Re: [OSM-talk] Making GPS tracks in Android

[ipswichmapper--- via talk]

In this case simply use Fdroid. Its not hard and the apps on there give you 
peace of mind.
--


20 Dec 2020, 19:14 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

> Gps logger was perfect, unfortunately : > 
> https://github.com/mendhak/gpslogger/issues/849
> Yves 
>
> Le 20 décembre 2020 19:43:00 GMT+01:00, Martijn van Exel  a 
> écrit :
>
>> Andy, 
>>
>> If you would like something lightweight that just does GPS track recording, 
>> I would recommend GPS Logger >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GPS_Logger_for_Android>>  . A nice bonus 
>> is that you can have the app automatically upload your tracks to OSM in 
>> whatever privacy mode you choose. It can also sync with Nextcloud, Dropbox 
>> etc.
>>
>> OSMTracker offers a little more functionality like recording waypoints with 
>> specific, configurable notes, and recording audio notes. >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSMTracker_(Android)>>  
>>
>> I’m not on Android right now but I’ve used both these OSS apps for years.
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 20, 2020, at 5:36 AM, Andy Mabbett <>>> a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>>> 
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Father Christmas came early this year, and has delivered to me a smart
>>> new Android phone, whose GPS is much better than on my old one.
>>>
>>> I want to use it to trace some tracks on a local nature reserve. What
>>> app(s) do you recommend for this?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Andy Mabbett
>>> @pigsonthewing
>>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] UK street addressing

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

The housenumber and street would be tagged on the "building:part=house"

Is this housrnumber belonging to the terrace or is it belonging to the street? 
If it belongs to the terrace, I think even with this tagging software wouldnt 
recognise this.

In that case, this is the tagging O use (its not that good however):

addr:housenumber=2
addr:place=Orchard Gardens
addr2:street=Green Lane

I use addr2:street (this is accepted tagging, by the way) to indicate that the 
street is a seperate address.

This isnt ideal, of course
-- 
 


20 Dec 2020, 18:52 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

>
> On 2020-12-20 19:44, ipswichmap...@tutanota.com wrote:
>
>
>> What you do is give the outline way "buildong=terrace" and 
>> "name=" and all the houses with "building:part=house". The 
>> software can then tell that all those houses are part of the terrace called 
>> 
>>  
>>
>  
> So in the case like I referred to earlier, "2, Orchard Cottages, Green Lane" 
> would be tagged with addr:housenumber=2, and addr:street=Green Lane? And then 
> enclosed within "building=terrace, name=Orchard Cottages". Is the tag 
> building:part=house enough to indicate that the address is "2, Orchard 
> Cottages, Green Lane" and not "2, Green Lane"?
>  
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

What you do is give the outline way "buildong=terrace" and 
"name=" and all the houses with "building:part=house". The 
software can then tell that all those houses are part of the terrace called 

-- 
  

20 Dec 2020, 17:30 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

>
> On 2020-12-20 18:21, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote:
>
>
>> Tag the houses with addr:place maybe?
>>  
>>
> IMHO a house is not a place
>  
>
>> Or, better method is to use the alternative terrace taggong scheme where 
>> each house is tagged as building:part=house within a larger 
>> building=terrace.  (Terracer plugin lets you do this if you check "keep 
>> outline way")
>>  
>>
>  
> That allows the building to be split into parts, but does it tell us how to 
> put a distinct address on each part?
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Tag the houses with addr:place maybe?

Or, better method is to use the alternative terrace taggong scheme where each 
house is tagged as building:part=house within a larger building=terrace.  
(Terracer plugin lets you do this if you check "keep outline way")

IpswichMapper-- 
 


20 Dec 2020, 15:50 by aamac...@gmail.com:

> I'm also unclear how to tag numbered houses in named terraces. 
>
> addr:housename doesn't seem appropriate if they are shared along an entire 
> row and addr:street already has a value.
>
> I've also run into this for blocks of flats. "Block B" doesn't seem like a 
> housename either? The addr:block tags seems to be for named city blocks.
>
> Do we have some sort of local grouping tag?
>
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 10:32, ndrw <> nd...@redhazel.co.uk> > wrote:
>
>> On 20/12/2020 12:45, Dave Abbott wrote:
>>  > There is a page at 
>>  > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping>>  
>>  > which mentions "suggested tags" but there is no evidence that this is 
>>  > in use. If correct I would be tagging as -
>>  >
>>  > addr:housenumber=99
>>  > addr:street=Postal Street
>>  > addr:town=Smalltown
>>  > addr:city=Largertown
>>  >
>>  This is correct, although there is no consensus wrt to the tag used for 
>>  Smalltown. I'm using one of addr:villlage|suburb|town myself. There was 
>>  a proposal to switch to addr:locality only, which I argued against in 
>>  the past, but it would indeed match RM addressing better and often 
>>  classification of the locality is unclear.
>>  
>>  This is not the only problem with RM<->OSM address tagging. RM defines 
>>  following address structure:
>>  
>>  Dependent thoroughfare
>>          addr:place (?)
>>  Thoroughfare
>>          addr:street
>>  Double dependent locality
>>          addr:hamlet|district (?)
>>  Dependent locality
>>          addr:town|village|suburb|locality (?)
>>  Post Town
>>          addr:city
>>  Postcode
>>          addr:postcode
>>  
>>  
>>  This often becomes an issue when mapping business parks, 
>>  hospital/university campuses etc.
>>  
>>  ndrw6
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  ___
>>  Talk-GB mailing list
>>  >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

It's not just administrative boundaries. If you mark points with 
"place=suburb", "place=town" etc. that will also be used.

In this case it is clearly difficult to tell which tags to use, so I would just 
not use them and let nominatim figure out. Unless someone else a clearer 
solution, that is.

