changes in the database. The tail does not wag the dog.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Dave F]

On 29/08/2018 20:35, Toby Speight wrote:

Wou> ... GB doesn't include Northern Ireland, ...

Even in these days of Brexit, I don't think there's any movement for
Northern Ireland to leave GB.  You've been misinformed!

Sorry Toby, but it's you who's been misinformed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[Dave F]

On 29/08/2018 20:44, Toby Speight wrote:

0> In article ,
0> Dave F. mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> ("Dave") wrote:

Dave> Point about OSM wiki: IMO giving multiple options for the same
Dave> entity leads to confusion & errors so should be avoided.

That's exactly what's problematic about "highways_authority_ref": it
creates a tag that contains the same information as belongs in "ref".

Based on the name, the similarity to ncn_ref and the like suggests a
non-authoritative alternative identifier.


Hi Toby

Let's deal with the last point first. Unsure how you could describe 
'highways_authority_ref' as 'non-authoritative'.


'ncn_ref' isn't 'non-authoritative' or similar to it's a label given to 
an assigned highway by Sustrans, many miles of which are maintained by 
local authorities.


OK, main point: 'ref' was used almost from the start of OSM when Steve 
C. mapped the first ways. As the database evolved it became clear 'ref' 
was too ambiguous & so other 'ref' tags evolved. Please remember there 
were no focus groups meetings laying out a pathway concept. OSM is a 
truly organic development. Things change, evolve. As the database 
becomes more detailed so the tags become more detailed. Contributors 
should be expecting change & willing to adapt. Being fearful of change 
is not a reason for the status-quo.


I've used 'highways_authority_ref' as it was suggested as a more 
specific tag to the alternatives. As I said in my OP I'm wiling to amend 
that, but only after I've amalgamated all the relevant tags & someone 
comes up with a better alternative. So far no one has done so.


Getting all contributors to use 'highway_authority_ref' will be 
problematic, in *exactly* the same way it is for so many other tags. 
That is *not* a reason to not improve OSM's database.


General point to all: Others here & on private email appear to think I, 
& I alone, conceived this proposal. I did not. This is clearly evident 
from reading the links in my OP. If anyone wishes to criticize the 
proposal, please have the common decency to base it on facts & evidence.


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Some leisure=track not rendering

[Dave F]

Hi
Hmm.. strange. Note Cycle Map does still render

Check here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/compare/v4.10.0...v4.13.0

Raise a query here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues

Cheers
DaveF

On 28/08/2018 18:48, jc...@mail.com wrote:

Has there been a recent change to the standard rendering for leisure=track? A 
racecourse and a cycle track near me mapped as closed ways are no longer 
showing. However another nearby track mapped as a multipolygon is unaffected.

Jez C

___
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] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Dave F]

On 28/08/2018 20:24, Brian Prangle wrote:

 I suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI.



I wish people would read before putting their hands anywhere near a 
keyboard.


DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

[Dave F]

Hi Toby

You've been given the link to the previous discussions, which explains 
the reasons.


What is your objection to the reasons given for this amendment?

The wiki is a guide, not the law. It hasn't been updated yet as you & 
others still wish to discuss the situation. If it had, I suspect there 
would have been complaints that it was amended before being discussed 
(even though it has).


It's the responsibility of the creators of the software to ensure they 
keep up to date with the ever changing database.


Cheers
DaveF

On 27/08/2018 19:15, Toby Speight wrote:

Recently, all the tertiary roads in my region had their ref tags
removed, and replaced with "highways_authority_ref".  A week later the
unclassified and residential roads suffered similar attack.

* Who is supposed to benefit from hiding these data?
* Who is responsible for documenting what this tag means, and when it
   should be used in place of the standard tagging?  So far, there's no
   mention of it on its own tag wiki, nor on key:ref
* Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software -
   editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required?  I
   see no sign of any of this having started.

In short, what's going on, what's wrong with the standard tagging, and
how can we get the data back where they belong?

___
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] Road refs

[Dave F]

Hi Adam

On 28/08/2018 08:35, Adam Snape wrote:


The UK tagging guidelines have always advised against using the ref 
tag: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines 
although you'll notice from that there's still no overall agreement on 
exactly which other tag to use for unsigned references. I do believe 
this should have been discussed before the mechanical edit.


It was discussed back in '15. Some felt the two listed were specific 
enough with another option put forward, which I'm currently using. I 
indicated in my OP that that was up for discussion. Please start the 
ball rolling if you have objections to highway_authority_ref.


Point about OSM wiki: IMO giving multiple options for the same entity 
leads to confusion & errors so should be avoided.


Cheers
DaveF



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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

Hi

To repeat, They do exist, but only as a record of old data, not current. 
just as there's a record of Humberside & Avon. That they don't get 
altered is irrelevant.


I disagree about their legality.

DaveF

On 26/08/2018 23:01, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

Both Colin and Dave have repeated the implication that the traditional 
counties don't exist. It's very much arguable I guess, certainly 
successive governments have made clear that they recognised the 
continued existence of the traditional counties, and that 
administrative changes neither legally abolished nor altered these 
counties.


On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 22:01 Colin Smale, > wrote:


Except that the "ceremonial counties" actually do exist, and serve
a function. They are formally called "Lieutenancy Areas" and
represent the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant as direct
representative of the monarchy. Their boundaries are maintained by
a different legal process to the admin areas, and on occasions can
diverge for a limited period until they catch up with changes to
admin boundaries. And then there is the Stockton-on-Tees
anomaly...the borough is divided between the ceremonial counties
of Durham and North Yorkshire.


Thanks Colin,

Yes, I was aware of how the ceremonial counties are defined. I think 
if we're truly honest with ourselves we don't really map them because 
lord lieutenancies (as wonderfully arcane and obscure as they are) are 
of any real importance, but because they provide a vaguely sensible 
and recognisable set of geographic areas that we can call counties. 
Certainly if administrative importance were genuinely to be our 
criteria for mapping we would be mapping all kinds of things prior to 
lord lieutenancies.


In practical terms lords lieutenant are historic, honorary crown 
appointments and little more. If we actually believed this was 
justification for mapping we could use the same arguments for mapping 
the areas over which the royal duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall 
perform various honorary and historic functions (such as appointing 
the ever-so-important-in-the-present-day lords lieutenant) and 
exercise special rights. Incidentally their legally-defined and extant 
boundaries are the historic/traditional boundaries of the counties of 
Lancashire and Cornwall :)


Kind regards,

Adam


___
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] When is a hedge a wood?

[Dave F]

When someone's appearance is still presentable after being dragged 
backwards through one.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

On 26/08/2018 21:47, Adam Snape wrote:



On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 21:20 Mark Goodge, > wrote:



I think it's slightly unfortunate that OSM uses the tag 'historic'
for
something that's different to what we are discussing here. As well as
being potentially ambiguous, it may also encourage people to add
boundaries that are "historic" in the sense used used by
proponents of
the traditional English counties.

Mark


I quite agree. Much of the most strident opposition seems to be to 
adding an historical (ie. now obsolete) feature. Where proponents are 
using the term 'historic' they mean 'of long-standing importance'.


It would be helpful if we ignored the fact they're named 'historic'. 
Everything is historic. That new sandwich shop that opened last week on 
the corner? It has a history of one week.


What's important is that they are not current.

I feel I should stress at this point that we do map a fairly similar 
set of boundaries, the so-called 'ceremonial counties'.


My understanding is these are separate from admin boundaries & current?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

Disagree. We all add data which abides by certain rules & criteria. We 
vet it ourselves as we're adding it. If a contributor fails to do that, 
they should be expected to justify the reasons. This hasn't occurred. 
That they still exist as historical documents is not a viable argument.


As Dave W. pointed out, it's the thin end of the wedge.

DaveF

On 26/08/2018 19:45, Adam Snape wrote:

Hi,

I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to 
demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for 
those seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a 
clear consensus in favour of deletion.


Kind regards,

Adam

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 16:38 Andrew Black, <mailto:andrewdbl...@googlemail.com>> wrote:


Before we can decide whether to delete or document it we need to
decide whether it is wanted.
Might a Loomio vote be a way forwards.



On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 15:42, Colin Smale mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:

I wanted to talk about the process, not the outcome. It is
obvious there is not an overwhelming consensus one way or the
other, and as usual the debate just fizzles out with no
conclusion. If we do nothing, the data stays in the database
because nobody has the balls to delete it, but it can't be
documented for fear of legitimising it.

Is this the best we can do?



On 26 August 2018 16:27:58 CEST, Andrew Black
mailto:andrewdbl...@googlemail.com>> wrote:

    I agree with Dave F " It's still historic data, irrelevant
to OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will
"never change" is irrelevant. They add no quality to the
database.They should be removed."





On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 at 12:58, Colin Smale
mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:

I agree, but where do we actually go from here? We
have some options...

1) remove them all

2) leave them in the database and quietly ignore them

3) leave them in the database and document them, even
though they are controversial, to say the least

Option 2 is least desirable IMHO, as we prefer things
that are in OSM to be documented in some way, e.g. in
the wiki

Given the "live and let live" philosophy that OSM
otherwise espouses, maybe we can go for option 3?

Or we get some kind of consensus that they are to be
removed, but then I think it should be the
responsibility of the DWG to make that determination,
communicate the decision, and do the reverts.

On 2018-08-26 13:27, Dave F wrote:


No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic
data, irrelevant to OSM. They are neither "current or
real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant.
They add no quality to the database.They should be
removed.

DaveF

On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote:


It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time
smb001 has been making steady progress across
England. I take it that means acquiescence to these
historic county boundaries being in OSM.

I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging
in the wiki.

Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I
am not aware of?



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



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

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

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

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



_

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant to 
OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" 
is irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be removed.


DaveF

On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote:


It has gone all quiet here, and in the mean time smb001 has been 
making steady progress across England. I take it that means 
acquiescence to these historic county boundaries being in OSM.


