Re: [Talk-GB] Defibrillator Mapping

[Eric Grosso]

Hi all,

I've just made a request to the Scottish Ambulance Service. I'll let you
know about their answer.

I checked the website that Dave mentioned (h
ttp://www.heartsafe.org.uk/AED-Locations
) and it appears that only few
AEDs are mapped, e.g. by comparison with this 2014 map in Edinburgh:
http://www2.jpscotland.co.uk/en/shockingmap.pdf

Eric

On 21 May 2016 at 20:02, Dave F  wrote:

> Have you been in contact with this organisation?
>
> http://www.heartsafe.org.uk/AED-Locations
>
> Dave F.
>
> On 21/05/2016 19:48, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>
>> On 22 April 2016 at 14:43, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> A rough and ready tool can be
>>> found at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/defib/progress/ for any other
>>> locals who want to use it.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>>> In terms of getting more data, I've put in FOI requests to the East
>>> and West Midlands Ambulance Services for starters, so we'll see what
>>> line they take...
>>>
>> I've had replies from both now. East Midlands supplied a list without
>> postcodes or coordinates [2], so I've asked if they really don't have
>> any better location info. West Midlands supplied a list with postcodes
>> [2] -- and I've now loaded them into my tool [3].
>>
>> Happy mapping,
>>
>> Robert.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_access_defibrillator_loca
>> [2]
>> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_access_defibrillator_loca_2
>> [3] http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/defib/progress/
>>
>>
>
> ---
> 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

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

[Eric Grosso]

Thanks Chris, thanks Richard.

If we take the example of the Union Canal Towpath (e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222362355), it was originally a footway,
upgraded (i.e. resurfaced) at several points in time (but a lot have been
done in 2005-2006), so it became easier and easier for cyclists to use it.
Then it became recently a NCN route. But as Chris mentioned, it's not wide
at all so cyclists have to slow down when they meet with pedestrians. Thus
it's really a mix between a footway and a cycleway now, so it seems
difficult (at least for me) to think about it in term of footway or
cycleway as it's both.

If we tag this kind of way as a footway, the meaning would be, according to
the OSM specifications ((http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway), a
way which is "for designated footpaths; i.e., mainly/exclusively for
pedestrians". Is it the best option here as this way became a shared space.

At the moment, the different tags (in link with this discussion) used for
these ways are: highway=path, surface=paved, bicycle=designated, segregated=
no, width=1.75, ncn_ref=754 (Tobi added yesterday a ncn_ref in addition to
the associated relation). These ways are also linked to this relation (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/51479) with type=route and
route=bicycle. All these tags and association seem to reflect what this way
is in reality and it means that it stays quite neutral (or let's say
objective) for both communities (walkers/hikers and cyclists).

I read your diary entry about it Richard. I easily understand that it's
easier for data consumers (especially software developers but also GIS
users when they create a legend -- as many many cases have to be considered
) to deal with a tag which appears quite high in the OSM hierarchy, i.e. at
the highway level.

So is there still somewhere and sometimes a place to use highway=path (in a
similar context to the one described above) in a general context of "Please
don't use highway=path"?

Thanks
Eric



On 11 May 2016 at 06:44, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote:

> On 10/05/2016 20:59, Eric Grosso wrote:
>
>> What do you think? Do we, OSM contributors, tag all the highways part of
>> a NCN as cycleways? What to do when in some cases, a highway is both
>> part of a NCN route and a hiking route (e.g the John Muir Way)?
>>
>
> Please don't use highway=path:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333
>
> For a towpath I'd use (and I believe the general UK consensus is)
> highway=cycleway if it's been improved (widened, resurfaced) to shared-use
> standard; or highway=footway, bicycle=yes if it's still largely unimproved.
> And, as ever, add a surface tag.
>
> Richard
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Eric Grosso]

I removed the NCN names associated to the roads/paths in Edinburgh (at
least until the City By-pass) modified this week-end and I also re-added
the railway=abandoned parts as it was before tintin2873's edits --
changeset #39226002.

I discovered that some parts of the Union Canal Towpath and the Water of
Leith Walkway are mapped as highway=path, some others as highway=cycleway.
tintin2873 changed all of these highways in cycleways (tagged previously as
paths). Despite the fact that these highways became part of the NCN, I
still consider that these highways are still primarily paths by nature.

What do you think? Do we, OSM contributors, tag all the highways part of a
NCN as cycleways? What to do when in some cases, a highway is both part of
a NCN route and a hiking route (e.g the John Muir Way)?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project (Health): Pharmacies and Defibrillators

[Eric Grosso]

Fantastic tool! Thanks so much Robert.