IpswichMapper

-- 
 

20 Dec 2020, 13:29 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

>
> On 2020-12-20 14:13, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote:
>
>
>> Marking city, town etc is not necessary in UK because Geocoders like 
>> nominatim can figure those out using afministrative boundaries.
>>  
>>
> Postal addresses have no relation to administrative boundaries. They are 
> simply "what you need to put on an envelope so Royal Mail can put it through 
> the right letter box".
>  
> Boundaries of "post town" areas are not in OSM, nor can they be considered 
> "administrative". Post Towns, Dependent Localities and Double-Dependent 
> Localities are not mapped (nor mappable) to Districts etc or Civil Parishes.
>  
>  
>
>>  
>> What is important is the housenumber and street:
>> "addr:housenumber=99
>> addr:street= Postal Street"
>>  
>> And postcode:
>> "addr:postcode=XY9 7GY"
>>  
>> Note, all postcodes are available freely:
>>  
>> https://raggedred.net/codepoint/
>>  
>> IpswichMapper
>> --
>>  
>>  
>> 20 Dec 2020, 12:45 by dave.abb...@pandaemonia.org:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>  
>>> I am trying to make sure I tag addresses correctly. I am currently trying 
>>> to understand how to map in my area.
>>>  
>>> The postal addresses are like:
>>>  
>>> 99 Postal Street
>>> Smalltown
>>> Largertown
>>> West Yorks XY9 7GY
>>>  
>>> Smalltown is geographically separate to Largertown, which however is the 
>>> Postal Town. Omitting Smalltown from the address is probably correct 
>>> postally-speaking, but local residents would object as Smalltown is seen as 
>>> completely separate to other places under the same Postal Town.
>>>  
>>> Currently tagging as -
>>> addr:housenumber=99
>>> addr:street=Postal Street
>>> addr:city=Smalltown, Largertown
>>>  
>>> But I am pretty sure this is wrong.
>>>  
>>> There is a page at 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping which 
>>> mentions "suggested tags" but there is no evidence that this is in use. If 
>>> correct I would be tagging as -
>>>  
>>> addr:housenumber=99
>>> addr:street=Postal Street
>>> addr:town=Smalltown
>>> addr:city=Largertown
>>>  
>>> Hoping someone can advise me as to the correct way to tag for the UK...
>>>  
>>> Dave Abbott (OSM user DaveyPorcy)
>>>
>>  
>>
>> ___
>>  Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Marking city, town etc is not necessary in UK because Geocoders like nominatim 
can figure those out using afministrative boundaries.

What is important is the housenumber and street:
"addr:housenumber=99
addr:street= Postal Street"

And postcode:
"addr:postcode=XY9 7GY"

Note, all postcodes are available freely:

https://raggedred.net/codepoint/

IpswichMapper-- 
 

20 Dec 2020, 12:45 by dave.abb...@pandaemonia.org:

> Hi,
>
> I am trying to make sure I tag addresses correctly. I am currently trying to 
> understand how to map in my area.
>
> The postal addresses are like:
>
> 99 Postal Street
> Smalltown
> Largertown
> West Yorks XY9 7GY
>
> Smalltown is geographically separate to Largertown, which however is the 
> Postal Town. Omitting Smalltown from the address is probably correct 
> postally-speaking, but local residents would object as Smalltown is seen as 
> completely separate to other places under the same Postal Town.
>
> Currently tagging as -
> addr:housenumber=99
> addr:street=Postal Street
> addr:city=Smalltown, Largertown
>
> But I am pretty sure this is wrong.
>
> There is a page at 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping which 
> mentions "suggested tags" but there is no evidence that this is in use. If 
> correct I would be tagging as -
>
> addr:housenumber=99
> addr:street=Postal Street
> addr:town=Smalltown
> addr:city=Largertown
>
> Hoping someone can advise me as to the correct way to tag for the UK...
>
> Dave Abbott  (OSM user DaveyPorcy)
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Please SWITCH to Mailman 3 & hyperkitty

[ipswichmapper--- via talk]

Thanks, for the links. Very insightful diiscussion at Github, however the forum 
link isn't working.
-- 
 


14 Dec 2020, 19:48 by talk@openstreetmap.org:

>
>
>
> Dec 14, 2020, 20:23 by j...@liotier.org:
>
>> On 12/14/20 8:13 PM, >> ipswichmap...@tutanota.com>>  wrote:
>>
>>> > A bigger problem is that the UI for list owners ishorrid.
>>>
>>> Ok. What alternative solutions do you propose?
>>>
>>
>> From Tom's answer, you might gather that there are higher  priorities 
>> that absorb administrative resources - so unless you  can offer a hand, 
>> I'm afraid that things will remain as they are  for now.
>>
>>
> See
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/377
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=68929
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Top_Ten_Tasks=20100=2072003=1971678
>
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Please SWITCH to Mailman 3 & hyperkitty

[ipswichmapper--- via talk]

You are right. If updating to mailman 3 will take monrhs of work it is probably 
not worth trying to make any changes right now.