I guess we should get smb001 to write up the tagging in the wiki.

Or is there a discussion going on elsewhere that I am not aware of?



___
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: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.13.0

[Dave F]

I know, which is why I removed you from c/c.

On 17/08/2018 18:49, Dave F wrote:
Thanks for letting us know. Wasted half an hour checking it wasn't 
just me & providing examples.


How about not posting until it's been deployed in future?

DaveF

On 17/08/2018 18:35, Tom Hughes wrote:

That version was never actually deployed because we were busy
doing upgrades to the rendering stack.

The 4.14.0 has just been pushed and should go live over the
weekend.

Tom

On 17/08/18 18:25, Dave F wrote:

Hi

Are any of these icons displaying?

For me, charity & houseware are still dots & casino is only 
rendering the name.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418385072#map=19/51.49491/-0.13207
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/349935002#map=19/51.51279/-0.13030

Casino as node doesn't display icon or name:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4868309016

I've zoomed in to z19 & refreshed my browser's cache.

Cheers
DaveF

On 23/07/2018 15:16, Daniel Koć wrote:

Dear all,

Today, v4.13.0 of the OpenStreetMap Carto stylesheet (the default
stylesheet on the OSM website) has been released. Once changes are
deployed on the openstreetmap.org it will take couple of days before
all tiles show the new rendering.

Changes include:
- Increased shield distances on roads
- Added icon for shop=ticket
- Added icon for shop=houseware
- Added icon for shop=charity
- Added icon for shop=second_hand
- Added icon for shop=interior_decoration
- Added icon for amenity=bureau_de_change
- Added icon for amenity=casino
- Added icon for amenity=boat_rental
- Updated shop=department_store icon
- Small documentation and code fixes

Thanks to all the contributors for this release.

For a full list of commits, see
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/compare/v4.12.0...v4.13.0 



As always, we welcome any bug reports at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues




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






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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.13.0

[Dave F]

Thanks for letting us know. Wasted half an hour checking it wasn't just 
me & providing examples.


How about not posting until it's been deployed in future?

DaveF

On 17/08/2018 18:35, Tom Hughes wrote:

That version was never actually deployed because we were busy
doing upgrades to the rendering stack.

The 4.14.0 has just been pushed and should go live over the
weekend.

Tom

On 17/08/18 18:25, Dave F wrote:

Hi

Are any of these icons displaying?

For me, charity & houseware are still dots & casino is only rendering 
the name.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418385072#map=19/51.49491/-0.13207
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/349935002#map=19/51.51279/-0.13030

Casino as node doesn't display icon or name:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4868309016

I've zoomed in to z19 & refreshed my browser's cache.

Cheers
DaveF

On 23/07/2018 15:16, Daniel Koć wrote:

Dear all,

Today, v4.13.0 of the OpenStreetMap Carto stylesheet (the default
stylesheet on the OSM website) has been released. Once changes are
deployed on the openstreetmap.org it will take couple of days before
all tiles show the new rendering.

Changes include:
- Increased shield distances on roads
- Added icon for shop=ticket
- Added icon for shop=houseware
- Added icon for shop=charity
- Added icon for shop=second_hand
- Added icon for shop=interior_decoration
- Added icon for amenity=bureau_de_change
- Added icon for amenity=casino
- Added icon for amenity=boat_rental
- Updated shop=department_store icon
- Small documentation and code fixes

Thanks to all the contributors for this release.

For a full list of commits, see
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/compare/v4.12.0...v4.13.0 



As always, we welcome any bug reports at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues




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






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

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.13.0

[Dave F]

Hi

Are any of these icons displaying?

For me, charity & houseware are still dots & casino is only rendering 
the name.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418385072#map=19/51.49491/-0.13207
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/349935002#map=19/51.51279/-0.13030

Casino as node doesn't display icon or name:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4868309016

I've zoomed in to z19 & refreshed my browser's cache.

Cheers
DaveF

On 23/07/2018 15:16, Daniel Koć wrote:

Dear all,

Today, v4.13.0 of the OpenStreetMap Carto stylesheet (the default
stylesheet on the OSM website) has been released. Once changes are
deployed on the openstreetmap.org it will take couple of days before
all tiles show the new rendering.

Changes include:
- Increased shield distances on roads
- Added icon for shop=ticket
- Added icon for shop=houseware
- Added icon for shop=charity
- Added icon for shop=second_hand
- Added icon for shop=interior_decoration
- Added icon for amenity=bureau_de_change
- Added icon for amenity=casino
- Added icon for amenity=boat_rental
- Updated shop=department_store icon
- Small documentation and code fixes

Thanks to all the contributors for this release.

For a full list of commits, see
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/compare/v4.12.0...v4.13.0

As always, we welcome any bug reports at
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues




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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

[Dave F]

On 16/08/2018 16:00, David Woolley wrote:
I thought that we were heading towards indicating whether the 
reference was signed, but keeping the reference.


The reference is kept. It's being transferred from multiple different 
keys (listed in my OP) to just one. One of the thing on my to-do list is 
amalgamate all 'this road is signed' into a single tag. Similar for any 
relevant Source tag.


I'd go further and say that, for the use case given, it is whether the 
turn, rather than the road, is signed.


That's a major change in tagging policy & a completely different point, 
irrelevant to this thread.


Cheers
DaveF.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

[Dave F]

On 16/08/2018 14:45, webmas...@killyfole.org.uk wrote:

Hi,

I am a bit surprised that an editing war or even a block would even be
considered in this case!


Err?... I clearly said that what I *don't* want.

DaveF




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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

[Dave F]

Hi

A contributor has been reverting my changesets over the past few days:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/tms13/history#map=7/56.741/-4.252

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61655207
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61623830#map=11/56.4828/-3.2425

As I don't wish to get into an edit war & believe blocking is a last 
resort, would it be possible if a couple of others attempt to help him 
understand the reasons.


Cheers
DaveF

On 04/08/2018 00:47, Dave F wrote:

Hi

After many discussions over the years about the referencing of 'C' 
class roads there appeared to be a general consensus to keep them in 
the database but provide a unique tag to allow them not to be rendered.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Royal Mail trialling 'parcel' post boxes

[Dave F]

I wonder if, like South West ambulances with defibrillators, they 
believe the public knowing their locations is a security risk.


DaveF

On 13/08/2018 14:00, Philip Barnes wrote:
Interesting, but cannot see any locations to use as survey hints. 
Although I can guess at one or two in Leicester.


Phil (trigpoint)

On 13 August 2018 13:48:51 BST, SK53  wrote:

Press release: https://www.royalmail.com/parcel-postboxes

Trial locations are in Leicester & Northampton.

Jerry


--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

Hi

On 10/08/2018 12:05, John Aldridge wrote:
I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on 
the ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map current 
administrative boundaries either. 


That isn't the correct mantra.

"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and 
current"/


https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome

The admin boundaries we map are both real, as set out in legislation, & 
current.


The historic boundaries recently added are not current, their "origins 
lie in antiquity." They are not "used for the purposes of 
administrative, geographical and political demarcation."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counties_of_the_United_Kingdom

These historic counties do, rightly or wrongly, form part of some 
people's sense of identity *today*, and I think that crosses the bar 
for inclusion.


But they don't cross OSM's bar.

I'm struggling to fathom how 1888 can be considered "today", and I'm 
unsure how someone's 'sense of identity' is relevant to what is mapped.


'wrongly' is not a reason for inclusion.

Cheers
DaveF



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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

On 08/08/2018 13:54, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2018-08-08 14:17, Dave F wrote:


Hi

On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote:
If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, 
at least these relations would have a verifiable source.


https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/products/boundary-line.html#Historicdownload

"The links above represent counties based on historic records and 
mapping circa 1888 and using the primary sources of the Local 
Government (England and Wales) Act 1888, the Local Government 
(Scotland) Act 1889 and the Sheriffs Act 1887. "




Those are fairly inaccurate snap shots of what thought to be accurate 
at that just date. As Mark G pointed out it's a ridiculous notion to 
believe those boundaries can be extrapolated back to "Saxon times".


They would be accurate according to the source (viz. OS). 1888 is of 
course nowhere near "Saxon times".


The contributor adding them has added no date & claims they're accurate 
back to the Saxon invasion. Which is ridiculous.


If the OS-provided data were to be used as the source of the "historic 
county boundaries" would that not be grounds for a possible compromise 
here?


Again, where to stop? No data is destroyed. OHM provides an equivalent 
database to store old data if needed.


There are plenty of examples of "former" objects in OSM - closed pubs, 
railway alignments etc. They are only still there because they are 
perceived to have some kind of relevance in the present day. Can a 
case be made that these historic counties are still "relevant" today?  
I would like to hear smb1001's take on this.


Pubs often reopen.
Disused/razed/abandoned railways should be removed from the OSM database 
*but* only if they're not tagged along with current features (cycleway, 
embankments, bridges etc)


smb1001 is aware of this discussion. His views are in the changeset 
comments.


Cheers
DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

Hi

On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote:


The OS publish boundaries for historic counties, so one could say 
these boundaries are the current boundaries for the historic counties.




To me that's an oxymoron.

If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, at 
least these relations would have a verifiable source.


https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/products/boundary-line.html#Historicdownload

"The links above represent counties based on historic records and 
mapping circa 1888 and using the primary sources of the Local 
Government (England and Wales) Act 1888, the Local Government 
(Scotland) Act 1889 and the Sheriffs Act 1887. "




Those are fairly inaccurate snap shots of what thought to be accurate at 
that just date. As Mark G pointed out it's a ridiculous notion to 
believe those boundaries can be  extrapolated back to "Saxon times".