2. If it's a big supermarket or shopping centre, it's generally a polygon.
So it's possible to add a POI which is the amenity. In case the supermarket
is already a POI, your option, as written as well in the OSM wiki
discussion, i.e. pharmacy=yes could work but isn't a common OSM
specification. So why not using shop=supermarket and amenity=pharmacy
together. I don't see any incompatibility in using both tags.

3. I checked few pharmacies in Edinburgh and indeed, some of the red
circles in link with Boots are wrongly tagged as amenity=pharmacy. The
Boots website indicates if there are pharmacy services or in-store services
+ pharmacy services. The ones in red have no pharmacy services. It seems
that some of them aren't even chemists. So the tag will have probably to be
decided for each case.

4. (same remark than above) Why not using both amenity=pharmacy and
shop=chemist?

Best wishes,
Eric



On 9 May 2016 at 18:02, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This quarter's Healthcare project doesn't seem to have got as much
> traction as the Schools one. Possibly due to the fact that there's
> isn't a single obvious data-source to employ, and there's little scope
> for arm-chair mapping.
>
> I posted previously about a comparison tool I built for defibrillators
> at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/defib/progress/ similar to the one I
> made previously for schools [1]. The data comes from the Easter
> Ambulance Service, and theirs is the only dataset I could find in a
> useful format. I've made FOI requests to a couple of other Ambulance
> trusts [2],[3], but they haven't got back to me yet.
>
> I've recently noticed that the General Pharmaceutical Council publish
> a list of registered pharmacies. I think this list should be complete
> (i.e. any dispensing pharmacy in Great Britain must be registered) so
> I've built a similar tool at
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/pharmacy/progress/ . (There's a similar
> Register for Northern Ireland, but the complete list isn't published.)
>
> I've asked for permission to re-use the information in the list to
> help improve OSM [4], but haven't had a response yet. I don't think
> any permission is needed to run the comparison, but it would be needed
> to use the information directly in OSM. (e.g. adding registration
> numbers, and using the address information). However, the tool can
> still be used at the moment to indicated possible places to survey.
>
> A few initial observations and tagging questions:
>
> 1/ I think it's interesting how relatively uniform our coverage of
> pharmacies is.
>
> 2/ There are a lot of pharmacies within supermarkets that aren't
> currently tagged in any way. Currently the tool will pick up
> pharamacy=yes, but I'm open to other options is there's a better way
> of adding this information to e.g. a shop=supermarket.
>
> 3/ There seem to be a number shops (particularly Superdrug stores)
> tagged as amenity=pharmacy that aren't on the register. I presume
> these are chemist / drug-store type outlets that do not have
> dispensing pharmacies. Do we want to agree on whether these should be
> tagged as shop=chemist or amenity=pharmacy + dispensing=no ?
>
> 4/ Should stores like larger Boots (which have a lot more besides the
> pharmacy counter and off-the-shelf medicines) be tagged as
> amenity=pharamcy or shop=chemist + pharmacy=yes, or something else, or
> should it depend on the individual store?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Robert.
>
> [1] http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/
> [2]
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_access_defibrillator_loca
> [3]
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_access_defibrillator_loca_2
> [4]
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re_use_request_for_register_of_p
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [OSM-talk] Navmii notes

[Eric Grosso]

Hi all,

Talking about notes and edits from applications, what is the best option
between creating a new object in OSM or adding a note for this kind of app?

I'm here thinking about the objects added recently by some maps.me users.
As the offline maps provided by maps.me are only updated "with almost every
new release" (http://maps.me/en/help), there is a possible problem of
duplication. A question has been asked here about it:
https://github.com/mapsme/omim/issues/2953. The answer from maps.me
addresses only the problem of accuracy (which is another one) not the
problem of duplication. I already encountered both problems (one including
the modification of a POI name to replace it with something wrong).

A lot of people started using maps.me -- BTW a great app which allows to
promote nicely OSM --- or similar applications, and probably more people
will use it in a near future. This could lead to the need of a quite heavy
maintenance (mostly for the POIs) for (local) OSM contributors as these
edits are quite difficult to track (1 modification = 1 changeset). Is there
a way to link all these communities of users/contributors together in order
to benefit to the map?

I would be glad to have your opinion on this.