I was wondering, however, what changes to the mailing list the team are 
considering doing in the future, as Tom said they are looking into things.
Thanks,
IpswichMapper-- 
 


14 Dec 2020, 19:23 by j...@liotier.org:

> On 12/14/20 8:13 PM, > ipswichmap...@tutanota.com>  wrote:
>
>> > A bigger problem is that the UI for list owners ishorrid.
>>
>> Ok. What alternative solutions do you propose?
>>
>
> From Tom's answer, you might gather that there are higher  priorities 
> that absorb administrative resources - so unless you  can offer a hand, 
> I'm afraid that things will remain as they are  for now.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -- 
>>
>> 14 Dec 2020, 19:07 by >> t...@compton.nu>> :
>>
>>> That's just the instructions on how to migrate the data
>>> and it doesn't cover anything related to actually  installing
>>> and configuring all the components of mailman 3 from a
>>> quick look which is a big issue given that it's not  packaged
>>> and it's a not a single tool like mailman 2 but rather is
>>> a collection of separate components.
>>>
>>> Given that we're already looking at other things there is
>>> no point in spending several months and many man hours on
>>> attempting a migration to something that we have to install
>>> from source and then try and keep up to date without any
>>> upstream packages.
>>>
>>> You're right that the UI tries to be a web forum but from
>>> personal experience I can say that it fails - it's probably
>>> a better UI as a simple archiver but it's no use as a way
>>> of reading lists day to day. The only thing that's ever
>>> got close to that is Discourse.
>>>
>>> A bigger problem is that the UI for list owners is horrid.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> On 14/12/2020 18:58, >>> ipswichmap...@tutanota.com>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Python's mailing lists use mailman 3:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.python.org/community/lists/>>>>  >>>> 
>>>> <https://www.python.org/community/lists/> 
>>>> <https://www.python.org/community/lists/>
>>>>
>>>> What is the problem with the UI ? It seems far, far more
>>>> useable than pipermail and hyperkitty feels like a forum.
>>>>
>>>> If upgrading isn't possible, well then I guess bad luck.The 
>>>> mailman focs doesn't make it look that hard (is itskipping 
>>>> over OSM server specific steps that make theprocess harder?)
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/migration.html>>>>  >>>> 
>>>> <https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/migration.html> 
>>>> <https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/migration.html>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> IpswichMapper
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 14 Dec 2020, 18:45 by >>>> t...@compton.nu>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> It's not going to happen.
>>>>
>>>> Virtually nobody uses mailman 3 with the exception ofFedora
>>>> and I know from using it there that the UI is adisaster.
>>>>
>>>> Also it's not packaged for Ubuntu and it's far morecomplicated 
>>>> to
>>>> deploy than what we have.
>>>>
>>>> Don't think of mailman 3 as an upgrade - it's basicallya
>>>> totally different product.
>>>>
>>>> There is talk of a change, but it won't be to mailman 3.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> On 14/12/2020 18:42, >>>> ipswichmap...@tutanota.com>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Okay thanks, I'll contact him on github. I don't havdmailman
>>>> administration experience, or that much codingexperience for
>>>> that matter. I was just suprised that we are stuck with10+
>>>> years old cluttered pipermail when hyperkitty isactually 
>>>> useable.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 14 Dec 2020, 18:37 by >>>> j...@liotier.org>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> From looking at the M

Re: [OSM-talk] Please SWITCH to Mailman 3 & hyperkitty

[ipswichmapper--- via talk]

> A bigger problem is that the UI for list owners is horrid.

Ok. What alternative solutions do you propose?-- 

14 Dec 2020, 19:07 by t...@compton.nu:

> That's just the instructions on how to migrate the data
> and it doesn't cover anything related to actually installing
> and configuring all the components of mailman 3 from a
> quick look which is a big issue given that it's not packaged
> and it's a not a single tool like mailman 2 but rather is
> a collection of separate components.
>
> Given that we're already looking at other things there is
> no point in spending several months and many man hours on
> attempting a migration to something that we have to install
> from source and then try and keep up to date without any
> upstream packages.
>
> You're right that the UI tries to be a web forum but from
> personal experience I can say that it fails - it's probably
> a better UI as a simple archiver but it's no use as a way
> of reading lists day to day. The only thing that's ever
> got close to that is Discourse.
>
> A bigger problem is that the UI for list owners is horrid.
>
> Tom
>
> On 14/12/2020 18:58, ipswichmap...@tutanota.com wrote:
>
>> Python's mailing lists use mailman 3:
>>
>> https://www.python.org/community/lists/ 
>> <https://www.python.org/community/lists/>
>>
>> What is the problem with the UI ? It seems far, far more useable than 
>> pipermail and hyperkitty feels like a forum.
>>
>> If upgrading isn't possible, well then I guess bad luck. The mailman focs 
>> doesn't make it look that hard (is it skipping over OSM server specific 
>> steps that make the process harder?)
>>
>> https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/migration.html 
>> <https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/migration.html>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> IpswichMapper
>> -- 
>>
>>
>>
>> 14 Dec 2020, 18:45 by t...@compton.nu:
>>
>>  It's not going to happen.
>>
>>  Virtually nobody uses mailman 3 with the exception of Fedora
>>  and I know from using it there that the UI is a disaster.
>>
>>  Also it's not packaged for Ubuntu and it's far more complicated to
>>  deploy than what we have.
>>
>>  Don't think of mailman 3 as an upgrade - it's basically a
>>  totally different product.
>>
>>  There is talk of a change, but it won't be to mailman 3.
>>
>>  Tom
>>
>>  On 14/12/2020 18:42, ipswichmap...@tutanota.com wrote:
>>
>>  Okay thanks, I'll contact him on github. I don't havd mailman
>>  administration experience, or that much coding experience for
>>  that matter. I was just suprised that we are stuck with 10+
>>  years old cluttered pipermail when hyperkitty is actually useable.
>>
>>  -- 
>>
>>
>>  14 Dec 2020, 18:37 by j...@liotier.org:
>>
>>  From looking at the Mailman Chef cookbook at
>>  https://github.com/openstreetmap/chef/tree/master/cookbooks/mailman
>>  <https://github.com/openstreetmap/chef/tree/master/cookbooks/mailman>,
>>  Tom Hughes is the person you should ask. If you have mailman
>>  administration experience, maybe you could make it happen.
>>
>>
>>  On 12/14/20 7:18 PM, ipswichmapper--- via talk wrote:
>>
>>
>>  I was wondering if all the lists on
>>  https://lists.openstreetmap.org
>>  <https://lists.openstreetmap.org>
>>  could be switched to Mailman 3 and hyperkitty (the newest
>>  archiver).
>>
>>  Currently, pipermail is used to archive, and its UI is
>>  *unusable*.
>>  Comparatevely, hyperkitty is a lot more like a forum.
>>
>>  From my experience, the mailing lists are *far more active*
>>  than
>>  the forum, so it would be good to have it searchable & more
>>  accessible (the only downside to this is newer users might
>>  use the
>>  mailing list now. I don't think this is a downside, but I
>>  understand why others would think so).
>>
>>  Also, Mailman 3 still gets updates, while *mailman2 is on
>>  maintainance mode and won't recieve feature updates.*
>>
>>  I strongly recommend that the mailing lists are upgraded to
>>  mailman3 with hyperkitty: this will make the mailing lists
>>  so, so
>>  much more useable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
>>  http://compton.nu/
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Please SWITCH to Mailman 3 & hyperkitty