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

On 08/08/2018 12:05, Lester Caine wrote:

On 08/08/18 10:56, Dave F wrote:


On 08/08/2018 09:54, Lester Caine wrote:
we are now in a situation where much accurately mapped material is 
simply dumped when there is a change to the current situation.

1. it's not dumped, it's still in the database as a historic version.
2. Changes almost always increase the accuracy & detail of the database.


Going back through the change logs is not the easiest process? 


Overpass API QL language offers means to do it using version() & a 
couple of other commands


Isolating deletions that are due to historic changes rather than 
simple factual corrections also muddies the water. But making the link 
to OHM more organised would allow current valid data to be archived 
properly?


It's possible to upload using JOSM, I believe (haven't used it), but I 
agree, a more open gateway for transferring would be useful.




The 'delete' process should be handled in a manor more sensitive to 
the hard work that has gone before!


the vast majority of the material making up the historic data such 
as boundaries IS the same as the current 'live' data.


I'm unsure that's true, but if it were, why duplicate?


That was always my argument AGAINST OHM ... since much of the data 
making up boundaries has not changed, having to duplicate that 
information over to OHM, and then decide where material is current or 
historic means that IDEALLY OHM is a complete copy of the OSM 
database, but with the historic material easier to find than via 
change sets ... why not just manage a single database? People who 
don't want access to historic material simply ignore data which has 
'expired' via end_date.


How often do you believe people will actually want historic data? 
Organizations archive for a reason. Consider your house, how things you 
don't use will get shoved to the back of the cupboard/shed.
I live in a Roman city, the editors struggle to display current data. 
Imagine what it would be like if *everything* was shown back to the days 
of Emperor Nero.


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

Hi

On 08/08/2018 09:54, Lester Caine wrote:
we are now in a situation where much accurately mapped material is 
simply dumped when there is a change to the current situation.

1. it's not dumped, it's still in the database as a historic version.
2. Changes almost always increase the accuracy & detail of the database.

The 'delete' process should be handled in a manor more sensitive to 
the hard work that has gone before!


the vast majority of the material making up the historic data such as 
boundaries IS the same as the current 'live' data.


I'm unsure that's true, but if it were, why duplicate?

Cheers
DaveF.

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

[Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Dave F]

Hi

User smb1001 is currently adding county boundary relations with 
boundary=historic through out the UK:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ASf (May take a while to run)

Changeset discussion:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61410203

From the historic wiki page
"historic objects should not be mapped as it is outside of scope of OSM"

Frankly I don't buy his comments. The problem is where to stop? Do we 
have ever iteration of every boundary change since time immemorial? Then 
what about buildings, roads, or coastline changes etc? The database 
would become unmanageable for editors (it already is if zoomed out too 
far).


I think these edits should be revoked.

Cheers
DaveF




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Paper/Article about stagnation in OSM

[Dave F]

Hi

I didn't read this article. I went out & mapped instead.

DaveF

On 31/07/2018 22:49, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

I don't necessarily agree with all that's been written but I found

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053951718790591

an interesting read: "The social construction of technological stasis:
The stagnating data structure in OpenStreetMap."

Grossly simplified, the author tries to answer the question "why haven't
we shipped API 0.7 yet" from a social science viewpoint.

Bye
Frederik




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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

[Dave F]

Hi

On 04/08/2018 03:03, webmas...@killyfole.org.uk wrote:

I don't understand the logic of doing this?

Surely we map for what is there on the ground, not how it renders?


The vast majority of 'C roads aren't signed on the ground. There's a 
feeling that those that are maybe old signs & when upgraded won't have 
the ref.



   If a road
has a reference number or a name, surely it is up to the render if it should
show that information or not, not how we tag it in the database?


True. Amalgamating all the variations of C refs to one unique tag 
provides an easy solution for the renderer to make that decision.



In my particular area I have people "helicopting in" to remove the C and U
numbers off the roads, just because they don't like the way it renders!  But
the fact is that none of the rural roads have signs giving the name, so just
because my local council can't agree on putting up signs on the road I live
on, it shouldn't have a name on OSM?


The 'refs' are numerical numbers not the name. They aren't being removed 
from the database. The general belief is if they're not signed on the 
ground they shouldn't be rendered on the 'standard' map.


It should be noted 'your' area does not have an air exclusion zone.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

[Dave F]

On 04/08/2018 09:55, David Woolley wrote:

On 04/08/18 00:47, Dave F wrote:


After many discussions over the years about the referencing of 'C' 
class roads there appeared to be a general consensus to keep them in 
the database but provide a unique tag to allow them not to be rendered.


I assume you mean the reference is not rendered rather than the road.


Yes. Note the frequent use of the word 'reference'.



It seems to me that, in the UK, class C roads should be exactly the 
set of roads with highway=tertiary, so there is no need for a new tag.


By design or error (of either the highway authority or OSM mappers) that 
is, unfortunately, not the case. I've provided Overpass queries for 
contributors to check & verify these anomalies.


Even if that is not true, the correct solution would be to test the 
reference in the renderer and suppress it if within the UK.


Collecting them into a unifying tag makes it easier for them to decide 
how they want to do it.


DaveF


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

[Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

[Dave F]

Hi

After many discussions over the years about the referencing of 'C' class 
roads there appeared to be a general consensus to keep them in the 
database but provide a unique tag to allow them not to be rendered.


This is a list of the discussions (there maybe others):
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-May/011632.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-March/014555.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-April/014788.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2014-August/016392.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017414.html

However this task was never undertaken. I decided to grab the bull by 
the horns.


I used variations of this Overpass query within JOSM to find the 
numerous 'C' refs keys (listed below) tagged to the different road 
classification.
I uploaded in batches split by geography &/or tag values to make it 
easier for me to verify
I used detailed changeset descriptions to make it easier to rectify if 
needed. If you spot any errors please let me know.


[maxsize:2073741824];
area(id:3600058447,3600058437,3600058446); // England, Wales, Scotland
//[bbox:{{bbox}}];
  way[highway=*highway classification"][~ref~"^C[0-9]{1,4}$"] (area);
//out tags;
//out center;
(._;>;); out meta;

*Various keys used for 'C' refs:
(listed most popular down)
* ref
official_ref
admin_ref
admin:ref
wcc_ref
highway_ref
designation
offical_ref
int_ref
unsigned_ref
reference
local_ref

*Highway classes with 'C' refs:*
**(listed most popular down)**
tertiary (+_link)
unclassified
trunk (+_link)
residential (error?)
service (error?)
pedestrian (error? Roads converted to pedestrian, but still classified?)
track (error/prow_ref?)
secondary (+_link)
primary

I've amended them to *'highway_authority_ref*'. It was discussed in the 
May '15 thread where it was felt official_ref or admin_ref wasn't 
specific enough. Feel free to discuss here if you have strong objections 
to it. If there's a consensus to change it's quite easy now they're all 
under a single tag.


Note I didn't include Northern Ireland as I'm unsure whether they're 
signed on the ground or not. Is anyone able to verify?


These are the trunk, primary & secondary roads which previously either 
had a ref or highway_authority_ref:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/AM7

Similarly these are the pedestrian, service, residential & track
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/AM8

These still have 'ref' tags: proposed, abandoned, construction, path, 
footway & cycleway; possibly copy paste errors or should be prow_ref?:

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/AMc

Please amend if you have local knowledge & believe any of the above are 
an error.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Closed Footpaths

[Dave F]

On 31/07/2018 16:58, Adam Snape wrote:

My personal convention for temporary closures is to add access=no.


This is what I've done in the past, although some users feel access=* 
isn't the top level in the hierarchy of restrictions, & is usurped by 
foot=designated.


DaveF.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] User deleting abandoned and rejected proposals on the wiki

[Dave F]

Hi

Unsure what Adam's precise error has been (User Page = TL;DR), but 
giving the wiki a spring clean seems like good idea. Asking the admin to 
remove old pages is the correct way to do it. Has he deleted any himself?


How has making it clear that they're not current pages "made it 
difficult to use the wiki"?


I get irritated when doing an OSM wiki/Google search & they return 
proposals that have been redundant/ out of date for years. It must be 
very confusing for new users (the people most likely to use the wiki)


So many proposals are by users who get confused by a situation, suggest 
a tag *very* similar to an existing one, or have a 'solution' to which 
they're desperate to find a problem to hang it on.


What's wrong with cleaning up the wiki?

There appears to be a growing fear of removing obsolete data from OSM, 
both the wiki & databases. I can't fathom why.


Cheers
DaveF



On 25/07/2018 16:46, Michael Reichert wrote:

Hi,

I (Mateusz Konieczny was faster) found a user who removes all content
from abandoned and rejected proposal pages on the wiki and adds the
Delete template. It's the template asking a administrator to delete the
page. I think that our admins are clever enough to not blindly follow
these requests but his edits cause unnecessary workload for them and
make it difficult to use the wiki.

I would appreciate it if someone else reading this email could comment
on his talk page. Maybe we are able to convince him why he is wrong.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Adamant1

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Adamant1

These are some of the affected wiki pages:

*Proposal pages*
Proposed features/Adult services ‎(shop=adult and other, has not reached
RFC for 8 years)
Proposed features/parking aisle (highway=parking_aisle, rejected, has
become obselete by service=parking_aisle)
Proposed features/Bag shop (shop=bag, tag in use, proposal abandoned)
Proposed features/boat=private (boat=private, has not reached RFC since
2008)
Proposed features/Marked trail (marked_trail=, has not reached
RFC since 2008/2009)
Proposed_features/Fire_Hydrant (amenity=fire_hydrant, rejected in 2010,
12,000–14,000 objects from 2010 to 2015 in the database)
Proposed features/Driving pleasure (Driving_pleasure=1/2/3/4/5,
cancelled in 2010)
Proposed_features/agricultural_access (access=agricultural, proposal
never left draft state but 120,000 objects in the database)
Proposed_features/4th_Dimension (incomplete proposal from 2009 but long
discussion page)

*Documentation and other pages about "outdated software"
- Potlatch_1/Development_overview/GPS_tracks
- a lot of pages about Kosmos (predecessor of Maperitive), mainly
rendering rules

*Old events*
South_East_London_Mapping_Party (mapping party in 2008)

Best regards

Michael



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update - GB1900 footpath locations

[Dave F]

Hi

Can I please urge caution if using this feature. GPS traces are rarely 
accurate enough in their raw state to be included directly. Dense woods, 
deep valleys & solar winds etc will all introduce errors into the traces 
& walkers will often wander 'off-piste' when crossing fields. Using an 
editor allows comparisons with existing traces.