Thanks.
Eric


On 6 May 2016 at 07:54, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Deanna Earley  wrote:
>
>> I'm also in discussion with Navmii themselves to try and get them to
>> stop adding these, or at least curbing/moderating what they are adding.
>>
>
> Another suggestion would be to have some system in place that replies to
> notes can get back to the original submitter from the OSM community.  I
> don't recall encountering these notes myself, but the inability to close
> the communications loop is a big factor in what made Mapdust
>  a nearly unmitigated failure
> (the biggest mitigating factor is that you can see a snippet to see what
> the routing engine was thinking, where the user was traveling and a
> category, so there was the possibility of getting some high quality
> feedback for surprisingly minimal effort from real people using it instead
> of map nerds).
>
>
> ___
> 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] New user renaming highway=cycleway with NCN references

[Eric Grosso]

It isn't just a renaming. The value of the highway tag has been changed too
from path to cycleway in some places, e.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8116531/history

It seems relatively complex to use the revert tool in JOSM as these edits
have been done individually.

Eric

On 9 May 2016 at 07:25, Eric Grosso <eric.grosso...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This user started to change back his own edits, e.g.:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/207979578/history#map=17/55.88829/-4.37323
>
> Eric
>
> On 8 May 2016 at 18:21, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote:
>
>> David Woolley wrote:
>> > I'm not sure of the likely sources (assuming they have missed
>> > the reference in the existing mapping) but Sustrans have a no
>> > commercial use restriction, that is incompatible with OSM.
>>
>> I wouldn't assume bad faith in this or indeed any NCN-related case. As I
>> thought was fairly well known, a lot of Sustrans rangers are OSM editors,
>> including several subscribers to this list. Indeed, OSM is often updated
>> with the latest NCN openings/reroutings _before_ the official Sustrans
>> mapping!
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/New-user-renaming-highway-cycleway-with-NCN-references-tp5873121p5873147.html
>> Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

[Eric Grosso]

Hi all,

This user started to change back his own edits, e.g.:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/207979578/history#map=17/55.88829/-4.37323

Eric

On 8 May 2016 at 18:21, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> David Woolley wrote:
> > I'm not sure of the likely sources (assuming they have missed
> > the reference in the existing mapping) but Sustrans have a no
> > commercial use restriction, that is incompatible with OSM.
>
> I wouldn't assume bad faith in this or indeed any NCN-related case. As I
> thought was fairly well known, a lot of Sustrans rangers are OSM editors,
> including several subscribers to this list. Indeed, OSM is often updated
> with the latest NCN openings/reroutings _before_ the official Sustrans
> mapping!
>
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/New-user-renaming-highway-cycleway-with-NCN-references-tp5873121p5873147.html
> Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] UK government to spend £5 million rebuilding postcode data it sold off in 2013

[Eric Grosso]

Hi all,

For info, if you didn't see this news:
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/data/budget-2016-government-spend-5-million-rebuilding-data-it-sold-off-in-2013-3636896/

It isn't written if it'll be in continuation of the Open Addresses UK
project (https://alpha.openaddressesuk.org/) or not, but for sure, the £110
million figure comes from the report of this project (
http://theodi.org/case-studies/open-addresses-the-story-to-date), figure
itself derived from the one provided by the Danish government.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey National Grid maps of Edinburgh

[Eric Grosso]

Hi all,

Thanks Rob for that.

Chris Fleet (NLS) asked me to announce to the OSM community that the NLS is
also adding the Ordnance Survey Maps - 25 inch 2nd and later editions,
Scotland, 1892-1949, which is the most detailed topographic mapping for
all the inhabited regions of Scotland from the 1890s to the 1940s, as
described here: http://maps.nls.uk/os/25inch-2nd-and-later/index.html
At the moment, this layer currently covers selected counties in Southern
Scotland only and can be added using the following URL:
http://geo.nls.uk/mapdata3/os/25_inch/cb/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.png

Jerry wrote about the MESH project (http://www.mesh.ed.ac.uk/) in which I'm
involved with Richard. Funded by the AHRC, the MESH project is about
mapping the history of Edinburgh. We compared the different solutions to
create an historical GIS and finally decided to use OSM. So since March, we
started to improve OSM in Edinburgh. You can see the results in these two
examples:
- part of New Town: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/55.95750/-3.20140
- part of Old Town: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/55.95005/-3.18792

The mapping is still in progress but we hope to have covered most of the
town before the end of October.