[ipswichmapper--- via talk]

Python's mailing lists use mailman 3:

https://www.python.org/community/lists/

What is the problem with the UI ? It seems far, far more useable than pipermail 
and hyperkitty feels like a forum.

If upgrading isn't possible, well then I guess bad luck. The mailman focs 
doesn't make it look that hard (is it skipping over OSM server specific steps 
that make the process harder?)

https://docs.mailman3.org/en/latest/migration.html

Thanks,
IpswichMapper-- 
 


14 Dec 2020, 18:45 by t...@compton.nu:

> It's not going to happen.
>
> Virtually nobody uses mailman 3 with the exception of Fedora
> and I know from using it there that the UI is a disaster.
>
> Also it's not packaged for Ubuntu and it's far more complicated to deploy 
> than what we have.
> Don't think of mailman 3 as an upgrade - it's basically a
> totally different product.
>
> There is talk of a change, but it won't be to mailman 3.
>
> Tom
>
> On 14/12/2020 18:42, ipswichmap...@tutanota.com wrote:
>
>> Okay thanks, I'll contact him on github. I don't havd mailman administration 
>> experience, or that much coding experience for that matter. I was just 
>> suprised that we are stuck with 10+ years old cluttered pipermail when 
>> hyperkitty is actually useable.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>
>>
>> 14 Dec 2020, 18:37 by j...@liotier.org:
>>
>>  From looking at the Mailman Chef cookbook at
>>  https://github.com/openstreetmap/chef/tree/master/cookbooks/mailman
>>  <https://github.com/openstreetmap/chef/tree/master/cookbooks/mailman>,
>>  Tom Hughes is the person you should ask. If you have mailman
>>  administration experience, maybe you could make it happen.
>>
>>
>>  On 12/14/20 7:18 PM, ipswichmapper--- via talk wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I was wondering if all the lists on
>>>  https://lists.openstreetmap.org <https://lists.openstreetmap.org>
>>>  could be switched to Mailman 3 and hyperkitty (the newest archiver).
>>>
>>>  Currently, pipermail is used to archive, and its UI is *unusable*.
>>>  Comparatevely, hyperkitty is a lot more like a forum.
>>>
>>>  From my experience, the mailing lists are *far more active* than
>>>  the forum, so it would be good to have it searchable & more
>>>  accessible (the only downside to this is newer users might use the
>>>  mailing list now. I don't think this is a downside, but I
>>>  understand why others would think so).
>>>
>>>  Also, Mailman 3 still gets updates, while *mailman2 is on
>>>  maintainance mode and won't recieve feature updates.*
>>>
>>>  I strongly recommend that the mailing lists are upgraded to
>>>  mailman3 with hyperkitty: this will make the mailing lists so, so
>>>  much more useable.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://compton.nu/
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Please SWITCH to Mailman 3 & hyperkitty

[ipswichmapper--- via talk]

Okay thanks, I'll contact him on github. I don't havd mailman administration 
experience, or that much coding experience for that matter. I was just suprised 
that we are stuck with 10+ years old cluttered pipermail when hyperkitty is 
actually useable.
-- 
 


14 Dec 2020, 18:37 by j...@liotier.org:

>
> From looking at the Mailman Chef cookbook at > 
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/chef/tree/master/cookbooks/mailman> ,  
> Tom Hughes is the person you should ask. If you have mailman  
> administration experience, maybe you could make it happen.
>
>
>
>
> On 12/14/20 7:18 PM, ipswichmapper---  via talk wrote:
>
>>
>> I was wondering if all the lists on >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org>>  
>> could be switched to Mailman 3 and hyperkitty (the newestarchiver).
>>
>> Currently, pipermail is used to archive, and its UI is >> unusable>> .   
>>  Comparatevely, hyperkitty is a lot more like a forum.
>>
>> From my experience, the mailing lists are >> far more active>>  than the 
>> forum, so it would be good to have it searchable &more accessible 
>> (the only downside to this is newer users mightuse the mailing list 
>> now. I don't think this is a downside, butI understand why others 
>> would think so).
>>
>> Also, Mailman 3 still gets updates, while >> mailman2 is on  
>> maintainance mode and won't recieve feature updates.
>>
>> I strongly recommend that the mailing lists are upgraded tomailman3 
>> with hyperkitty: this will make the mailing lists so,so much more 
>> useable.
>>

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

[OSM-talk] Please SWITCH to Mailman 3 & hyperkitty

[ipswichmapper--- via talk]

Hello,

I was wondering if all the lists on https://lists.openstreetmap.org could be 
switched to Mailman 3 and hyperkitty (the newest archiver).

Currently, pipermail is used to archive, and its UI is unusable. Comparatevely, 
hyperkitty is a lot more like a forum.