From experience of my own & other user's traces, you can often end up 
spending more time & effort editing the uploaded way than tracing over it.


Cheers
DaveF

On 26/07/2018 17:21, Nick Whitelegg wrote:



Hello everyone,


Also coming soon - a MapThePaths app which will allow users to survey 
footpaths via GPS and automatically add them to OSM without the need 
for a separate editor. An initial version of this is almost ready but 
just needs a bit of debugging and testing.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Missing long distance footpath relation

[Dave F]

Jerry's OP query also contains the ways, so if you up load them you 
could be duplicating them.


Have you used the 'revert changeset' JOSM plugin? It works well.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Reverter

It retains the history of the relations edits

DaveF

On 27/07/2018 12:56, Brian Prangle wrote:
Thanks Jerry and Dave for your quick and helpful responses. Jerry I 
think if I just export your overpass turbo query to JOSM  and then 
upload that will restore the relation? I've taken a look at the data 
and it looks OK to me. I'll also drop the offender a helpful note. 
He's an an avid contributor from the Coventry Way Association


Regards

Brian

On 27 July 2018 at 12:34, SK53 > wrote:


There are several ways

 1. Many LDPs are documented (with relation ids) on this page on
the

wiki:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_long_distance_paths

. This shows it was relation 75266, deleted 7 months ago
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/75266/history
.
 2. Use Overpass-Turbo with attic data to query an area for some
point in the past. You can then binary chop of the date to
locate the point the data were lost, this with 1st Jan 2014
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/AB0
 3. If you can locate the time you made edits, find your own edit
 4. Ask someone to search a history file (I'm now so equipped)

Cheers,

Jerry

On 27 July 2018 at 12:09, Brian Prangle mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The relation for the Centenary Way in Warwickshire has
disappeared. How do I trace which changeset removed it so I
can revert? I walked and mapped this some time ago and I don't
particularly want to re-create the relation

Regards

Brian

___
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] Missing long distance footpath relation

[Dave F]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/75266

found via:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_long_distance_paths#.27C.27

Cheers
DaveF

On 27/07/2018 12:09, Brian Prangle wrote:
The relation for the Centenary Way in Warwickshire has disappeared. 
How do I trace which changeset removed it so I can revert? I walked 
and mapped this some time ago and I don't particularly want to 
re-create the relation


Regards

Brian


___
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] University of Northampton new campus - mapper required

[Dave F]

On 13/07/2018 23:26, Dan S wrote:
I hope this is not too much of a side-issue, but: one hopeful request 
- plase don't use amenity=university for each object in the 
campus, as was done for some other universities.


Indeed. I wouldn't use Oxford as an example. I *definitely* wouldn't 
look at Cambridge where one individual went off on his own. Still unsure 
why it's being tolerated.


I disagree with Warin. Pointing out pitfalls to avoid is as useful as 
recommendations to follow.


DaveF



I don't think UK uni tagging is yet consistent across towns, but the 
wiki's advice looks broadly ok imho!


Cheers
Dan


föstudagur, 13. júlí 2018 skrifaði David Earl 
mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com>>:
> The University of Northampton is opening a new campus very soon 
between between Bedford Road and New South Bridge Road. They would 
like to get a detailed campus map onto OSM as soon as possible, 
ideally by August 1. I haven't looked but I'm assuming this would have 
to be a ground survey as it is all new buildings so won't be on 
satellite (though maybe some building footprints might be), and in any 
case that wouldn't get down to the level of access doors, or building 
occupiers. If copyright permission can be obtained, I'm guessing they 
may have plans that could serve part of the job.
> They would be open to employing someone to do the surveying, 
especially as it has a short timescale. I can't really do it as it's 
too far from home to do repeated trips or fit it into my current 
schedule, otherwise I'd have jumped at it (I worked with the contact 
doing Cambridge University maps, and I'm sending this with her 
permission).
> If anyone is interested, please contact Amy Moore in their estates 
services department: amy.mo...@northampton.ac.uk 


> David
>


___
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: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

[Dave F]

Hi

On 03/07/2018 13:27, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

On 03.07.2018 14:21, Dave F wrote:
it should be updated when the object is touched individually anyway, 
thus not spoiling the history


There's no difference doing it that way or with a bulk edit  - it 
will still be recorded in the history..


 and makes an analysis for old objects significantly difficult.


All the history is still there*

* Actually I'm unsure if that's strictly true. Potlatch often looses 
history when temporarily splitting ways & then rejoining them. Unsure if 
the other editors do similarly.




There is no fear, there are long-standing rules that have reasons.


Mateusz is following those rules. Whenever a bulk edit is suggested some 
contributors go on a bit a wobble, with remarks akin to thinking the sky 
will fall on their heads.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

[Dave F]

On 03/07/2018 12:33, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

On 03.07.2018 12:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Not skill but knowledge - that fixme and FIXME have exactly the same 
meaning > I hoped that that in this case there will be no controversy 
at all and this minor duplication


On 03.07.2018 12:52, Dave F wrote:
> All the editors need to be checked to see if they're adding FIXME as 
default.


Yes, thus the logical consequence is that tickets are opened with the 
major editors,
to include that in the validators, and remind the users to fix the 
underlying issue.
When the object is edited without removing the fixme/FIXME, the 
validator could lowercase it while saving the object anyway.


Great, but why not fix the existing in the database at the same time.
Analogy: When a waterpipe bursts, you fix the pipe to prevent further 
flooding, but you *also* mop up the water on the floor.




This process was done with other tags that were found unnecessary, 
such as _created_by_ on objects, and very successful without bloating 
the history.


Created_by is different. It was added mechanically by editors, not 
users. Within entities it's a deprecated tag. Fixme is still a current, 
relevant, user added tag. (Saying that, I still think Created_by should 
be bulk removed)


DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

[Dave F]

On 03/07/2018 12:35, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

On 03.07.2018 13:22, Dave F wrote:

Great, but why the objection to a mechanical edit, rather than 
individually? Doing it one by one still updates the last_modified 
attribute.


it should be updated when the object is touched individually anyway, 
thus not spoiling the history


There's no difference doing it that way or with a bulk edit  - it will 
still be recorded in the history..



with unnecessary bulk edits that do not improve the data themselves.


Removes duplicated, reduces confusion, easier to search. A good Spring 
clean improves the database.


I really think this fear of bulk edits has gone too far.

DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

[Dave F]

Hi Maarten

On 03/07/2018 10:38, Maarten Deen wrote:

On 2018-07-03 11:23, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

3. Lipiec 2018 10:36 od md...@xs4all.nl:


What will prevent users from adding FIXME tags in the future?


Nothing, users may add any tags. It is impossible to change that by
edits.


Then the proposed mechanical edit is useless. 


It will improve the quality of the database

It will have to be repeated periodically, 


Probably, but.the database is *always* being updated repeatedly so no 
real hardship.



and I don't think that should be how we do QC for this problem.
If this is a problem, it needs to be fixed at the root (change the API 
to accept lowercase keys only or change every key to lowercase on 
upload) and then corrected (this proposed mechanical edit).


Yes; & fixed in editors.

Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

[Dave F]

Hi Michael...

On 03/07/2018 00:23, Michael Reichert wrote:

Hi Mateusz,

Am 02.07.2018 um 19:42 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:

Please comment - especially if there are any problems with this idea.
Please also comment if you support this edit, in case of no response
at all edit will not be made as there would be no evidence that
this idea is supported.

There are 177,152 FIXME and 1,216,043 fixme according to Taginfo. I did
not have a closer look on the average age of FIXMEs and fixmes.

What's the benefit in this mechanical edit? It just sets the
last_modified attribute to a recent date and data consumers, mappers and
QA tools get the impression that the object is not old.


This is not a valid reason to not update: 'tagging incorrectly to suit 
the validator/renderer...' etc



FIXME should make alarm bells ring in validator tools because its key
only contains uppercase characters.


Editors should have that alarm to prevent them being added in the first 
place.



If you want to search for uses of FIXME, use the OSM Inspector. It
supports FIXME case-insensitive for about ten years now (even our new
C++ implementation does). It does not matter if you write FiXmE,
or FixmE. Btw, todo=* (lower case only) is also supported.


Great, but why the objection to a mechanical edit, rather than 
individually? Doing it one by one still updates the last_modified 
attribute.



DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

[Dave F]

Hi
You beat me to it!
I haven't read the whole thread.

I came across this irritating anomaly last week & thought it would be 
good to update.


That there are entities with both variations indicates a problem within 
the database & is not a valid reason to not amend.


All the editors need to be checked to see if they're adding FIXME as 
default.


DaveF

On 02/07/2018 18:42, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

fixme tag is a standard way to mark fixmes.
Editors wishing to finish mapping in their area would (directly or
indirectly, for example using JOSM) look through objects tagged with
fixme tags.

FIXME tag is an unexpected way to mark fixmes, retagging this duplicate to
fixme key would improve tagging without any information loss.

It would make development of QA tools easier as authors would not need to
discover and implement support for this duplicated key.

Between X and Y objects are expected to be edited. See
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/FIXME#map for a
geographic distribution.

Changeset would be split into small areas to avoid continent-sized
bounding boxes. As this tag may be on extremely large objects (for 
example relations representing long routes) it may be unavoidable to 
make some edits with very large bounding boxes.