This being said, because it's a 3-year project, the solution to use OSM
would probably not have been possible without the historic maps digitised,
georeferenced and provided online by the NLS. It would have been too
time-consuming. Indeed because we want to map addresses, we need to map
buildings which is sometimes not easy at all in an historic town such as
Edinburgh. Using the historic maps allowed us:
- to speed up the mapping process,
- to add far more details such as walls, gardens or gates (walls and
gardens can seem secondary features but all together with buildings, it
gives an idea of the plots),
- to add some addresses using a combination of maps (OS National Grid maps
of Edinburgh (1940s-1960s) contain the house numbers but don't show where
the entrances are, contrary to the OS 1893 map, which shows the entrances
but not the house numbers) before doing the full survey (thus it saves a
lot of time on the field as it's just a matter of checking things rather
than drawing/writing on the map),
- to improve the accuracy of OSM in term of positioning, at least to be
consistent even if there is a global offset; Bing imagery contains a priori
an offset (in fact many local offsets) which can be corrected using the
features on the grounds such as letter boxes, walls, etc, elements which
are included in the historic maps.

So I take the opportunity here to thank a lot the NLS (partner of the MESH
project) and particularly Chris for their wonderful job here, as well as
the local OSM community in Edinburgh (mainly Bob, Brian, Chris, Donald,
Neil).

And Jerry, yes, you're right, we didn't put many information online yet as
we really wanted to concentrate on the core task which was and still is the
mapping. But before mid-October, we'll put for sure some material online
including maps, some articles and reports to talk about our experience
contributing and using OSM, some web applications, and probably some
surprises we are working on. Every data produced during this project will
be released as open data as we strongly believe that everyone including the
general public, local historians, scholars, academics, etc has the right to
access and play with the data and tools we will produce/develop.

Cheers,
Eric




On 11 August 2014 23:08, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote:

 I met Richard Rodger who is leading the MESH project at Edinburgh
 University. Addresses in central Edinburgh have changed so little in 200
 years that they are able to use OSM to map where attorneys were located in
 the middle of the 19th Century. The historical addresses were acquired from
 Business Directories. And MESH is the reason why these particular maps have
 been done. There is a link to the project there.

 I dont think there is that much detailed information available yet, but it
 looks to be shaping up to be both a fascinating project and a classic
 example of how OSM data can be used for purposes very different from what
 one might expect.

 Jerry


 On 11 August 2014 22:52, Donald Noble drno...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks Rob,

 The alignment matches well with both bing and what is already on OSM
 (although this may largely be derived).

 Also pleasing to note that the addresses I have surveyed match those
 on the OS map - don't suppose they change all that often.

 Cheers, Donald

 On 10 August 2014 00:04, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi all, particularly those folk mapping up in Scotland,
 
  The National Library of Scotland has added the earliest editions of
 Ordnance
  Survey National Grid maps covering the Edinburgh environs to their
 online
  map offerings.
 
  http://maps.nls.uk/additions.html#28
 
  What's so special about these maps is that they show details right down
 to
  individual buildings plus their 

Re: [Talk-GB] Bing imagery

[Eric Grosso]

Hi Andy,

In Wolverhampton, there are different problems which are combined, not only
a problem with the imagery at a zoom level higher than 19.

To take an example, using the Bing maps website (http://www.bing.com/maps/)
and searching for Birch street, the Bing aerial imagery with labels
provides only some images without details at all and for any zoom level. If
you switch to the aerial imagery without showing the labels, you can access
a reasonable good imagery which is the one which is used until the zoom
level 19. But the high resolution imagery isn't displayed. Now, if you try
to do the same thing with Newhampton road East, Wolverhampton, the South
East of the road has the same problem that the one previously described.
But in the North part of this road, you can see the high resolution imagery
when labels are activated, but not if the labels aren't showed.

So from my point of view, the problem described initially by Will is still
a current one.

Eric



On 4 March 2014 12:05, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:

 Brian Prangle wrote:

 Try anywhere across Wolverhampton through Willenhall to Walsall - as you
 zoom through to level 19 you'll briefly see a nice sharp clear image which
 then reverts spontaneously to a less clear image with a huge shadow which
 furhter obscures detail.


 Have you got a link for where it's still missing?  The imagery west of
 Wolverhampton has reappeared.


 Cheers,

 Andy


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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bing imagery

[Eric Grosso]

Hi all,

I encountered exactly the same problem at the end of last week (before the
higher zoom level images of my editing zone were still in cache and hid the
problem) -- location: Edinburgh, Scotland.