>From my experience, the mailing lists are far more active than the forum, so 
>it would be good to have it searchable & more accessible (the only downside to 
>this is newer users might use the mailing list now. I don't think this is a 
>downside, but I understand why others would think so).

Also, Mailman 3 still gets updates, while mailman2 is on maintainance mode and 
won't recieve feature updates.

I strongly recommend that the mailing lists are upgraded to mailman3 with 
hyperkitty: this will make the mailing lists so, so much more useable.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Yes, however the reasoning for this is that sometimes someone has drawn every 
single driveway on a street in a city/town. 
Rendering this at low zoom levels would clutter the map. By contrast, tracks 
are often much more sparsely populated, so they don't clutter the map.

I don't know what the solution to this would be, however.
IpswichMapper-- 


12 Dec 2020, 12:34 by mar...@templot.com:

> A common situation is that a service road/driveway continues as a track 
> beyond the initial residential destination. This is common on farms.
>
> On the standard map at zoom level 15, driveways are not shown. But tracks and 
> footpaths are. This seems counter-intuitive in that driveways are usually 
> wider and more substantially surfaced than farm tracks.
>
> The result is that a track, and sometimes a footpath, appears to start in the 
> middle of nowhere.
>
> An example of that is at:
>
>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.2816/-2.4320
>
> What is the process for getting something done about this?
>
> thanks,
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Just to add by the way, in a country like netherlands "cycleways" are paved 
paths dedicated to cycles. You can't walk on there because there are also 
sidewalks to walk on. E.g.:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pAL4yr927e4/maxresdefault.jpg

--  


10 Dec 2020, 14:08 by tonyo...@gmail.com:

>
> Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians areactually 
> banned? 
>
>
> Unfortunately yes - > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295
>
>
> Quite clear signage - Mapillary - > 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.66933432657343=-2.6290113968031967=17=_ir_HmYAIa4H0rnj1JrO8A=photo>
>   
>
> When I walk there I take my chances on  the illegal walking along a 
> cycleway rather than the 50 mph dual  carriageway where it is legal to 
> walk.
>
>
> Tony Shield - TonyS999
>
> .
>
> On 10/12/2020 12:47, Martin Wynne  wrote:
>
>>> My reasons for changing it, is that it isshared use path with a 
>>> greater number of people of foot thanbicycle (about 5:2) 
>>>
>>
>> Many public bridleways have many more walkers and cyclists using  it 
>> than actual horse-riders. But are still mapped as bridleways.
>>  
>>  Map it as a cycleway, unless it is a public bridleway, in which  case 
>> map it as bridleway. You are mapping the status, not the  actual usage. 
>>  
>>  My feeling is that a highway should be mapped at the highest level  of 
>> permitted usage. The assumption is that pedestrians can go  almost 
>> anywhere anyway. Motorways excepted. 
>>  
>>  Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually  
>> banned? 
>>  
>>  cheers, 
>>  
>>  Martin. 
>>  
>>  ___ 
>>  Talk-GB mailing list 
>>  >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>>  
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>>  
>>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Didn't know this tagging scheme existed actually. Every single path that allows 
both cycling and walking is tagged as "highway=cycleway", "foot=yes" and 
"segregated=no" in my area (as well as "footway=sidewalk" sometimes)

-- 
 


10 Dec 2020, 12:24 by epicthom...@gmail.com:

> I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural 
> shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as 
> highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path, 
> bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply to 
> it).
> My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater 
> number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2), the path is designed for 
> both types of user & not the whole route has a blacktop surface (therefore 
> not suitable for road bikes, these bits do have their surface tagged though 
> so that shouldn't be an issue for routers).
> His argument for keeping it as highway=cycleway is because his render is not 
> configured to show highway=path & bicycle=designated the same as 
> highway=cycleway. Other reasons are because it is part of the NCN Route 88, 
> as such it is "cared" for sustrans. Also it is a  well used cycle route. Both 
> of which are very much true, and are tagged with the appropriate relations to 
> reflect this.
>
> I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that I ask 
> the community here to see what the consensus is.
> I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the sole 
> reason being because it renders differently.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759
>
>
> Thank you,
> -- 
> T> homas > J
>

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

[Talk-GB] FWD: Re: House number ranges that are only odd or even

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Date: 10 Dec 2020, 18:34
From: ipswichmap...@tutanota.com
To: mattatt...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] House number ranges that are only odd or even


> This issue also came to my mind. addr:interpolation on a building doesn't 
> seem appropriate. JOSM, for example, renders it as a dotted line around the 
> edge of the building (as if that is the addr:interpolation way).  Clearly 
> then, addr:interpolation isn't meant for buildings.
>
> Currently, I do 1;3;5;7;9 (here is an example of this: > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222193468/history>  [old versions of this 
> building have that tagging scheme])
>
> Probably, a proposal needs to be created to either create a new tag or change 
> addr:interpolation so that its meaning is different on closed and open ways.
>
> I think the latter solution is better, as people probably already tag 
> buildings with an addr:interpolation.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
>
> -- 
>
>
> 10 Dec 2020, 15:37 by mattatt...@gmail.com:
>
>> Is there a way when specifying a range for addr:housenumber to indicate it's 
>> only for even or odd numbers?
>>
>> When walking around my local area I have come across some blocks that will 
>> have a sign indicating for example house numbers 1 to 21 odd only. Similarly 
>> when there is just one building drawn for a whole street of terrace houses 
>> the number range will only be or odd even depending on the side of the road.
>>
>
>

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

[Talk-GB] FWD: Re: High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

--
Sent with Tutanota, the secure & ad-free mailbox:
https://tutanota.com


Date: 1 Dec 2020, 11:25
From: ipswichmap...@tutanota.com
To: robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS 
(!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?