For documentation page see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account/moving_FIXME_to_fixme
For documentation of my previous proposals (including both proposals
that failed to be approved and approved ones) see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Mateusz_Konieczny_-_bot_account

Please comment - especially if there are any problems with this idea.
Please also comment if you support this edit, in case of no response
at all edit will not be made as there would be no evidence that
this idea is supported.


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Local names of bits of trunk roads

[Dave F]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#loc_name

DaveF

On 25/06/2018 14:13, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

local road names



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

Re: [Talk-GB] House of Fraser

[Dave F]

BBC: "If the plan is approved (by) 75% of its creditors"

I think your OSM time is better spent updating/adding shop details that 
are concrete:
Postcodes, full addresses, the one marked as vacant, but has been 
trading as a pop candle shop for the last eighteen months.


And you know... the geometry of the High St? It looks /really/ skew-whiff.

DaveF


On 07/06/2018 20:53, Andrew Hain wrote:
House of Fraser today announced today that half their branches are to 
close, listing which ones. Although shops should not yet be removed 
does it make sense with this announcement (or others like it in the 
future) to put notes or fixmes in the 31 locations involved?


--
Andrew


___
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-london] Overpass routine to return London underground stations (All 270)

[Dave F]

Hi
This post is specifically about rail transport in London. Is there a 
better forum for this post?


I've been retagging buildings associated with railways to 
'building=train_station', as per the wiki[1]. They were previously 
tagged variously as 'station', 'railway_station' & 'yes'+'railway=station'.


I want to double check the Underground stations (supposedly 270 of 
them), but I'm having trouble creating an Overpass routine to return 
them all. Using 'network~"London Underground|DLR" and railway=station 
and station=subway' in Overpass's Wizard only returns 227, Without 
'station=subway' it returns 318!


What is the correct combination?

I've just noticed Sudbury Town Station [2] is tagged as London 
Overground network Is this correct or part of the problem?

.
Cheers
DaveF.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dtrain_station

[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2158280270

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

[Talk-transit] Four queries relating to rail transport

[Dave F]

Hi

Whilst tidying up UK railway stations so buildings were tagged as 
'train_station', I've come across some points which I don't understand. 
Could someone help clarify?


 * Is station=subway used to indicate a station that's part of a
   specific network or if it's physically subterranean? There are
   currently many tagged as such which are in the open air:
   http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/zjc. The wiki doesn't help much: "subway
   is used to describe a subway station".
   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:station%3Dsubway

 * Why is railway=halt a main tag instead of 'railway=station,
   station=halt'. To me a halt is a subtype of station, similar to
   'station=subway'.

 * Stop Area relations - What are they for? What benefit is there in
   having what appears to be quite random items (bike parking, cafes
   etc) in a relation
   ?
   I thought creating relations as a 'collection of things' was
   discouraged. This one even includes telephones!
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4713070#map=17/51.26848/-1.08883

 * Is there only one naptan:AtcoCode per station & should be added to
   the item with the 'railway=station' tag or are there individual ones
   for each stop point? The wiki, again, isn't clear.

Cheers
DaveF
___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway Platforms - Covered=yes are not shown in latest rendering

[Dave F]

I think Carto & anyone who added it to underground metro stations have 
misinterpreted the 'covered' tag.


As it's not the whole length of the platform, you could add a 
building=roof polygon.


Shelters, bins, benches etc are better mapped as individual nodes at 
their locations, rather than adding them as sub-tags to the platform.


Cheers
DaveF

On 29/05/2018 14:53, Tony Shield wrote:


Guys

Recently changed Chorley station adding more details. Added 
covered=yes cos there is a canopy for us to huddle under but not the 
whole length of the platform, there are also bus shelter type of 
shelters so shelter=yes was also added.


Checked that my changes had rendered ok but found to my horror that 
the platforms had disappeared. Investigations showed -


https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kocio/diary -


OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.11.0


Posted bykocio on 11 May 
2018 inEnglish (Englis h) 



  * Hiding railway=platform with location=underground, tunnels and
covered=yes

Have changed Chorley to delete covered tag - expect the render to show 
as expected for the surface.
A quick overpass  (inexpertly done) shows the following railway 
stations may be affected adversely -

Holyhead
Manchester Airport
Salford Quays - Anchorage
Manchester Piccadilly
Harrogate
Hull
Sleaford
Bury St Edmunds
Guildford
Bracknell
Westbury
and many in London and there are others

I know we shouldn't map to the render but the meaning of covered seems 
to vary globally.   I know that

Manchester Airport
Salford Quays - Anchorage
Manchester Piccadilly
Harrogate
Guildford
Bracknell
Westbury
are all similar to Chorley - I've visited or passed through them; 
Manchester Piccadilly  I know well and the solitary (covered=yes) 
platform 12 is the same as the other 11 platforms - mostly under the 
glass train shed.
In my mind accurate representation of platform location is so 
important when travelling.


At the end of this week (2nd June) I intend to change the platforms I 
know to remove covered=yes, if you disagree please challenge.


Looking at Manchester Piccadilly I can see that there are many 
opportunities to improve the data and thus the representation, anyone 
fancy a mapping party there?


Regards
Tony  - TonyS999









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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Corrections for Ewelme, Oxfordshire

[Dave F]

Hi Ewelme resident.

OpenStreetMap is a public crowdsourced venture, where people often start 
adding data to the map for the area which is local to them.


With your 43 years of knowledge you make the ideal person to improve the 
map for Ewelme & it's surrounds.


It's easy to get going, just follow the Walkthrough feature under the 
Help icon on the right hand side:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=16/51.6194/-1.0710

Please feel free to join in.

DaveF.

On 13/05/2018 08:52, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

someone claiming to have lived there for over 40 years has emailed to
DWG a list of corrections for the village of Ewelme, Oxfordshire, that I
am sharing in the hope that someone local can deal with them:

--- start

The mapping for Ewelme, Oxfordshire contains some errors in road names.
I should point out that I have lived in the village for 43 years, so I
think I am well placed to comment.

The road between the Shepherd’s Hut and the Kings Pool, running roughly
NW-SE is called “The Street”, not “Clay Lane”.  The real Clay Lane is
actually marked correctly beyond Green Lane.

The extension of The Street beyond Kings Pool (labelled “High Street”)
is also called “The Street” (it was renamed a few years ago).

Similarly, the extension of The Street beyond Day’s Lane (labelled
“Burrows Hill”) is also called “The Street”.  The real Burrows Hill is
actually marked correctly, connecting The Street with Parson’s Lane.

So The Street actually runs from the Shepherd’s Hut to beyond Day’s Lane.

As an addition, the small lane running approximately Se-NW connecting
Eyre’s Lane to Cottesmore Lane is known as “The Pightles”.

I hope that you can incorporate this information into the OSM.

--- end

I'll point the person to this post so if you have any questions, I hope
they will read this.

Bye
Frederik




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

[Dave F]

Hi

On 10/05/2018 00:16, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi Dave,

Two elements:

- This is GB wide. Prowmaps has a lot now but I think so areas are 
still missing.


True, but there are probably more recent OoC data than c.1900 for the 
few LAs which are missing from PROWMaps.


- Not all footpaths are registered and with a 2026 deadline the race 
is now on to register old footpaths before they are lost forever.


Good, but I see that as a project external to OSM. OSM can only contain 
current PROWs. I'm a little concerned historical "long gone" paths will 
be added.


DaveF.



Thanks,
*Rob*


On Wed, 9 May 2018 at 23:37, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com 
<mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:


Hi

I'm probably missing something. As we have current data on
prowmaps.co.uk <http://prowmaps.co.uk>, will using such old data
have any value/accuracy?

DaveF.

On 09/05/2018 21:13, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi

Just posted a "challenge" to Loomio for anyone who is interested.
It's a bit beyond me so thought I'd post it here.

Basically we have point data of historic footpaths (some 300k
points) and I think it would be amazing to compare this to OSM to
see if we can find more footpaths to map. Obviously some will be
long gone due to 100 years of urban sprawl, but I'm hopeful we
can still find some missing paths.

https://www.loomio.org/d/pviAOkGR/challenge-footpaths

Thanks,
*Rob*


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

[Dave F]

Hi

I'm probably missing something. As we have current data on 
prowmaps.co.uk, will using such old data have any value/accuracy?


DaveF.

On 09/05/2018 21:13, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi

Just posted a "challenge" to Loomio for anyone who is interested. It's 
a bit beyond me so thought I'd post it here.


Basically we have point data of historic footpaths (some 300k points) 
and I think it would be amazing to compare this to OSM to see if we 
can find more footpaths to map. Obviously some will be long gone due 
to 100 years of urban sprawl, but I'm hopeful we can still find some 
missing paths.


https://www.loomio.org/d/pviAOkGR/challenge-footpaths

Thanks,
*Rob*


___
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] Toys R Us

[Dave F]

Is there a tag being used to add these to OSM?

On 08/05/2018 13:14, David Woolley wrote:

On 08/05/18 13:10, Dave F wrote:
I've changed over to using disused:shop=* as it keeps the use of the 
shop in the tag. Due to shop classifications they often reopen with 
businesses of a similar nature. (food, clothes etc)


That reflects the planning classification (which are actually more 
fine grained than the OSM landuses). 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_use_classes_in_England


___
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] Toys R Us

[Dave F]

On 07/05/2018 20:27, Brian Prangle wrote:
The answer to the question I posed originally seems to be either  
"never" or "immediately". Maplin I understand waiting some more time 
for the liquidation process to complete. For clarity the mechanical 
edit would be shop=vacant and previous_name=


I've changed over to using disused:shop=* as it keeps the use of the 
shop in the tag. Due to shop classifications they often reopen with 
businesses of a similar nature. (food, clothes etc)


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Dave F]

I concur with this.