Apparently this problem appeared for some contributors at the beginning of
last December:
- (5 December)
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2013-December/010190.html
- (7 December)
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/28868/aerial-background-imagery-disappears-in-p2-if-i-zoom-in-to-a-high-level-it-did-not-in-the-past
- (18 December) http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=23592

Because the source of the problem is apparently due to some changes in the
Bing maps API, the developers of the OSM editors, at least those of JOSM,
did not much investigated this problem -- see comments 11 and 16 here:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9408.

@ Filip: an employee of Microsoft gave partially an answer here:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/live/en-US/8e2af97a-f5e5-4ae0-acec-562db7e134d0/why-is-it-that-the-bing-map-control-has-a-much-lower-resolution-than-the-website?forum=bingmapswindows8

Some people think that there is a link with the launch of the new 3D Bing
maps data:
http://www.bing.com/blogs/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2013/12/05/maps3d.aspx

I also checked on the Bing maps website. It appears that we can only access
the zoom level 19 when using the Bing Aerial imagery (
http://www.bing.com/maps/) without showing labels. But if the labels are
activated, it's possible to access all zoom levels even those higher than
19. So at the moment, because the Bing/OSM licence -- as far as I
understand it -- doesn't allow the OSM contributors to use another Bing
imagery than the Aerial one without the labels, the problem seems currently
unsolvable.

Cheers,
Eric

On 3 March 2014 10:00, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:

 Andy Robinson wrote:

 Zooming in on Nottingham I'm seeing three different imagery versions at
 different zoom levels. I don't anything missing.


 Here's a specific example, to the north in Mansfield:

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2#map=19/
 53.14850/-1.18456

 (using P2 because it doesn't overzoom)

 At z19 there's the current road layout.  At z20 (or 21?) the old road
 layout used to be visible (the footpath that you can see used to be a
 road).  I remember this one only because SK53 and I specifically discussed
 the old road configuration, and I first mapped it (well, tidied up the
 ex-NPE roads already there) when the roads were being changed to the new
 configuration.

 Cheers,

 Andy



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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bing imagery

[Eric Grosso]

Will,

Could you please give an example of an area where the others, e.g. SK53,
can see the high-resolution imagery in order to see if it works for us.

Thanks,
Eric


On 3 March 2014 16:35, Will Phillips wp4...@gmail.com wrote:

  What I don't understand is why some people are seeing this problem but
 other aren't. I've just got someone who edits in another part of the
 country, and so will not be seeing cached images, to have a look at a
 location in my local area in JOSM. They could definitely see three
 different lots of high-res imagery at different zoom levels. Others,
 including SK53 and Blackadder, have indicated seeing the same. On the other
 hand, Eric's message below describes exactly what I am seeing, as did Steve
 Brook's message yesterday.

 Regards,
 Will


 On 03/03/2014 14:10, Eric Grosso wrote:

 Hi all,

  I encountered exactly the same problem at the end of last week (before
 the higher zoom level images of my editing zone were still in cache and hid
 the problem) -- location: Edinburgh, Scotland.

  Apparently this problem appeared for some contributors at the beginning
 of last December:
 - (5 December)
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2013-December/010190.html
 - (7 December)
 https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/28868/aerial-background-imagery-disappears-in-p2-if-i-zoom-in-to-a-high-level-it-did-not-in-the-past
 - (18 December) http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=23592

  Because the source of the problem is apparently due to some changes in
 the Bing maps API, the developers of the OSM editors, at least those of
 JOSM, did not much investigated this problem -- see comments 11 and 16
 here: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9408.

  @ Filip: an employee of Microsoft gave partially an answer here:
 http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/live/en-US/8e2af97a-f5e5-4ae0-acec-562db7e134d0/why-is-it-that-the-bing-map-control-has-a-much-lower-resolution-than-the-website?forum=bingmapswindows8

  Some people think that there is a link with the launch of the new 3D
 Bing maps data:
 http://www.bing.com/blogs/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2013/12/05/maps3d.aspx

  I also checked on the Bing maps website. It appears that we can only
 access the zoom level 19 when using the Bing Aerial imagery (
 http://www.bing.com/maps/) without showing labels. But if the labels are
 activated, it's possible to access all zoom levels even those higher than
 19. So at the moment, because the Bing/OSM licence -- as far as I
 understand it -- doesn't allow the OSM contributors to use another Bing
 imagery than the Aerial one without the labels, the problem seems currently
 unsolvable.