> Yes we do. Here is the rest of the email NLS sent to OSMUK.
>
> > I think since you were last in touch we have georeferenced a 1:10,560 layer 
> >for Great Britain in the 1949-1969 period, which you can view at: > 
> >https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=7=52.29994=-2.19749=193=1>
> > . The tileset is available at > 
> >https://geo.nls.uk/mapdata3/os/britain10knatgrid/> . We could share this 
> >with the OSM community, even though I know you would prefer more detailed 
> >mapping.
>
>
> -- 
>
>
> 1 Dec 2020, 10:51 by robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 09:53, Ken Kilfedder  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> IpswichMapper forwarded me this note, apparently received from NLS via an 
>>> enquiry made by Rob-from-OSMF:
>>>
>>> > “I wish I could give you better news on the 1940s OS maps of south-east 
>>> > England.
>>> > Unfortunately, you’re right, they were scanned by a third-party 
>>> > commercial company
>>> > who have placed commercial re-use restrictions on this layer – there are 
>>> > further
>>> > details under our Copyright Exceptions list at
>>> > https://maps.nls.uk/copyright.html#exceptions. These restrictions will 
>>> > last for
>>> > another couple of years – until the end of 2022 – which I know might seem 
>>> > a long
>>> > way off, but hopefully will pass quickly. Then we’ll be happily able to 
>>> > share
>>> > them with the OSM community, along with the rest of England and Wales
>>> > National Grid 1940s-1960s mapping, that will be of interest too.”
>>>
>>
>> Looking at https://maps.nls.uk/copyright.html#exceptions am I right in
>> thinking that the non-commercial contract restriction also applies to
>> some other NLS layers (e.g. OS 1:25k and 7th series scans) which have
>> been available (and being used) in popular OSM editors for some time
>> now? Do we have some specific permission to use those layers, and if
>> so does that permission apply to the new house number layer as well?
>>
>> Robert.
>>
>> -- 
>> Robert Whittaker
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] FWD: Re: High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

--
Sent with Tutanota, the secure & ad-free mailbox:
https://tutanota.com


Date: 1 Dec 2020, 11:23
From: ipswichmap...@tutanota.com
To: scolebou...@joda.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS 
(!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?


>
> My experience is the oposite. It even listed housenumbers such as 12A. 
> Checking google streetview shows they are correct.
>
> It obviously depends, however.p.s. where are the oxted housenumbers? Osm.org 
> doesn't display housenumbers in Oxted.
>
> IpswichMapper> -- 
>
>
>
> 1 Dec 2020, 09:58 by scolebou...@joda.org:
>
>> As a side note to the legal aspect, the house numbers can be horribly
>> inaccurate. I compared Oxted to a ground survey, and the old map
>> simply numbered the houses consecutively, which isn't reality on the
>> ground. One possible explanation is that brand new estates (1940s)
>> were done this way, as the final house number hadn't yet been chosen.
>> Anyway, be careful when trusting these maps.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 09:33, Ken Kilfedder  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> SO,
>>>
>>> It turns out - we cannot use these images until the scanner's copyright 
>>> expires at the end of next year.  Happily, it seems like there will be 
>>> GB-wide coverage available at that point, not just the 
>>> London-Southend-Brighton area.
>>>
>>> However, I have been happily using these images for a bit less than a year 
>>> now, so I'm looking for advice on How to redact. I've tagged all the 
>>> relevant changesets with the name of the TMS, so it should be possible.
>>>
>>> 1.  Is there an overpass syntax that would let me download (to JOSM) - all 
>>> ways with addr:housenumber added or changed via a changeset with a certain 
>>> source tag?  (and not updated by something else later)
>>> 2. Could I then wipe all such addr:housenumbers and re-upload?
>>> 3. Could I keep a JOSM session file around to reupload the 
>>> addr:housenumbers once the scanner's copyright has elapsed?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This has come to light thanks to IpswitchMapper's tireless efforts to set 
>>> up a tasking manager for adding housenumber, and thank to Rob-from-OSMF's 
>>> communications with NLS.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
>>> spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk
>>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020, at 10:55 AM, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
>>> > Hi Mark,
>>> >
>>> > If there is absolute confidence in that, can it be added to the wiki page 
>>> > here:
>>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Library_of_Scotland
>>> >
>>> > And can it be added to the default set of old maps in JOSM?
>>> >
>>> > If it is available for use, not point in keeping it a secret.
>>> >
>>> > ---
>>> > https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
>>> > spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 6:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On 30/10/2020 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 
>>> > > > 1944-1967
>>> > > > in NLS is available freely.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > What are its licensing terms?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > "available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license"
>>> > >
>>> > > It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving
>>> > > data from it.
>>> > >
>>> > > I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for
>>> > > wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey.
>>> > > House numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets
>>> > > are renamed or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number
>>> > > in the 1950s is the same number it is now, even if the building is still
>>> > > the same.
>>> > >
>>> > > 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 mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] FWD: Revert the "Felixstowe to Nuneaton" relation

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

I am forwarding this here because it seems like the "talk-gb-midanglia" mailing 
list is no longer active.

Date: 14 Nov 2020, 17:44
From: ipswichmap...@tutanota.com
To: talk-gb-midang...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Revert the "Felixstowe to Nuneaton" relation


> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7521925
>
> That is the relation I am talking about.
>
> An edit made by user nplath seems to have made this relation into a clone of 
> the "Ipswich To Cambridge-Ely" relation. You can tell this because the number 
> of members went down from ~400 to ~150. 
>
> If I'm correct, this route (Felixstowe to Nuneaton) is an important freight 
> train route.
>
> If somehow to members of this relation can be reverted to back when there 
> were 400 members, then that would be good.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
>

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

[Talk-gb-midanglia] Revert the "Felixstowe to Nuneaton" relation

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-gb-midanglia]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7521925

That is the relation I am talking about.