I'd much rather have an up to date map. Part of OSM's USP is its quick 
turnarounds.


I disagree with Frederik's claim that changing one entity would "destroy 
the valuable information that this general area of the map hasn't been 
updated".

It seems perverse to want to keep an area of the map inaccurate.

Can't speak for everyone, but I would edit my local one from my 
armchair. No need to visit as all the details are provide online from 
local news feeds.

So individual or mechanical edits make little difference.

On balance I think a store tagged as disused is more likely to attract 
updates than one that's inaccurately tagged as open.


DaveF


On 05/05/2018 11:57, Rob Nickerson wrote:

And for the balance: I disagree with Frederik on this one.

If we know the map is wrong we should fix it. We should not leave it 
just because it may encourage others to fix it and then go on to do 
other local edits.


Frederik's view is that a crap map encourages more people to edit. I'm 
not convinced. A crap map could also put people off - "why bother, OSM 
is so far behind, I'll contribute to/just use Google maps instead"


I agree that a *blank* map encourages new mappers, but that was 10 
years ago! Less convinced that an out of date map does. At least not 
with our current homepage or if we do get a new mapper its most likely 
to be a single edit (maybe with MapsMe) rather than a new prolific 
mapper.


So I'm happy with this mechanical edit (full removal preferred, but 
addition of disussed ok too).


Rob

P.s. Do we still have cases of Lloyds TSB in OSM?


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


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

[Talk-GB] A few too many icons at The Tower of London

[Dave F]

Hi

In the latest OSM-Carto upgrade an icon was added for historic=castle.

Which highlights a bit of a problem with the tagging of The Tower of 
London (1)


The walls are split individually as the turrets have names.

Most of those tags are duplicated with an building=castle.

 I think there should be one historic=castle on the perimeter object 
(2) & have building=castle on any internal structures


This follows the same tagging model as schools etc.

Any better suggestions?

DaveF

(1) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/369139030#map=18/51.50799/-0.07589
(2) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370870741








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

Re: [OSM-talk] New wave of Pokémon Go mappers – check the parks

[Dave F]

FYI
way[recreation_ground];

uses recreation_ground as the key, not the value. So 
leisure=recreation_ground etc won't be returned


DaveF.

On 25/04/2018 07:45, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


25. Apr 2018 06:17 by roland.olbri...@gmx.de 
:


Thus, I suggest the query


here is overpass link with it: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/yee 
(navigate to your area, click "run" and wait)



At least in my region detecting parks and recreation ground with 
untagged name state (without name and without noname) is useful to 
detect mistagged areas http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/yeg



[timeout:120]
[bbox:{{bbox}}];
(
way[leisure=park][!name][noname!=yes];
rel[leisure=park][!name][noname!=yes];
way[recreation_ground][!name][noname!=yes];
rel[recreation_ground][!name][noname!=yes];
);
out geom meta;



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM AGM and notification

[Dave F]

On 14/04/2018 14:16, SK53 wrote:

Hi Tony,

The weekly OSM newsletter is global so I'm not sure that it would make 
a specific feature of an AGM in a single country.




The 'upcoming events' section seems an ideal place to advertise AGMs.

DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] recent School ref:edubase update

[Dave F]

On 13/03/2018 13:57, Mark Goodge wrote:


I think you'll find that the displayed names are the official ones, 
and hence the same as in Edubase. 


But that's the problem. They're not the same.

I've just checked all the schools that I'm personally familiar with in 
my area, and the name shown on OSM is the name that the school has on 
its name board.


Did Robert's update amend any of them?

I appreciate that's a small sample, but it's 100% right on that 
sample. If you can find cases where the school's displayed name 
differs from the OSM name, then by all means edit it to reflect the 
displayed name.


But when Robert updates next time it'll change them again. I don't see 
why I should have to keep on correcting them.



But I don't think that's a good enough reason to revert this bulk edit.

Part of the issue is that schools do change their names quite often, 
particularly when converting to academies, but the old name tends to 
persist in popular usage for some time. Popular usage, though is not 
what's "displayed on the ground" - for that, we have to go by what the 
school has put on its own name board. 


Agree & not take it from a database.

And they are, generally, very good at changing the name boards to 
reflect any changes in their official name.


Mark

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



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

[Talk-GB] recent School ref:edubase update

[Dave F]

Hi

Robert Whittaker has recently performed an edit across England & Wales 
to update Schools ref:edubase code.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57034975

As well as the reference, he's amended some of the names in OSM as 
listed in the database. I think this is wrong. Similar to shops & street 
names etc I believe we should should be using the names displayed on the 
ground.


Robert suggests they are "official names supplied by the school to the 
DfE" Even if true, (I'm not convinced) databases are often manipulated 
by those compiling them. Abbreviating to fit printed column widths can 
often occur.


I think this chainset should be reverted & readded updating the 
ref:edubase only. Any thoughts?


DaveF.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM SPAM detector

[Dave F]

Struggling to understand this
If users are expected to send you changeset ids, how does it "detect spam"?
In what way are users informed of spammy changesets?

DaveF

On 05/03/2018 14:06, Jason Remillard wrote:

Hi,

This weekend I put together a SPAM detector for OSM changesets.

https://github.com/jremillard/osm-changeset-classification

You don't need to be a developer to contribute, send over any SPAM'y 
changesets you come across via a github issue, a pull request, or even 
an email to me. I just need the changeset id.


The code is currently hitting 99+% accuracy detecting the difference 
between 1500 random normal edits and 1500 sketchy changesets that 
Fredrick shared with the talk-us last last week. This is with zero 
tuning, so it looks like it will work well.


Jason


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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Donation from the Pineapple Fund

[Dave F]

I've very little knowledge or even interest in Bitcoin, but was it 
converted into hard currency? If not, is it worth much now?


DaveF


On 05/03/2018 03:15, Daniel Koć wrote:

Hi,

You might remember news about big bitcoin donation from the Pineapple 
Fund:


https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2018/01/11/donation-from-pineapple-fund/

I wonder how OSMF plans to use it?

This is substantial amount of money, however I'm aware that it's just 
a one time shot and not a big change for the OSM in the long run - 
it's "only" about 2x more than yearly income:


"Our total income in 2016, without SOTM, was £124,000."

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Finances/Treasurer%27s_Report_for_the_December_2017_AGM 







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

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

[Dave F]

On 15/02/2018 08:52, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

On 14.02.2018 17:39, Dave F wrote:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5408566797


It appears that you already engage in an edit war, although half a 
dozen people here tell you, from a variety of perspectives, that you 
are wrong.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/56352276



The previous mapper move the roundabout to an *inaccurate* location in 
order "to fudge" a separating section. I legitimately reverted it so it 
was accurately located as per a survey I perform on the ground.




It would help to maintain objectivity to leave out any rants about 
particular programmers of particular software. I have seen other 
routing engines fail when the situation occurs that you have created.


On 14.02.2018 18:27, Dave F wrote:
> This would only occur if there was no check to see if it's a 
roundabout first:

>   * Enter
>   * Check if roundabout
>   * (While still on the same node) Start counting entrances/exits

In which routing engine did you implement this? From which experience 
do you speak?
Or is it just pseudocode that fell off your sleeve without being 
tested in an implementation?


If a router is unable to perform simple checks it's not worth its salt.


On 14.02.2018 21:44, Mark Wagner wrote:

In the general case, a router only needs to consider the ways that a
route actually passes over when creating directions.  By mapping a
roundabout entrance and exit sharing a single node, you've
introduced a special case: the router now needs to check all ways
connected to that node to see if any of them is part of a roundabout.


Yes and to reiterate, to separate roundabouts from non-roundabouts, 


How does the 'roundabout' tag not  "separate"?

you would need to check that special case not only at roundabouts, you 
would need to check its absence at _any_ node connecting _any_ two 
road segments, even if these are not junctions. You would need to 
check if there starts a roundabout segment or not, and if all segments 
of such roundabout loop back to the original node.


As the check you propose is against the basics of graph theory which 
is behind routing algorithms, it would create an immense performance 
burden on the algorithms. That would make you mourn about the skills 
of the programmers, again.


May we ask you to undo your revert in CS 56352276? You still have not 
explained how the two node solution "fudge OSM".


No one's explained why the single node fails. It works fine at crossroads.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

[Dave F]

On 15/02/2018 09:11, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


Especially, as from looking at aerial images it is clear that these
roads are not entering/leaving at the same point.


It's very poor mapping to assume aerial imagery is current.

DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

[Dave F]

If I'm judging the angles correctly, OsmAnd will not even announce that
intersection: the angle between Wapping and Commercial is shallow
enough that OsmAnd sees it as a single road, while the angle between
Wapping and the roundabout is sharp enough to not require a "keep
left" instruction.


If true I see that as a worrying error in OSMAnd. Entering form Wapping 
you pass roundabout signs approach give way markings for traffic on the 
roundabout. It's scary routers base their calculations on geometry 
rather than tags & node locations.



the router now needs to check all ways
connected to that node to see if any of them is part of a roundabout.


No different from when you encounter an exit, even if it's not attached 
to the same node as an entrance.


DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

[Dave F]

On 14/02/2018 20:19, Matej Lieskovský wrote:

If two ways enter a roundabout at the same point, you can turn from
road A into road B instantly,
but going from B to A will require going around the entire roundabout.
For a router to detect this, it would have to check (for every
encountered node):


But "going around the entire roundabout" is what always happens.

For clarity I'm reposting an example as many appear to misunderstand my PoV:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5408566797


1) is this a part of a roundabout?
2) if yes, which of the turns I can make here would require going
around the roundabout?


These are tests that are performed even with segments between entrance & 
exit & so makes your points irrelevant to my point.



The current tagging of a one-way circular way is much easier for
routing software to deal with
and is conceptually "cleaner".