  Cheers,
 Eric

 On 3 March 2014 10:00, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:

 Andy Robinson wrote:

 Zooming in on Nottingham I'm seeing three different imagery versions at
 different zoom levels. I don't anything missing.


  Here's a specific example, to the north in Mansfield:


 https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2#map=19/53.14850/-1.18456

 (using P2 because it doesn't overzoom)

 At z19 there's the current road layout.  At z20 (or 21?) the old road
 layout used to be visible (the footpath that you can see used to be a
 road).  I remember this one only because SK53 and I specifically discussed
 the old road configuration, and I first mapped it (well, tidied up the
 ex-NPE roads already there) when the roads were being changed to the new
 configuration.

 Cheers,

 Andy



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




 ___
 Talk-GB mailing 
 listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bing imagery

[Eric Grosso]

Will,

Thanks. Same here.

Eric


On 3 March 2014 18:42, Will Phillips wp4...@gmail.com wrote:

  Eric,

 Try here:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.92611mlon=-1.21314#map=18/52.92611/-1.21314

 At this location, I can see the roof of a supermarket at zoom level 19. I
 get a 'No tiles at this zoom level' message if I zoom in further.
 Previously, I would see an area of waste ground before the supermarket was
 built at zoom 20. And an even older view of the site at zoom level 21.

 Regards,
 Will


 On 03/03/2014 18:15, Eric Grosso wrote:

 Will,

  Could you please give an example of an area where the others, e.g. SK53,
 can see the high-resolution imagery in order to see if it works for us.

  Thanks,
 Eric


 On 3 March 2014 16:35, Will Phillips wp4...@gmail.com wrote:

  What I don't understand is why some people are seeing this problem but
 other aren't. I've just got someone who edits in another part of the
 country, and so will not be seeing cached images, to have a look at a
 location in my local area in JOSM. They could definitely see three
 different lots of high-res imagery at different zoom levels. Others,
 including SK53 and Blackadder, have indicated seeing the same. On the other
 hand, Eric's message below describes exactly what I am seeing, as did Steve
 Brook's message yesterday.

 Regards,
 Will


 On 03/03/2014 14:10, Eric Grosso wrote:

 Hi all,

  I encountered exactly the same problem at the end of last week (before
 the higher zoom level images of my editing zone were still in cache and hid
 the problem) -- location: Edinburgh, Scotland.

  Apparently this problem appeared for some contributors at the beginning
 of last December:
 - (5 December)
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2013-December/010190.html
 - (7 December)
 https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/28868/aerial-background-imagery-disappears-in-p2-if-i-zoom-in-to-a-high-level-it-did-not-in-the-past
 - (18 December) http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=23592

  Because the source of the problem is apparently due to some changes in
 the Bing maps API, the developers of the OSM editors, at least those of
 JOSM, did not much investigated this problem -- see comments 11 and 16
 here: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/9408.

  @ Filip: an employee of Microsoft gave partially an answer here:
 http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/live/en-US/8e2af97a-f5e5-4ae0-acec-562db7e134d0/why-is-it-that-the-bing-map-control-has-a-much-lower-resolution-than-the-website?forum=bingmapswindows8

  Some people think that there is a link with the launch of the new 3D
 Bing maps data:
 http://www.bing.com/blogs/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2013/12/05/maps3d.aspx

  I also checked on the Bing maps website. It appears that we can only
 access the zoom level 19 when using the Bing Aerial imagery (
 http://www.bing.com/maps/) without showing labels. But if the labels are
 activated, it's possible to access all zoom levels even those higher than
 19. So at the moment, because the Bing/OSM licence -- as far as I
 understand it -- doesn't allow the OSM contributors to use another Bing
 imagery than the Aerial one without the labels, the problem seems currently
 unsolvable.

  Cheers,
 Eric

 On 3 March 2014 10:00, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:

 Andy Robinson wrote:

 Zooming in on Nottingham I'm seeing three different imagery versions at
 different zoom levels. I don't anything missing.


  Here's a specific example, to the north in Mansfield:


 https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2#map=19/53.14850/-1.18456

 (using P2 because it doesn't overzoom)

 At z19 there's the current road layout.  At z20 (or 21?) the old road
 layout used to be visible (the footpath that you can see used to be a
 road).  I remember this one only because SK53 and I specifically discussed
 the old road configuration, and I first mapped it (well, tidied up the
 ex-NPE roads already there) when the roads were being changed to the new
 configuration.

 Cheers,

 Andy



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




 ___
 Talk-GB mailing 
 listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



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




 ___
 Talk-GB mailing 
 listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



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


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