An edit made by user nplath seems to have made this relation into a clone of 
the "Ipswich To Cambridge-Ely" relation. You can tell this because the number 
of members went down from ~400 to ~150. 

If I'm correct, this route (Felixstowe to Nuneaton) is an important freight 
train route.

If somehow to members of this relation can be reverted to back when there were 
400 members, then that would be good.

Thanks,
IpswichMapper
___
Talk-gb-midanglia mailing list
Talk-gb-midanglia@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia

Re: [Talk-GB] Weight restrictions

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Yes. Just added "surface=asphalt" to all the motor-vehicle roads in my area 
using JOSM, because every single road here (except service roads)  are paved 
with asphalt...
--  


13 Nov 2020, 19:19 by bainton@gmail.com:

>  hmm thank you 
>
> This is probably one more occasion where I should graduate to JOSM rather 
> than sticking with iD - just guessing a bulk edit of all roads in a given 
> area would be possible?
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2020, 09:05 Philip Barnes, <> p...@trigpoint.me.uk> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 08:32 +, Edward Bainton wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> I've been reading the wiki >>> here 
>>> >> conditional restrictions.
>>>
>>> Should these be along the whole length of the relevant road, or can they be 
>>> on a fragment of way near the restriction sign? 
>>>
>>> Eg, the whole of >>> Stanwick 
>>> >>  , Northants, is off-limits to 7-tonners. Presumably I don't have to tag 
>>> every street; but maybe the access/through routes should be tagged all 
>>> along their length?
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Edward
>> These restrictions are quite common in Leicestershire and are intended to 
>> prevent lorries using residential areas as a through route.
>>
>> They are generally 7.5t and only apply to goods vehicles, not buses or 
>> coaches.
>>
>> They allow access for deliveries, loading.
>>
>> We usually use hgv=destination.
>>
>> You do need to tag every road within the boundary, not just the main roads 
>> otherwise you will end up with some very strange routing.
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>
>> ___
>>  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] "Survey Me" Tool Update

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Thanks for this tool. Very useful
-- 
 Securely sent with Tutanota. Get your own encrypted, ad-free mailbox: 
 https://tutanota.com


7 Nov 2020, 12:11 by robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com:

> For anyone who's interested, I've just updated my "Survey Me" tool at
> https://osm.mathmos.net/survey/ . It now includes food retail chains
> where OSM mapping doesn't agree with the "Retail Points" dataset from
> Geolytix ( https://blog.geolytix.net/tag/retail-points/ ).
>
> The idea of "Survey Me" is that it flags up potential errors or
> omissions in OSM data that probably require a ground survey to
> resolve. So mappers may like to have a look at their local area, or
> anywhere they are visiting, to see if there's anything worth checking
> out.
>
> More details of the comparison between OSM data and Retail Points can
> be found at https://osm.mathmos.net/chains/ .
>
> Robert.
>
> -- 
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Oh yes, private streets are always a problem. In fact, I feel uncomfortable 
even walking down  dead end roads to survey, and so I avoid them. Usually I 
just record the first number, then guess the rest of the numbers on dead end 
streets.

NLS definately would be better.

That being said, who should be contacted to create a tasking manager for this?
-- 
 Securely sent with Tutanota. Get your own encrypted, ad-free mailbox: 
 https://tutanota.com


30 Oct 2020, 22:09 by scolebou...@joda.org:

> Having surveyed thousands of addresses in SW London, I've done a quick
> compare and it looks pretty good to me. Sure there are the odd case
> here and there where buildings have changed, but for the many parts of
> London with Victorian to 1930s housing stock, this will be mostly
> accurate. Just comparing the general order from low to high odds/evens
> is useful. Plus for hard to access private streets its great. As a
> warning though, it does not align perfectly with the Bing offset I'm
> using.
>
> Is there anyone with "authority" that can state this is OK to use, and
> what source tag to use?
>
> Stephen
>
>
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 at 18:48, Mark Goodge  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 30/10/2020 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:
>> >
>> > It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967
>> > in NLS is available freely.
>> >
>> > What are its licensing terms?
>> >
>> > "available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license"
>>
>> It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving
>> data from it.
>>
>> I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for
>> wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey.
>> House numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets
>> are renamed or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number
>> in the 1950s is the same number it is now, even if the building is still
>> the same.
>>
>> 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Holes in modern England?

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Considering it's called "holes map" I think it is meant to have the gaps.
-- 
30 Oct 2020, 20:52 by mar...@templot.com:

> On 30/10/2020 20:34, ipswichmap...@tutanota.com wrote:
>
>> If this is referring to what I posted earlier, then you have chosen a 
>> different map to what I linked.
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> No it's a separate issue. I was browsing the NLS site when Firefox threw an 
> error. I clicked "Try again" and the holey map appeared. It seems to be an 
> extract from the normal 25" georeferenced map, but to what end I can't fathom.
>
> cheers,
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

How do you reply to an email that wasn't sent to your inbox and still keep the 
thread structure?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Holes in modern England?

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

If this is referring to what I posted earlier, then you have chosen a different 
map to what I linked.

Here is the London grid map displayed using what you did:

https://geo.nls.uk/mapdata3/os/ldn_tile/#ldn_nat_grid/ol3

On the right, it shows background imagery. "OpenLayers3" in a map of OSM, 
although you can display this NLS imagery over google maps, or leaflet, or 
"google maps API".

Don't know what the "holes map" which you linked was however. It doesn't show 
house numbers but seems to have more coverage.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Ok, it seems like this one didn't show up under the right thread. I moved the 
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org to the CC section and emailed m...@good-stuff.co.uk 
directly, but it didn't show up under that thread. The way I originally did it 
is by clicking on the email in the archive, which loads a mailto link, however 
it only loads talk-gb@openstreetmap.org . How do you respond to threads that 
you haven't been emailed properly?

-- 
 Sent with Tutanota, the secure & ad-free mailbox: 
 https://tutanota.com


30 Oct 2020, 20:17 by ipswichmap...@tutanota.com:

> This is why I think that a tasking manager is good. Firstly, it is not 
> exactly "wholesale" in the sense that a lot of data with little checking. 
> Every square is mapped and then validated as well. 
>
> Secondly, this is why it is imperative to check if the buildings still exist 
> on Bing. If they do, almost certainly the housenumbers haven't changed. (As 
> mentioned by spiregrain). If the buildings have changed, then you can mark a 
> square as "bad imagery", making the tasking manager even more useful (so that 
> you can discern where the imagery is accurate and where it isn't).
>
> 
>
> Mark wrote:
>
> It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving data 
> from it.I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for 
> wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey. House 
> numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets are renamed 
> or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number in the 1950s is 
> the same number it is now, even if the building is still the same.
>
> Mark 
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

This is why I think that a tasking manager is good. Firstly, it is not exactly 
"wholesale" in the sense that a lot of data with little checking. Every square 
is mapped and then validated as well. 

Secondly, this is why it is imperative to check if the buildings still exist on 
Bing. If they do, almost certainly the housenumbers haven't changed. (As 
mentioned by spiregrain). If the buildings have changed, then you can mark a 
square as "bad imagery", making the tasking manager even more useful (so that 
you can discern where the imagery is accurate and where it isn't).



Mark wrote:

It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving data 
from it.I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for 
wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey. House 
numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets are renamed or 
rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number in the 1950s is the 
same number it is now, even if the building is still the same.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

I have already posted this on reddit, and people brought up this issue there 
too:

https://old.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/jk8gdr/high_quality_imagery_of_buildings_and/gahyzi
 


Also, the messages by "Mark Goodge" and "Ken Kilfedder" (spiregrain) didn't 
show up in my email. Why is this? (Is it because their "reply all" didn't 
include my address by mistake?) I'm still getting used to mailing lists.

The https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/ website sorts the mails into 
"threads". How does it which email goes under which thread? Currently, when I 
hit "reply all" it shows in the archive my email underneath the right thread. I 
am assuming it know based on who I sent the email to. However, if the same 
person were to reply twice to my email, and then I replied to one of their 
emails, how would the archiving system know which email I replied to?

30 Oct 2020, 18:37 by matkoni...@tutanota.com:

>
>
>
> Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by > talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> :
>
>> It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967 in NLS 
>> is available freely.
>>
> What are its licensing terms?
>
> "available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license"
>
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Sorry, I think my last message didn't get through because I didn't "reply all". 
(So it didn't show up in the archives). I'm still getting using to this 
"mailing lists" system.

Here is the NLS map:

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=6=55.25673=-5.29584=170=1
-- 
Sent with Tutanota, the secure & ad-free mailbox: 
https://tutanota.com


30 Oct 2020, 15:47 by davefoxfa...@btinternet.com:

>
>
> On 30/10/2020 15:28, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967 in NLS 
>> is available freely.
>>
>
> Link to this on NLS?
>
> DaveF
>

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

[Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Hello,

As anyone mapping in the UK knows, in most areas housenumber coverage is 
abysmal. For example, germany has 14 million housenumbers, USA has 10 million 
and the UK has about 1.6 million as of 2018.[1]


Therefore, an open data source of housenumbers would make it significantly 
easier to add housenumbers. The only other method is surveys, which is slow and 
tedious and can only really be done over a small area. The UK government refuse 
to make this commercial[1][2] data available openly.

It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967 in NLS is 
available freely.

Here is the tms if you want to test it in JOSM:

tms:https://geo.nls.uk/mapdata3/os/ldn_tile/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.png

This is just the tms for london and south east england, I do not know the TMS 
for the Scotland map.

This imagery extends to Brighton and Southend, although it does not provide 
housenumbers in those areas, only buildings. (However, for some reason 
housenumbers are present in the districts west of Brighton, e.g Worthing).

Due to it being an old map, lots of construction and destruction has taken 
place since then, so in some areas of London, this map will not be useful. 
However, many buildings have remained the same since then, and if that case 
this map provides a far, far quicker way of mapping housenumbers compared to 
going out and surveying them yourself.

If you want to see an example of this imagery being used, "Stratford New Town" 
in London used this imagery to map housenumbers.[1] Housenumbers in Edinburgh 
were also mapped using this NLS imagery.[2][3]

This should be very useful to many London mappers, and it would be great if 
people would start entering this data right away. 

However, I think the best way of getting all this data into OSM is by using a 
tasking manager. 

As of current, I don't think there is a UK tasking manager, I think it is worth 
it create one just for this task. 

The other advantage of a tasking manager is that you can mark "bad imagery", in 
other words, you can mark tiles where construction has taken place, making the 
map useless. This will make it more efficient to co-operate.

If OSM UK can be contacted about implementing a tasking manager for this, that 
would be great.

If this can be pulled off properly (tasking manager, outreach etc.), that would 
mean housenumbers in most of London!! This would genuinely be incredible.

Thanks,
IpswichMapper

[1]: 
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/products/points-of-interest
[2]: 
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/products/addressbase-premium
[3]: https://qa.poole.ch/addresses/
[4]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1341723829#map=13/51.5507/0.0030
[5]: 
https://www.ed.ac.uk/history-classics-archaeology/research/research-projects/mapping-edinburgh-s-social-history
[6]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/55.9821/-3.2444

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