Who said *anything* about changing tagging?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

[Dave F]

On 15/02/2018 10:05, Maarten Deen wrote:

On 2018-02-14 19:39, Dave F wrote:

On 14/02/2018 18:23, Johan C wrote:


No, they are not. Roundabouts are special types of intersections.

 Which is another type of intersection.


They have a way on which you can drive round. And round. And round.
And they have other ways leading to and from this round way.
Whenever you enter the roundabout you drive on this round way, even
if it's just for a metre. And then you exit this round way on to a
different way.

The present tagging (used since 2005 or so, and all around the
globe) is fine.


To repeat myself. You can determine if you need to "drive on this
round way" from a single node. No need for a section between entrance


You can not determine that from a single node. You need to load the 
whole way that connects to that node




But that what happens in all roundabout situations. You enter at a node 
& read the tags of the way which contains that node. Having an exit way 
attached to that node doesn't prevent this.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5408566797

and than make a judgement call which roads connected to that node you 
will traverse (which you don't know, because from a topology 
standpoint you are not traversing that way).


In my example you can see you're on a roundabout & there's an exit. You 
can load both ways & calculate the correct direction to take, similar to 
a crossroads at a single node.




It is like Matej's example.
Suppose it is mapped with the entry and exit road connected to one 
node. Yes, you can see if there also connects a roundabout to that 
node and you can make the determination that in that case you need to 
traverse the roundabout in the correct direction.
But suppose there is not a roundabout connected but a (circular) way 
with a oneway direction. Then you also need to make the decision that 
you have to traverse that way.
But suppose the way is not circular (making you cross or touch a 
oneway street), than you can not do that.
When is a road circular? Most roads are circular from a topology 
standpoint, as in: you can reach a node on that way going in either 
direction. So you can not determine from a topology standpoint if a 
road is a circular road or a roundabout.


If what you say were to be true you would have problems navigating all 
types of junctions. Every junction is entered at a *node* all connected 
way's information is loaded by processing that node.


DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

[Dave F]

On 15/02/2018 09:33, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 14/02/2018 18:57, Dave F wrote:



On 14/02/2018 18:32, Andy Townsend wrote:
Having one exit node not joined to the next entry node better 
represents the real-world situation*.


Disagree.
Sharing a node should make no difference to the real world or a 
router's perception of it. 


With separate nodes, you travel along the roundabout way for a small 
distance (as you do in real life).  With a shared node, you don't. 
They're topologically different.


Again, the way containing the shared node has junction=roundabout in it. 
You are entering & exiting a roundabout


DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

[Dave F]

On 14/02/2018 18:32, Andy Townsend wrote:
Having one exit node not joined to the next entry node better 
represents the real-world situation*.


Disagree.
Sharing a node should make no difference to the real world or a router's 
perception of it.


DaveF.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

[Dave F]

It doesn't work like that anywhere in OSM. I can cross a road that I'm 
not allowed to drive on. The router does not need to know anything 
about the road that I'm crossing and I can always cross a road that 
I'm not allowed to enter.

It would make mapping extremely awkward if that were not so.


You're taking one example. Please don't extrapolate it to make it appear 
it's every case.


Information about the way you're on or crossing can required for 
numerous reasons. My original point, which seems to have got lost 
somewhere, is you can determine where you are & where you need go from a 
single node. Even on a roundabout.


DaveF



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

[Dave F]

On 14/02/2018 18:23, Johan C wrote:

No, they are not. Roundabouts are special types of intersections.

Which is another type of intersection.

They have a way on which you can drive round. And round. And round. 
And they have other ways leading to and from this round way. Whenever 
you enter the roundabout you drive on this round way, even if it's 
just for a metre. And then you exit this round way on to a different way.


The present tagging (used since 2005 or so, and all around the globe) 
is fine.




To repeat myself. You can determine if you need to "drive on this round 
way" from a single node. No need for a section between entrance & exit.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

[Dave F]

On 14/02/2018 17:13, Maarten Deen wrote:

On 2018-02-14 17:39, Dave F wrote:

I think I have read it correctly.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5408566797

It is easy to determine this shared node is part of the roundabout as
well as the entrance from Wapping & can exit along Commercial, or if
required, continue around the roundabout:
How is this different from, say, two side roads joining a main road at
the same node?,


Because a machine can not determine if you are actually entering the 
roundabout or not.


Yes it can. It has the junction=roundabout tag on the way.

Technically speaking you are not because you are just touching one 
node of the roundabout.


Yes you are. You may not be on there very long, but you approach the 
roundabout, pass the signs saying it's a roundabout, give way to those 
already on it, you enter it & then indicate that you're leaving it.




The same at this roundabout, going from Wapping Road to Commercial 
Road it will tell you to "turn left into Commercial Road" and not to 
"enter the roundabout and exit at the first exit into Commercial Road".


Noting my comment above, if a router doesn't tell you the latter, then 
it's a poor program. Commercial Rd is the first exit


Just connecting to a road on a node does not mean you enter that road. 
The same at intersections, if you cross a road (connected by a node) 
you do not enter that road so you do not need instructions for it.


A router has to be aware of it & know what it's attributes are, to 
decide if it needs to go along it. It does this from a *single* node. If 
it can do it at intersections it can do it on roundabouts.


Roundabouts are just another type of intersection.

DaveF



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

[Dave F]

On 14/02/2018 16:50, Colin Smale wrote:


Based on my experiences with mkgmap it's not so much a routing problem 
as a navigation problem. The router will pick the correct path through 
the graph but the translation to "human instructions" get confused, 
like the exit numbers and the way the roundabouts display. Turning 
right at a roundabout, i.e. taking the third exit, might show as 
straight on and the instructions may refer to the first exit.




This would only occur if there was no check to see if it's a roundabout 
first:


 * Enter
 * Check if roundabout
 * (While still on the same node) Start counting entrances/exits


I'm glad you mentioned mkgmap as I suspect this is where this mapping 
instruction originated. From previous conversations on their forum it's 
clear some try to fudge OSM as they lack the skill to program mkgmap 
correctly.


OSM contributors should not have to map incorrectly to suit these data users

DaveF.



On 2018-02-14 17:39, Dave F wrote:


I think I have read it correctly.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5408566797

It is easy to determine this shared node is part of the roundabout as 
well as the entrance from Wapping & can exit along Commercial, or if 
required, continue around the roundabout:
How is this different from, say, two side roads joining a main road 
at the same node?,


Or even cross-roads. The router has to check to find out what road 
it's crossing & find the appropriate exit, which, in the case of 
cross-roads, will be on the same node.


DaveF

On 14/02/2018 16:17, Maarten Deen wrote:

On 2018-02-14 15:53, Dave F wrote:

Hi
Could anyone give me an explanation for this line from
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction=roundabout

"Each road has to be connected with the roundabout in a separate
node—that is, between these nodes a segment of the roundabout is
required."

I see no requirement for a separate segment:

 * When a entering road shares a node with a roundabout then the
router knows it's entered that roundabout by reading the tags on the
circular way.
 * Whilst on that node, the router checks to see if there are any
suitable exits. If there are, then it leaves the roundabout.
 * If not, it continues going around until it finds an appropriate
exit.


I'm not sure if you read the requirement right, but this tells 
mappers not to connect the entry and exit road on the same node. If 
you were to map it that way, the router will not see that you enter 
a roundabout and need to exit at the first exit. It will just tell 
you to go right.
It is not (what I think you think) that there needs to be a separate 
way between entrance and exit, the roundabout can be mapped as one 
way in total.


Maarten



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

[Dave F]

I think I have read it correctly.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5408566797

It is easy to determine this shared node is part of the roundabout as 
well as the entrance from Wapping & can exit along Commercial, or if 
required, continue around the roundabout:
How is this different from, say, two side roads joining a main road at 
the same node?,


Or even cross-roads. The router has to check to find out what road it's 
crossing & find the appropriate exit, which, in the case of cross-roads, 
will be on the same node.


DaveF

On 14/02/2018 16:17, Maarten Deen wrote:

On 2018-02-14 15:53, Dave F wrote:

Hi
Could anyone give me an explanation for this line from
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction=roundabout

"Each road has to be connected with the roundabout in a separate
node—that is, between these nodes a segment of the roundabout is
required."

I see no requirement for a separate segment:

 * When a entering road shares a node with a roundabout then the
router knows it's entered that roundabout by reading the tags on the
circular way.
 * Whilst on that node, the router checks to see if there are any
suitable exits. If there are, then it leaves the roundabout.
 * If not, it continues going around until it finds an appropriate
exit.


I'm not sure if you read the requirement right, but this tells mappers 
not to connect the entry and exit road on the same node. If you were 
to map it that way, the router will not see that you enter a 
roundabout and need to exit at the first exit. It will just tell you 
to go right.
It is not (what I think you think) that there needs to be a separate 
way between entrance and exit, the roundabout can be mapped as one way 
in total.


Maarten



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

[OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

[Dave F]

Hi
Could anyone give me an explanation for this line from 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction=roundabout


"Each road has to be connected with the roundabout in a separate 
node—that is, between these nodes a segment of the roundabout is required."


I see no requirement for a separate segment:

 * When a entering road shares a node with a roundabout then the router
   knows it's entered that roundabout by reading the tags on the
   circular way.
 * Whilst on that node, the router checks to see if there are any
   suitable exits. If there are, then it leaves the roundabout.
 * If not, it continues going around until it finds an appropriate exit.


Also, I'm more than a little annoyed at the inference it fails 
geometrically "because you did not trace the roundabout within its most 
external lane".


Cheers
DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Government Boundary Commission for England license?

[Dave F]

It's Local Council electoral wards.

DaveF

On 08/02/2018 14:36, Colin Smale wrote:


Which type of boundaries are involved? The LGBCE are responsible for 
defining certain boundaries (like district council voting wards) but 
sometimes also publish other stuff which is not their direct 
responsibility, such as parish boundaries described in Community 
Governance Reviews carried out by local authorities.



On 2018-02-08 15:08, Dave F wrote:


Hi

I've received some proposed boundary data from Local Government 
Boundary Commission for England (No, I am *not* going to add it to OSM)


There was no information concerning the license & I can't see it on 
their website. Anyone had dealings with them & know which is used?


Thanks
DaveF.

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



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS info when pub has been taken over.

[Dave F]

On 21/01/2018 12:09, Philip Barnes wrote:

rarely accepted by the locals,...


loc_name

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

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS info when pub has been taken over.

[Dave F]

Bearing in mind OSM isn't a historical database, how far back should we 
go with old:?


DaveF

On 20/01/2018 23:18, Warin wrote:

On 21-Jan-18 09:46 AM, Colin Spiller wrote:

I have similar near here.
Keep the address at least! Remove the fhrs:I'd seems sensible.


old:name would seam sensible too.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS info when pub has been taken over.

[Dave F]

Has it been removed from your local authority's list?

I've been prefixing them with disused: as the fhrs:id will be probably 
be updated after a new review. I found keeping the old one was useful as 
a checking reference.
I've also compiled a list of disused: objects to send to my LA's hygiene 
team in an attempt to get them to update their database. Not much luck 
with that.


On 20/01/2018 22:39, Andrew Black wrote:
If a pub has been taken over by a chain (and changed name), should one 
delete FHRS info.

My gut feeling is yes but. ...



___
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: [OSM-talk] place=hamlet in cities

[Dave F]

On 18/01/2018 00:34, Mike N wrote:

On 1/17/2018 6:53 PM, Dave F wrote:
Have you been in contact with the two contributors to see if they can 
revoke/reupload?
I presume it came from a database. If it's still available it can be 
amended as required.


  At this point it would be much better to just manually fix anything 
that doesn't look right - it will be much more up to date than trying 
to conflate any new data with potentially edited data which could be a 
mix of nodes and areas.


" and have not been updated since." means they haven't bee edited. The 
update edits appears to just add unnecessary 'is_in' tags, but hey if 
you wish to waste hours of your time ticking them off one by one, knock 
yourself out.


DaveF.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] place=hamlet in cities

[Dave F]

Have you been in contact with the two contributors to see if they can 
revoke/reupload?
I presume it came from a database. If it's still available it can be 
amended as required.


DaveF

On 17/01/2018 23:33, Kevin Broderick wrote:

In Annapolis, Maryland, for instance:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/158283000
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/157577529
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150949243

All of the points for which I've reviewed the history were created ten 
years ago, edited nine years ago, by the same accounts, and have not 
been updated since.


It seems the same issue was brought up on the forum a couple of years 
ago (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53057), and the 
suggestion was that landuse polygons were probably most appropriate, 
and place=subdivision was next-best. I don't think I can effectively 
armchair-map landuse in cities, but hamlets in densely populated areas 
clearly don't meet the wiki definition (and, I'd argue, are distinct 
on-the-ground situations; an isolated hamlet in a rural area is very 
different than an urban neighbourhood or subdivision). I'm leaning 
towards place=neighbourhood as being more correct than place=hamlet, 
although it clearly leaves room for improvement in the form of proper 
landuse polygons and local knowledge re: names.


On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:


can you post some examples?


cheers,
Martin




--
Kevin Broderick
k...@kevinbroderick.com 


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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] How to teach novices about optimal changeset size?

[Dave F]

This a purely an iD problem. It should be down to their core programmers 
to sort it out.
We should be encouraging users, especially newbies, to save frequently. 
Potlatch does this without the problem of numerous changesets.


DaveF

On 17/01/2018 13:26, Michał Brzozowski wrote:
Many new users have a habit of e.g. sending one or few objects per 
changeset, resulting in a dozen or even more changesets per day. 
Obviously this makes them PITA to review quickly in Achavi or whatever 
tool you use.


This habit is probably caused by non-knowledge of how auto-save works 
in iD (which makes the work reasonably secure), as well as just not 
knowing better thus forming their own judgement.


How should we teach about optimal changeset size? This is quite tricky 
- how we would define it?


Can the iD nudge users towards better practice? (Linking to Good 
changeset comments wiki page would be useful as well)


Michał


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Heads up: Please check recent edits by this user...

[Dave F]

On 12/01/2018 18:07, Frederik Ramm wrote:

This is something that any routing engine for a road network must do


Never quite understood the logic for this splitting.

When a router traversing a way encounters a node it does a check to see 
if other ways are connected, If they are, it analyses the tags on those 
ways & decides if needs to go down one of them or continue to the next 
node. There's no requirement to split.


DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] shop windows on differnt streets

[Dave F]

On 30/12/2017 14:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
they might have several addresses, but won’t be using more than one in 
their communication, typically.


There's the answer to the question.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] shop windows on differnt streets

[Dave F]

On 30/12/2017 08:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

entrances and _potential_ entrances 


In OSM we map what's there, not "potential"


each window having its own address less so


I'm struggling to find a Sandro Ferrone with multiple addresses.
http://www.sandroferrone.it/contatti/

This is the single address of the Andriani store: Via Federico di Palma, 
107 74123 Taranto
A google search for '109' returns nothing specific, but often refers 
back to '107'..


DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] shop windows on differnt streets

[Dave F]

There aren't multiple entrances in Catonano's examples.

Shops on the corner of two streets is common across the globe.

Are you suggesting these places have multiple postal addresses?

On 29/12/2017 22:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Having housenumbers for every entrance and potential entrance is 
extremely common in Italy for example. The usual solution is to add 
nodes with the street name and housenumber at every such point, plus a 
node somewhere inside the area for the POI (shop, etc.) with the POI 
tags and the address they use (e.g. Via Cavour 107, or Via Cavour 
103-109, or Via Cavour 103/105/107/109, or even Via Cavour 
103;105;107;109).


If you want to explicitly tell which numbers belong to the POI I think 
it is better to draw an approximate polygon for the POI (i.e. you can 
see from the polygon which address nodes belong to it) rather than 
grouping them by a relation, for several reasons:


- easier to verify visually
- adds more information (size, shape, topology)
- easier to modify
- easier to understand
- requires less advanced editing tools
- likely more stable because of the previous points


cheers,
Martin




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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] shop windows on differnt streets

[Dave F]

Hi
I think you're seriously over complicating this.
Just look up the address on their website & use that.
Multiple house numbers: '107-109'

There's a separate tagging forum: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


DaveF

On 27/12/2017 17:36, Catonano wrote:

I hope this is the right place to ask about tagging

There s this shop that has shop windows on 2 streets
https://imgur.com/a/icpwJ

Some of its shop windows have street numbers. as shown here
https://imgur.com/a/ny08t

This is  a quite common case, as you can see here
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Vr2vKuqr1S5hjf772

Some have their shop windows separated by building entrances or a 
different shop windows


How do I map these ?

My idea is that every shop window should be its own point with address 
info and then a relation should group them and be tagged with common 
data, such as the shop name, the web site, the phone number, the 
operator, whatever


Does anyone here know of any example of a similar situation ?

Thanks


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mistagging of old telephone boxes

[Dave F]

Not an expert, but I'm surprised if that's true. Isn't BY attribution 
the same that OSM asks of map producers?


I note Mapillary are also CC BY-SA

DaveF

On 22/12/2017 23:26, David Woolley wrote:

On 22/12/17 22:32, Dave F wrote:

To double check -  CC BY-SA 2.0 is compatible with OSM?


The problem is going to be the BY part.


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



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mistagging of old telephone boxes

[Dave F]

Just looked at one in my city:
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5565173
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5283204876/history

This is one he tagged as a usable phone. He added the note after I 
queried his edits.

So it looks like he didn't use Geograph.

To double check -  CC BY-SA 2.0 is compatible with OSM?

DaveF

On 22/12/2017 22:16, Michael Booth wrote:
Could be using Geograph - the phone box in this photo - 
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5273398 - was added here: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5286350516


Though as the caption says, it's slated for removal due to lack of use 
(photo taken in January 2017) so a bit pointless to add it if you are 
haven't surveyed it.


On 22/12/2017 21:41, Dave F wrote:

Hi

FYI user Yorvik Prestigitator has been tagging telephone boxes across 
Britain. He assumed some of these are working phones & tagged them as 
such, when they're purely ornamental (the ones in my city are recent 
additions & have flowers growing out of them at the moment).


When asked for his data's source for this widespread edit & he said 
"old photographs". I've asked a couple of times to give further 
details, but has not been forthcoming & has added additional ones 
since. I've checked to two usable 'streetview' websites, but there's 
no views for the edits I checked. I hope he's not using GM. Is there 
another source I'm not be aware of?


DaveF

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


___
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] Mistagging of old telephone boxes

[Dave F]

Hi

FYI user Yorvik Prestigitator has been tagging telephone boxes across 
Britain. He assumed some of these are working phones & tagged them as 
such, when they're purely ornamental (the ones in my city are recent 
additions & have flowers growing out of them at the moment).


When asked for his data's source for this widespread edit & he said "old 
photographs". I've asked a couple of times to give further details, but 
has not been forthcoming & has added additional ones since. I've checked 
to two usable 'streetview' websites, but there's no views for the edits 
I checked. I hope he's not using GM. Is there another source I'm not be 
aware of?


DaveF

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Street names QA

[Dave F]

Hi

Am I meant to be seeing a transparent pink overlay instead of roads at z13?

DaveF

On 14/12/2017 00:13, Simon Poole wrote:


The server crashed this morning, but is back now. Unluckily it seems 
as if the new machine is not quite as stable as its predecessor.


Simon


On 13.12.2017 17:59, Javier Sánchez Portero wrote:

Hello

I can't access to qa.poole.ch  [1]. Is temporary 
down? If permanently is there any alternative?


Greetings

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Qa.poole.ch_(QA_tool) 




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




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




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk