Re: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits
Lets put some clarity on this. a) they are not big edits. They are a handful of nodes. b) advice now given in the wiki and self-appointed wiki editors implies that suddenly some rouge wiki editor changed something that in general the OSM community doesn't agree with. Suburbs are well established. In fact that description line is over 3 years old! And from that pages inception in September 2006 there is a similar line of text about not using village, etc and using suburbs, etc. Even for someone that doesn't like change it is hardly a rapid, sweeping one. To be honest I have never noticed (and have mapped plenty in London) before but it sounds like the reasons to keep it as is for, Peckham as a village or whatever, is a clear case of mapping for the renderer. Maybe we should also look at how other large international cities have mapped these areas. I am all for changes some/many/all of these to a more correct and modern (well post 09/2006) standard. From: t...@acrewoods.net Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:07:16 + To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits Hello there, As somebody who dislikes change, I was slightly horrified to see these edits:https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26783815https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26795471 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26567938 The user has changed a whole lot of places within London and Birmingham that were tagged as town / village / hamlet / etc. to place=suburb. He appears to be following the advice now given on the wiki, that: Areas of a town/city should not be tagged with place=town, place=village or place=hamlet. These should only be used for distinct settlements. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb Apart from the fact that I cannot stand it when the work of self-appointed wiki editors leads to somebody making sweeping edits of others' work, I also really don't like losing the hierarchy of place implicit in Wimbledon being marked as a town, Forest Hill a village, Belleden a hamlet, and so on, and them all just becoming 'suburb'. Apart from the fact that many places in London were historically towns in their own right, they are often also regarded as town centres. But should we swallow this and move to the use of place=suburb/quarter/neighbourhood? If so, I'd like to do this properly, instead of the process that this user has gone through to just make everything 'suburb'. Regards,Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ 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] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits
I understand the arguments against the wiki from the haters here. However it is used as a point of reference and should be more respected and anti-wiki comments are just insulting to those that actually take the effort to edit it. If the wiki is wrong change the wiki - the concept is not difficult. Slowly there is more cohesion between the default renderer, wiki and the editors just stubborn old timers in OSM that will not change. I argument that things have been there a long time therefore they are right is foolish. Many times things are just left because so many fear of changing anything as they think someone else has done it right. Again discouraging new editors in the long tail. I cannot believe anyone here thinks all the changes are wrong in these edits. I await to see people defend the Quarters in Birmingham as they were. If anyone is that passionate about their own personal standards here (which is less consensus than a wiki as it is only 1) over than that is in more established sources like the wiki then at least put a note in there explaining why. That is normal practice. Reverting will just leave the status quo of leaving erroneous information in OSM. I am not saying all of them are right but some will be. Personally I avoid highway=path. However what about the same situation is in reverse. Should I tell everyone not to change highway=path to highway=footway?! If that is not my place, is it your place to do the other. However it raises the bigger issue of if there is no consensus then we will just get a mixture throughout the UK. Just because an area (suburb, etc) has shops in doesn't mean that should be classified as a village, town, etc. Just because something was a village, etc hundreds of years ago doesn't mean it is now. And no-one has ever answered I live in the village of Peckham to the question of What town/city/village do you live in? and yes I lived there too. From: t...@acrewoods.net Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:01:33 + Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits To: ajrli...@gmail.com CC: rovas...@hotmail.com; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Thanks for all the comments. Could somebody revert the two London changesets? The move to the alternative hierarchy of suburb/quarter/etc can always be done later after some more considered thought. These existing hierarchy was a settled consensus of sorts resulting from years of tweaks. I myself spent quite a bit of time reviewing all the places in South East London some years ago. To respond to John, discussions on the wiki have always involved a fairly small number of mappers, and the convention is that you shouldn't go around changing long-established data because some people on the wiki decided one logical approach was the best. As Richard Fairhurst said in the comments to the changeset, the fact that these place names have been there for a long time suggests there is a good reason for them to be so. We've not just overlooked this all those years. The same could be said of that awful tag highway=path, which has been around for a long time but which I - and many others - refuse to use. It's fine if you want to use it, but please don't go changing highway=footpath and so on to highway=path because some wiki page says it's better. Personally, I think it is important to recognise that Peckham, Lewisham, Brixton, Wimbledon and so on are town centres, they are not just suburbs. They are recognised as such in planning policy, they fulfil an important town centre function, and would be considered town centres by many people who live, work and shop there. This isn't tagging for the renderer, it's getting the hierarchy correct. Regards,Tom On 19 November 2014 17:47, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: We should not blindly assume that the ordered way as described on the wiki is right. It may be entirely logical and reasonable but it might not reflect the local situation on the ground. I’ve started a Birmingham related thread on the west mids list in order that those of is with a detailed knowledge of Brum can work through and see whether any of the “place” objects need adjustment. Many were put in as they are many years ago so it’s good to have a look again. It’s not about tagging for the renderer or even tagging for logic. It’s just tagging for the real world. CheersAndy From: John Baker [mailto:rovas...@hotmail.com] Sent: 19 November 2014 17:27 To: Tom Chance; talk-gb OSM List E-mail Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits Lets put some clarity on this. a) they are not big edits. They are a handful of nodes. b) advice now given in the wiki and self-appointed wiki editors implies that suddenly some rouge wiki editor changed something that in general the OSM community doesn't agree with. Suburbs are well established. In fact that description line is over 3 years old! And from that pages inception in September 2006 there is a similar line of text about
Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again
Beware you should follow the mechanical edit policy for this. I would also change the wiki pages for this that currently state we should have the ref for c roads in ref. From: p...@trigpoint.me.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:36:51 +0100 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong before I continue? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24727341#map=8/52.507/-3.796 Thanks 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] Getting Highway Agency information into OSM
My simple non-legal logic was we could use the same OS map we are allowed to use for tracing/information. If they based them on that and released maybe that would be ok. They did say they had hundreds of maps of the ongoing works and I hoped it was the case of just selecting the right one. Well it seem no-one knows or cares if that is possible. It would have been nice to know what we can/cannot do with other data. Maybe if successful it could have been used for a blueprint for future opening up of data. I'll let them them know about the copyright situation (which I was fully aware from day one was a concern) and there is no real interest from the OSM community for establishing this. The highway agency already provides ongoing and upcoming projects on their website and have done for years. I see no value in them just sending me another list of these that I can share again. Oh well the do-ocracy system of OSM once again descends into no-ocracy. Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 17:47:39 +0100 From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Getting Highway Agency information into OSM Hi John, The negativity, or least lack of enthusiasm, is partly due to the complexity of the issue. We'd love to have Highways Agency data as open data but if the data is based upon Ordnance Survey data this becomes a quite tricky. Normally you would have the data holder apply for a Exemption under the Public Sector Mapping Agreement (PSMA). Even then there's not much consensus in the GB community as to whether we can actually use the data. As suggested, a better idea would be to have the Highways Agency provide us a list of upcoming projects and dates that they are expected to complete. If they have any GPS data we would be able to use that too :-) 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] Getting Highway Agency information into OSM
Rob, To be fair when I did post that there had been a lack of interest. I asked could we use the OS maps we currently use and nothing. I asked what people do currently and nothing. You are the first to say that this could/should be ok. I am glad to see that someone is using this approach currently. This is about getting a process in place so they use the correct data. They have many types of data and we just need them to use the correct one (i.e Opendata) so we can map with confidence. There was a desire to get the correct data so we can use it. He didn't really understand and thought everything was ok (it is PD..., etc) I said I need to check as we cannot use all different types of copyright material some OS stuff could/should be ok. They have hundreds of different plans hopefully it shouldn't be too much of an issue to use/create another one. I will speak to them next week to see what I can sort out. John Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2014 21:19:55 +0100 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Getting Highway Agency information into OSM From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com To: rovas...@hotmail.com; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org On 5 July 2014 19:20, John Baker rovas...@hotmail.com wrote: snip I'll let them them know about the copyright situation (which I was fully aware from day one was a concern) and there is no real interest from the OSM community for establishing this. John, Please don't tell the Highways Agency that as it is *not* the case. The blame lies with the Ordnance Survey and their reluctance to make it easy for public sector bodies to release map data based on their products. I would rather you highlight that to Highways Agency so that they know where the real blame lies. And yes, if they have maps that are based on OS OpenData (for example the OS StreetView maps) then I would love to see them. This is how we are working with Birmingham City Council to get maps of their proposed 20mph zones. Perhaps step one is to find out what they have. Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Getting Highway Agency information into OSM
Hi, I have been talking to the Highways Agency who are keen to get more recent changes on OSM. They want to get all the new roads added and therefore added to the routers. (the initial contact was http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=25553 if you want a little background) Things like: http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/A23-Handcross-to-Warninglid As contact has been made I have been discussing how best to get the plans of the works and the proper dialogue for the relevant changes (e.g. more interested in new roads rather than minor works/roadworks and road widening) and a timeline (project under construction now, project 2 completed, etc) I was hoping to upload these plans somewhere so they could be traced by people. The first thing I am worried about is the copyright of the various plans. Some/many seem to be derived from OS maps. Now I am no expert on the copyright situation here and dialogue is difficult they know little about OSM really. He just said we release the plans and they are public domain. Now they apparently have hundreds of plans. And only choose to release 1 on the website (if at all) these can be http://www.highways.gov.uk/publications/a23-handcross-to-warninglid-plan-of-approved-scheme/ http://www.highways.gov.uk/publications/a45a46-tollbar-end-improvement-proposed-scheme-plan/ We could in theory get access to other plans of the works. Does anyone know what legally I can use (really so I/we can republish/upload it so we can use them as imagery)? Would plan derived from the current OS map we can use be ok? Are those more detailed ones ok? I know legal stuff is a minefield but I am hoping someone can point me in the correct direction. Once the legal hurdle has been overcome the idea is to setup a process stream so they can let me/us know what is happening (a simple spreadsheet or something) and get it added to OSM quickly. I have never dealt with any organisation before for getting things into OSM so I am a little lost on the best way to proceed so any advice/help will be useful. Cheers, John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Getting Highway Agency information into OSM
Yeah I know he probably didn't understand the implications/view points on it. I should have explained that better, rather than just ... Anyway he was talking about open source, etc and he meant it in the (modern) open source style of public domain. But the point was I didn't believe him that we could just republish it. So I am wanting to know what we can use. (actually the guy I spoke to didn't sound like he was even from the UK... - Australian maybe but that is whole different story) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:05:55 +0100 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Getting Highway Agency information into OSM From: gravityst...@gmail.com To: rovas...@hotmail.com CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org On 3 July 2014 17:51, John Baker rovas...@hotmail.com wrote: He just said we release the plans and they are public domain. Public Domain (British English, especially Government and in the Courts): Information known by the public, could be under any kind of copyright Public Domain (US English): Information available for unrestricted reuse. So you could say The contents of all the Harry Potter books are in the Public Domain and in the UK that just means the general public knows what's in the books, rather than anyone having permission to upload them to Project Gutenberg :-) Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Getting Highway Agency information into OSM
Yeah I know we are pretty good at adding them. But this discussion started with the HA because there were roads that were not on OSM. It was this project that he was working on. http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/a23-handcross-to-warninglid/ So I personally added this in a rough way based on the descriptions from him who was on site at the time and the plans that were there (I didn't trace them just looked at them). I don't (for a change) want to get into conversation about tracing imagery vs. doing it by hand. The point is what can we use. My thought were that if there plans were based on the OS streetview (rather than the more detailed ones) then we could use them. Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:23:34 +0100 From: o...@raggedred.net To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Getting Highway Agency information into OSM On 03/07/14 17:51, John Baker wrote: The first thing I am worried about is the copyright of the various plans. Some/many seem to be derived from OS maps. A legitimate concern. Now I am no expert on the copyright situation here and dialogue is difficult they know little about OSM really. He just said we release the plans and they are public domain. There is no mechanism in the UK for a body like the Highways Agency to release data as PD. That is a mechanism used in countries like the US. In the UK the info would have to be licensed using a specific licence, such as the Open Government Licence. If the plans are based on OS maps then OS would have to agree to release this, according to OS's interpretation of copyright law. OS probably will not agree to this, but it is worth asking :-). Without a suitably agreed licence we cannot trace such plans into OSM. You could visit the site and get GPS traces photos to add such works to OSM, which is usually what happens as soon as a new road gets opened. I'd be interested if the Highway's Agency have opened new roads and they are not included in OSM very soon after. That seems to me to be something we are pretty good at. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ 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] Getting Highway Agency information into OSM
I am a little surprised at the negativity. I would have thought it would be welcomed that the highway agency want to engage with OSM to help get the most up-to-date map available. I thought we prided ourselves of having the most up-to-date map. We currently have roads under construction (and proposed but I have avoided adding these with my chats with the HA as things can change) in OSM. I am confused as how you think people get these into OSM in the first place. Often they already use sources (I see it in the source tags often and I have been looking over the last few weeks at many of these proposed and constructed roads to get a feel about what the data is like) like the highway agency for England for the major roads. What I want to do is streamline and improve this process as mappers in the UK (it might not be you) do use these resources already. And often they guess from the information available if proper detailed aligned detailed plans existed that would be much better and easier too. Maybe these mappers are not on this list. *shrug* If there was a system/process in place that had accurate plans (allowed copyright) and timelines from an authorised source when construction began, when the road is opened, etc. We could use this. How we use it is a different matter - maybe someone wants to survey it, maybe someone wants to trace it. I have visions of mappers jumping fences and running under the cover of darkness down half built roads with their expensive GPS devices just to get the info in OSM. Personally I think already showing on the map a road under construction is way more informative that simply adding a note. Once it opens then someone can make it 'live'. I am not automatically importing anything here. It is not about that. Maybe it is just down to how much OSMers enjoy mapping new features in their area. From: sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 20:30:15 +0100 To: danstowell+...@gmail.com CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Getting Highway Agency information into OSM Maybe a simple method is to use the OSM notes system, which is what the feature was designed for? Shaun On 3 Jul 2014, at 19:10, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: You know, rather than thinking about automatically importing any of their data into OSM, my intuition is that given the concerns about OS copyright, plus how much OSMers enjoy mapping new features, I'd suggest using their data to create a web feed of Hot new roads for mappers to go and survey! - I bet they'd all be mapped within a week ;) Dan 2014-07-03 18:41 GMT+01:00 John Baker rovas...@hotmail.com: Yeah I know we are pretty good at adding them. But this discussion started with the HA because there were roads that were not on OSM. It was this project that he was working on. http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/a23-handcross-to-warninglid/ So I personally added this in a rough way based on the descriptions from him who was on site at the time and the plans that were there (I didn't trace them just looked at them). I don't (for a change) want to get into conversation about tracing imagery vs. doing it by hand. The point is what can we use. My thought were that if there plans were based on the OS streetview (rather than the more detailed ones) then we could use them. Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:23:34 +0100 From: o...@raggedred.net To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Getting Highway Agency information into OSM On 03/07/14 17:51, John Baker wrote: The first thing I am worried about is the copyright of the various plans. Some/many seem to be derived from OS maps. A legitimate concern. Now I am no expert on the copyright situation here and dialogue is difficult they know little about OSM really. He just said we release the plans and they are public domain. There is no mechanism in the UK for a body like the Highways Agency to release data as PD. That is a mechanism used in countries like the US. In the UK the info would have to be licensed using a specific licence, such as the Open Government Licence. If the plans are based on OS maps then OS would have to agree to release this, according to OS's interpretation of copyright law. OS probably will not agree to this, but it is worth asking :-). Without a suitably agreed licence we cannot trace such plans into OSM. You could visit the site and get GPS traces photos to add such works to OSM, which is usually what happens as soon as a new road gets opened. I'd be interested if the Highway's Agency have opened new roads and they are not included in OSM very soon after. That seems to me to be something we are pretty good at. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https
Re: [OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits
Roland, Please go to taginfo https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/ choose highway there, browse through the values and tell me which of the values you would like to change. Post processing that you spoke is about process the bad data into a readable form after the fact. It is used when you do not know what state the data is in and fixing the bad data. Potentially this could be anything. Also the data has already been fixed by the mech edits/gardening that has been done before and is done on a regular basis. I know I have done residential typos in the past. So many for this example might not occur still however for post processing you need to consider that they might and do happen. In theory if the data is perfect to begin with there is no need for any post processing. But searching on taginfo highlight the potential in-correctness of the data. There are currently 1049 values for highway. I could reverse your point and say are all of these 1049 values correct? For example is this correct? highway = Bandar Road https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=Bandar%20Road#overview which is here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/16.5072/80.6299 Now how do we fix that with any form of mechanical editing? Do I follow all the rules? wait a few weeks for a consensus on the import mailing list? Now I could seeing that just fix it to name = Bandar Road highway = unclassified (I could at aerial imagery and guess the correct type) The point of this type of gardening is to fix errors like this and make a better map. Some people are happy to leave that there until a local mapper fixes it as it will ruin the local community if I fix. They will be threats or actual blocks/bans etc if any fixes this that has no local knowledge and does this in a mechanical way. Even using in conjunction with aerial imagery may not be ok. Couldn't this be even worse than applying those changes directly in the database? The postprocessing refers to the final data consumer, not the map on osm.org. The map on osm.org is specifically designed for giving mappers feedback. Therefore, it has no such postprocessing and will never have. The map at osm.org does have post processing to varying degrees most of it simple stuff (it is a bridge if it is true, yes or 1) and is a data consumer just as much as anyone else. Creating maps is probably the greatest data consumer use of openstreetmap data. The map is designed for various reasons (and that changes over time) one of them is mappers feedback. Post processing is a balance of doing everything and there is an overhead. Not much ignoring the case of something like that some might remove whitespace around a tag but beyond that there is very little most of time the solution is fixing the data. Thank you for your ongoing discussion. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits
There are always bad practice examples and they are good ones. Guessing amenities/features from names can be problematic as can spell checking. It would be interesting to know if community centre example overwrote amenity=social_outreach which is worse. One major bone of contention is that you comment of: The policy of if no one complains, then it's ok is in place so people can actually do gardening without needing to discuss everything before. Is it? That seems to be an unwritten rule. It for sure is not in the policy document. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy If it was then fine but it is not. Lets establish a few facts. 1) Gardening happens frequently. (I am surprised actually how much given the support/admissions on this list) 2) Gardening happens without people following the policy. (you can see this because there is very little documentation/mailing list chat about all these edits) 3) Because of this there is actually visibility of the gardening happening and hence the ability to spot error before they happen. As said very few follow the policy when doing gardening it might be useful to consider why that is. I consider there is too much bureaucracy with the current policy and suggest that that should change. That not should be seen as allow more mechanical edits/gardening but gaining valuable visibility of the changes. I would probably consider if no one complains, then it's ok unwritten rule is too soft and would like to foster a culture of people who do the gardening to regularly communicate by simple means before untaking them and a culture of those questioning them to be a little more understanding that they are trying to do good and help them see potential problems. And yes warn/block/punish those that do not comply but it has to be easier to comply to begin with. Lets take an real world example from yesterday I did and posted in IRC (to see if that would be a suitable communication channel) sport=crazy_golf tag change it to sport=miniature_golf crazy golf is what we call it in the UK others call it miniature golf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_golf Now obviously I got the usual responses. But it did get noticed that was the point and picking a minor problematic example. however IMHO the correct response should/could have been something like: Changing sport=crazy_golf to sport=miniature_golf is meaningless and possibly wrong. Better would be to leave the tag alone (some might want that) and additionally tag with the established tag http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dminiature_golf; I think this is more useful it improves the map gives proper feedback and improves the database. (I in fact did that above looking at aerial imagery to confirm those and left alone those that didn't.) From: john.pack...@gmail.com Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:36:55 -0300 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits Friends, Some examples of bad and good gardening, and how unpredictable this business can be: 1. Once I searched for wikidata values without Q as a prefix. I found some values (not many), and to guarantee the quality of my work, I opened each object's wikidata page to verify the new value would be the correct one. Turns out that one of the objects had a tag wikidata=1960, and it didn't correspond to wikidata=Q1960. It was in another language, so I couldn't find the correct one, so I messaged the user that added this data, and he verified my assumption: it was supposed to be start_date instead of wikidata; 2. Once, some guy removed around 80 websites or so in South America. They were all websites that Keepright reported as not found or something equivalent. I was annoyed by this change, and asked him to revert his changeset, which he quickly complied. At first the logic seems solid on this kind of change, but we never know if the website will remain offline or it was just temporary, if Keepright (or the gardener himself) simply can't access the website from his location, if there is a typo in the url (e.g. .com instead of .org), etc. To aggravate the problem, as some of you may know, recently I found out there were some URLs that were corrupted by invisible characters (see [1]). They probably would be removed by these kind of changes, even though they only need a simple fix. 3. In the beginning of this year, there was some commotion in the brazilian community because some guy started manually using a spell-checker in street's names in Brazil. It did fix some hard to find mistakes (like Kubitscheck instead of Kubitcheck), but also could introduce errors (like it did on a street which had an indigenous name). The user was an considerably experienced mapper, and was tech-savvy, but there was no way to guarantee this kind of work would be free of errors, so he stopped doing that. This kind of correction can be useful in some select cases: Here in
Re: [OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits
How very true. However in OSM the established wiki used tag is as I posted places them in area and that is how they are mapped in the UK. Now if we wanted to expand on that that is fine. That tag is still there and if there is a consensus and maybe miniature_golf:type = crazy_golf can be obtained later if desired. It is using a combination of wiki pages, tag usage, etc you can get a better understanding. And often gardening leads to looking at areas of the wiki (you do reading up a lot) that have little care as in this case and can lead to better improvements to this. I see this as a benefit. Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:04:38 +0100 From: li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits John Baker wrote: crazy golf is what we call it in the UK others call it miniature golf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_golf In that particular example it's perhaps worth mentioning that that wikipedia suggests that the two _aren't_ the same - the last sentence of the first paragraph says Miniature golf retains many of these characteristics but without the use of any props or obstacles, it is purely a mini version of its parent game. Cheers, Andy ___ 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] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits
I am fine with that. More realistic stuff would be more functional. To be constructive here (for a change for me) here some more thoughts. I would even break it down to levels of what you are doing. Here are a few example I have done before with suggested Typo (a few characters difference) e.g. religion=Budist to religion=buddist Updating 1 tag value up to 10 occurrences. Simple IRC wait 2 minute or yes. Updating 1 tag value up to 100 occurrences. IRC chat wait 10 minutes or 2 yes. Updating 1 tag value above 100 occurrences. Mailing list chat. Changing the word/meaning of a tag to correct common usage. e.g. amenity=takeaway to amenity=fast_food Updating 1 tag value up to 10 occurrences. Simple IRC wait 10 minute or 2 yes. Updating 1 tag value up to 100 occurrences. IRC chat wait 30 minutes or 3 yes. Updating 1 tag value above 100 occurrences. Mailing list chat. Implying tag types e.g. denomination = roman_catholic and religion is null -- religion=christian etc, etc, Additionally I would say putting more meaning information into the change sets comments. For example a changeset comment like. Correcting amenity=watering place - amenity=watering_place typo. rather than nothing or just typos or watering place or something. So it is clearer to all that view the changesets what you are doing at a glance and reverts can be easier on the rare cases that it apply. And is a form of documentation. I would even be up for a separate account to doing many larger changes say. I happily write a wiki article on this if there was a desire from the community. Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:47:55 -0400 From: andrew.guer...@uvm.edu To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits I've just read through http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy and this thread, and here's my thoughts on the matter. It is possible to improve OSM using only the data already within OSM--with no external knowledge, survey, or other data sources. Typo fixing and other similar activities do provide benefit. When you make an edit using no external knowledge, you must always discuss it first. In my opinion, not doing so--even for an edit that turns out to be correct!--is a detriment to the community, because it is both risky and antisocial. I don't however agree with the policy's requirement of specific forms of discussion. I think that the discussion required should be proportional to the change being made. For example, if you notice that three instances of amenity=restuarant were added this week, I think an appropriate form of discussion would be to hop on IRC, say you're fixing them, wait until someone says yay or 2 minutes has passed, and do it. But as the risk goes up--either lower certainty or higher impact--the required discussion should too, from IRC to a quick note on a mailing list to long mailing list threads with wiki documentation and detailed notes about methods and tools. Similarly, in minor cases I don't agree with the policy's requirement for documentation. If someone wants to merge the 10 copies of amenity=watering place into the 1647 copies of amenity=watering_place, I don't think there will be any negative impacts on consumers. But if consumers will be affected then documentation should be a requirement. I think there should be guidelines for how to document, and the community should decide (in the required discussion!) which steps of the guidelines should be followed in a specific case. The existing requirements for execution look good to me. When someone doesn't follow the policy, what should be done? In my opinion, everyone SHOULD follow the policy, but if they don't the community should be lenient, either doing nothing or giving gentle reminders that the policy exists--until the person causes a problem with their edits. At that point, the community should start holding the person to a higher standard and insisting they follow the policy. If someone who has caused problems before continues to not follow the policy, then the community should bring the issue to the DWG. That's my thougts, --Andrew ___ 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] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits
I left that one in on propose (and note I didn't classify it as a typo but a change did you miss that or was it creating editing/selective reading on your part ;-) ) as I know someone would pipe up. In this case it was clearly a mistake and not a someone trying to case of a revolution in tagging standards. The types of establishments that were tagged it was clear what they were. For some there is a presumption that all changes will might/likely do harm rather than changes are done for the good. I think many would editors of this stuff would be happy to discuss if the mechanisms to discuss where realistic (like I said before everyone is commenting negativity on it without having done any mechanical edits and following the process to the letter) otherwise people will just carry on as they are and just do what they want and follow no sensible guidelines. Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:27:38 +0200 Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits From: dieterdre...@gmail.com To: rovas...@hotmail.com CC: andrew.guer...@uvm.edu; talk@openstreetmap.org 2014-06-11 18:57 GMT+02:00 John Baker rovas...@hotmail.com: Changing the word/meaning of a tag to correct common usage. e.g. amenity=takeaway to amenity=fast_food this is for example an edit that might harm, because you cannot only take fast food away. This is not a typo but is one of the cases where well-meaning mappers iron out the details and prevent new tagging styles from emerging... (IMHO) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 23:28:06 +0200 From: roland.olbri...@gmx.de To: rovas...@hotmail.com; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits I'm glad that you got into discussion. No problem. Just some examples: We have streets with housenumbers 3, 5, 9, 7, 11, 13 Is it an obvious mistake? It's on purpose, because the housenumbers sometimes are in that order on the ground. We have in Germany cities with a street named Cäcilienstraße and others with a street named Cecilienstraße (both with exactly the same pronounciation, and both variants of the same surname). . I am not sure how these examples apply to the cases I mentioned. Names are especially problematic and truly need some time and effort. Luckily for most cases we have established tag values so it is not as open as that names. I know we can can tag anything but often there are established tags that are suitable. On the other hand, a mechanical change of data can be performed as easy during postprocessing than in the database. This is known in programming in don't store an information when it is easier to recompute it. I see that but the key thing is has to be easier to do. Currently it would be very difficult to do. Lets pick 1 simple established tag and value combination. highway = residential this denotes a residential road. How many possible misspellings would you say there are for this that you would consider a typo/mistake? Design an architecture where you postprocess every possible obvious misspelling (commercial speelchecker might miss some maybe you could write a new one) will I hope you agree adding an unnecessary overhead. Now multiple that by the thousands of popular established tag and value combinations and any modern computer solution become unfeasible. I trust you understand this. So a solution to is the old school way would be fixing the data which I could call Garbage In, Garbage Out maybe not as fashionable as postprocessing but often the best solution. Now we do this by hand ourselves fixing the tags as we see them. If you suddenly saw your local road that was highway = residentail say disappeared from the rendering on openstreetmap.org and someone had changed it by mistake to highway = residentail you probably would correct this. However if that happened across town you might not notice at all. Often cleaning the data you don't need to walk down the road or check from aerial imagery. You may earn real fame if you have a good filtering ruleset that flatirons all suspect data. If you publish this as a postprocessing script, it is useful. If you apply that to flatiron the database, in 99% justified cases and 1% on otherwise on purpose crafted data, then you will earn shame instead, because that same script could be perceived as doing vandalism. Not really interested in the fame of it but if I did manage to create a solution to the problem I stated above I will let you know, I'll let you share the fame with me. There is a balance here the 99% vs 1%. Some would say that even if has 99.% it is not good enough and that just a single mistake would not make it worth it but for most it is about a balance. Some of us want to fix this bad data and one way is doing these mechanical edits others are happy to leave the bad data as it is. I am hoping there is a desire to reach a balance but it is unlikely. Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 23:28:06 +0200 From: roland.olbri...@gmx.de To: rovas...@hotmail.com; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Worldwide non-surveyed tag edits Dear John, I'm glad that you got into discussion. The OpenStreetMap community has some consensus that look ouright nonsense from a computer scientist or programmiers usual point of view. So it is helpful to explain every now and then what is common sense, checking whether those decisions are still valid. Consistent data is useful and typos and mistakes are common place. Unifying these so they are machine readable so they are useful is, in fact, useful. Just some examples: We have streets with housenumbers 3, 5, 9, 7, 11, 13 Is it an obvious mistake? It's on purpose, because the housenumbers sometimes are in that order on the ground. We have in Germany cities with a street named Cäcilienstraße and others with a street named Cecilienstraße (both with exactly the same pronounciation, and both variants of the same surname). The literal translation of connecting way into German is Verbindungsweg. This is also the offical name of a living street in Siegburg, Germany. By contrast, for good reason not connected in the database are these roads: http://blog.openstreetmap.de/blog/2013/05/wochennotiz-nr-147/ There was an automatic bot changing road names ending in ...strasse to ...straße (means ... street in German, second is the standard spelling). This did fail both in Switzerland (where ...strasse is the
[Talk-GB] OSM on Radio5
Broadcast in the early hours of tuesday morning on Radio5. Outriders is a BBC tech show and last week was called on the map about mapping, a lot of it about community mapping aka OSM but it wasn't mentioned explicitly much. Now available for podcast about half an hour long http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/pods Enjoy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Somerset Levels Flooding
Define slow for a printed atlas? Should we be pulping them each minute? Day? Week? Printed atlas!? So insensitive I carry a globe around. I wonder however what about the providers that do want update their data, say, daily are at a disadvantage if we don't mark these cases. Hence why I suggested maybe a month or so in this broken state maybe we should edit. These parameters will vary between mappers but a threshold maybe we could agree open here. Maybe some still consider estimated 1 year bridge closures is not long enough to consider updating the map. Also maybe it should have more weight to the mapper local to the area (hence your Putney example). And/or how quick it will be monitored and updated.*Shrug* Unless, of course, there are people who are deliberately looking for an argument... ;-) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 12:52:16 + Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Somerset Levels Flooding From: gravityst...@gmail.com To: rovas...@hotmail.com CC: l...@lorp.org; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org On 7 February 2014 12:37, John Baker rovas...@hotmail.com wrote: Always to play the devils advocate. We have all heard about mapping for the renderer but are you mapping for the third party data providers that is slow at updating the planet data. Define slow for a printed atlas? Should we be pulping them each minute? Day? Week? I think we all have different opinions on this (it will likely take months for the work to be done at least 6 weeks was the latest I heard this morning) and don't we pride ourselves about having the most up-to-date information and what is on the ground?! There's a difference between providing up-to-date data, and being unnecessarily misleading. For example, there's a section of the A82 on Loch Lomond that was only one lane wide, and controlled by traffic lights. It was marked as two-way, but at any one instant it is, of course, one-way. Should we have marked it as one-way and flipped the direction every 90 seconds? Of course not. Should remove a railway line when it's closed for overnight engineering works? Is a field flooded for a week now a lake? Permanent versus temporary is very subjective and people will have different opinions. As with anything. But I suspect that a sensible group of people will come to a sensible answer in every case. In the two at hand, the railway is still a railway, and the Levels are fields, not lakes. Unless, of course, there are people who are deliberately looking for an argument... Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Capitalising on the media attention
What an exciting time with all the news about Openstreetmap in the press and online (Gizmodo, Reddit, The Guardian, etc). This has led to a increase in users (our busiest day ever in terms of contributor editing the map apparently) and overall interest in OSM. It is a good start to the year. However whenever anything gets news on the Internet there is negative as well as positive comments posted. I find looking at loads of comments about OSM (it even inspired me to sign up to the Guardian site to post (I still feel dirty about owning a Guardian account...)) give a nice barometer (despite the signal to noise ratio) about the feeling about OSM. And with anything like this the negative posts I think can give the most insight. Some of these complaints were raised on Richard Fairhurst's recent blog post http://blog.systemed.net/post/7 and prompted me to write this. Although the post is about the attribution for OSM (something I imagine most of us agree should be used) I think the dismissive about the points raised and I don't want to single him out I have heard it before from other OSMers in the past. How do others see OSM? Most see it as the map at openstreetmap.org We know it is more than that and is about the data but the majority of complaints are really about the website. Lets look at a few comments “The world doesn't need yet another mapping provider. What's OSM got? Some raw mapping data, which quite frankly is useless without a top notch front end to put it to use.” I agree we could do with a slicker front end. “It really needs a travel route feature, or if there is one it needs to be more obvious. Most of my Google Maps use is looking at times and distances between cities using various routes.” We have been crying out for routing on osm.org for years. “Google Maps is incredibly easy to use and is useful. I'd love to use OSM if it was as nice of an experience.” Although I don't think the new Google Maps is that easy to use. I agree that is OSM we nicer more people would use more of OSM. “So basically if I want directions from point A to point B, I should continue using Google Maps, and there's no reason for me to be interested in either using or helping OSM.” Again back to routing on osm.org “I just noticed Google Map Maker is finally available in my area. I don't see changing stuff in OSM to be any useful to me.” Well not much to say to that some will never move from Google. And one that I saw was long Reddit chat about a user that typed Bakery into search box for a zoomed in map of his city in the US and the search displayed results in the Ukraine. Seach in zoomed area would be a great addition IMHO. And another about making edits and then not appearing on the map. I take a different view from Richards stance and think they are needed. But what worried me is that thought the osm.org should not have routing, better cartography, etc (I know imagery and streetview will be nearly impossible to have decent quality) for the fear that commercial entities might not like it! Is that what others think here? I think that is a worrying stance (and frankly ungrounded as what other map data will they use instead FOSM?) and will stifle our own site and future creativity. Personally I would even go as far having official OSM mobile apps - the whole Internet is changing to go mobile now and will increase in future I think we will be left behind if we do not and fear of unsettling commercial entities one of the reason we do not this. Has anyone actually tried to look on OSM wiki for a good mobile phone apppick from 1 to 100. (It reminds me of American news channels not running certain critical news stories about corps as they might pull their ad revenue) At least I know the real reason for Andy Allan not doing osm carto commitslack of time, yeah, yeah Cheers, John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Capitalising on the media attention
What an exciting time with all the news about Openstreetmap in the press and online (Gizmodo, Reddit, The Guardian, etc). This has led to a increase in users (our busiest day ever in terms of contributor editing the map apparently) and overall interest in OSM. It is a good start to the year. However whenever anything gets news on the Internet there is negative as well as positive comments posted. I find looking at loads of comments about OSM (it even inspired me to sign up to the Guardian site to post (I still feel dirty about owning a Guardian account...)) give a nice barometer (despite the signal to noise ratio) about the feeling about OSM. And with anything like this the negative posts I think can give the most insight. Some of these complaints were raised on Richard Fairhurst's recent blog post http://blog.systemed.net/post/7 and prompted me to write this. Although the post is about the attribution for OSM (something I imagine most of us agree should be used) I think the dismissive about the points raised and I don't want to single him out I have heard it before from other OSMers in the past. How do others see OSM? Most see it as the map at openstreetmap.org We know it is more than that and is about the data but the majority of complaints are really about the website. Lets look at a few comments “The world doesn't need yet another mapping provider. What's OSM got? Some raw mapping data, which quite frankly is useless without a top notch front end to put it to use.” I agree we could do with a slicker front end. “It really needs a travel route feature, or if there is one it needs to be more obvious. Most of my Google Maps use is looking at times and distances between cities using various routes.” We have been crying out for routing on osm.org for years. “Google Maps is incredibly easy to use and is useful. I'd love to use OSM if it was as nice of an experience.” Although I don't think the new Google Maps is that easy to use. I agree that is OSM we nicer more people would use more of OSM. “So basically if I want directions from point A to point B, I should continue using Google Maps, and there's no reason for me to be interested in either using or helping OSM.” Again back to routing on osm.org “I just noticed Google Map Maker is finally available in my area. I don't see changing stuff in OSM to be any useful to me.” Well not much to say to that some will never move from Google. And one that I saw was long Reddit chat about a user that typed Bakery into search box for a zoomed in map of his city in the US and the search displayed results in the Ukraine. Seach in zoomed area would be a great addition IMHO. And another about making edits and then not appearing on the map. I take a different view from Richards stance and think they are needed. But what worried me is that thought the osm.org should not have routing, better cartography, etc (I know imagery and streetview will be nearly impossible to have decent quality) for the fear that commercial entities might not like it! Is that what others think here? I think that is a worrying stance (and frankly ungrounded as what other map data will they use instead FOSM?) and will stifle our own site and future creativity. Personally I would even go as far having official OSM mobile apps - the whole Internet is changing to go mobile now and will increase in future I think we will be left behind if we do not and fear of unsettling commercial entities one of the reason we do not this. Has anyone actually tried to look on OSM wiki for a good mobile phone apppick from 1 to 100. (It reminds me of American news channels not running certain critical news stories about corps as they might pull their ad revenue) At least I know the real reason for Andy Allan not doing osm carto commitslack of time, yeah, yeah Cheers, John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags
Just to be clear about what I am doing. I have been changing many what I consider typos. The majority have been simple changes I started by cleaning up the lanes tag as I was doing work getting lanes tagged correctly for the new CartoCSS and lanes=90 (where they was not) and lanes=two made no sense. So I fixed each of these worldwide looking at aerial imagery, (e.g. needed so leave a lanes=27 or something for a massive border entrance) Again inspired by my designing new style at doing CartoCSS styling I looked at other features that I has been doing, fountains, nightclubs, religions, ice rinks, etc Then fixing some the nature, landuse tags, landuse=maedow to meadow, etc within the same tagtype. Recently I wanted to tackle one of my biggest personal bugbears of natural=grass which is (now was) tagged incorrectly and should be landuse=grass. There where dozens/hundreds in my local area so I did the whole UK. In case where I moved tag type (natural to landuse) I looked at if they added anything to the corresponding tag. So if nature=grass already had landuse=park or something I didn't change it over. Also I looked at the ways that had a name or had notes and decided if they where due more investigation and if to edit them or not. To be honest most didn't and it was quick and easy to check in JOSM when I highlight them all. I tried to explain myself in the change set notes. I like to think I have been responsible when doing this and think it improves the database/map. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Rovastar/edits?page=1 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:20:32 +0200 From: frede...@remote.org To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags Hi, On 04/24/2013 04:26 PM, John Baker wrote: AFAIC these were typo edits and getting the whole database more consistent. I have done dozens of changes to fix typos worldwide over the past few weeks and it would be crazy to have lengthy discussions on each one for multiple countries in multiple communication channels. If you don't have the time or the will to do it properly, then simply leave it be. The rule is that as soon as you make an edit where you don't look at the individual object you edit, it is a mechanical edit that has to be discussed beforehand. The reason for this rule is that it is too easy to introduce mistakes - what looks like a typo to one person could make sense to another. Assume that there's an object tagged landuse=forest *and* natural=meadow *and* it carries a note tag that explains exactly what the mapper meant by this. Someone simply looking for all natural=meadow and replacing them with landuse=meadow would overwrite the landuse=forest and not even see the note tag - he performs a mechanical edit that needs to be discussed beforehand (in order to minimize undesirable side effects). On the other hand, if someone were to manually go through all objects tagged natural=meadow, read potential note tags, look at the other tags and/or aerial imagery, and *then* change them to landuse=meadow, that would not be a mechanical edit. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags
, or on a sports pitch (we have a perfectly good surface=* for that). Unfortunately many people have used landuse=grass indiscriminately (for instance for farmland in Hollandhttp://osm.org/go/0E6w0ZK-- and here in Lancashire (the area around Garstang shows wholly inappropriate use of landuse=meadow too). It seems that people prefer the green colour rendering for these over the brown for farmland. I am unaware that landuse=farmland only refers to arable. I don't know if you have heard of places like the Steppes the Pampas, the American Plains, or the Serengeti, but there do exist large areas of the world covered by grasses which are natural! You are not the only remote mapper to do this kind of change, xybot zapped one of my natural=grass tags. Obviously I will now have to make my intentions absolutely explict with notes etc., which rather defeats the point of tags. Perhaps I should use SK53:natural=wood and then they won't get trampled on. The problem is that you are anxious for everything to be rendered in a uniform manner, but you are not considering the many other use cases particularly for landuse/landcover data. Continuous tidying up of tagging in this area means that OSM is not currently a viable platform for serious use for conservation Jerry . On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, John Baker rovas...@hotmail.com wrote: Just to be clear about what I am doing. I have been changing many what I consider typos. The majority have been simple changes I started by cleaning up the lanes tag as I was doing work getting lanes tagged correctly for the new CartoCSS and lanes=90 (where they was not) and lanes=two made no sense. So I fixed each of these worldwide looking at aerial imagery, (e.g. needed so leave a lanes=27 or something for a massive border entrance) Again inspired by my designing new style at doing CartoCSS styling I looked at other features that I has been doing, fountains, nightclubs, religions, ice rinks, etc Then fixing some the nature, landuse tags, landuse=maedow to meadow, etc within the same tagtype. Recently I wanted to tackle one of my biggest personal bugbears of natural=grass which is (now was) tagged incorrectly and should be landuse=grass. There where dozens/hundreds in my local area so I did the whole UK. In case where I moved tag type (natural to landuse) I looked at if they added anything to the corresponding tag. So if nature=grass already had landuse=park or something I didn't change it over. Also I looked at the ways that had a name or had notes and decided if they where due more investigation and if to edit them or not. To be honest most didn't and it was quick and easy to check in JOSM when I highlight them all. I tried to explain myself in the change set notes. I like to think I have been responsible when doing this and think it improves the database/map. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Rovastar/edits?page=1 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:20:32 +0200 From: frede...@remote.org To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags Hi, On 04/24/2013 04:26 PM, John Baker wrote: AFAIC these were typo edits and getting the whole database more consistent. I have done dozens of changes to fix typos worldwide over the past few weeks and it would be crazy to have lengthy discussions on each one for multiple countries in multiple communication channels. If you don't have the time or the will to do it properly, then simply leave it be. The rule is that as soon as you make an edit where you don't look at the individual object you edit, it is a mechanical edit that has to be discussed beforehand. The reason for this rule is that it is too easy to introduce mistakes - what looks like a typo to one person could make sense to another. Assume that there's an object tagged landuse=forest *and* natural=meadow *and* it carries a note tag that explains exactly what the mapper meant by this. Someone simply looking for all natural=meadow and replacing them with landuse=meadow would overwrite the landuse=forest and not even see the note tag - he performs a mechanical edit that needs to be discussed beforehand (in order to minimize undesirable side effects). On the other hand, if someone were to manually go through all objects tagged natural=meadow, read potential note tags, look at the other tags and/or aerial imagery, and *then* change them to landuse=meadow, that would not be a mechanical edit. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags
On the contrary Chris but I do understand. It seems that many here do not. The objections still baffle me. I can only presume that anyone doing any edit without a GPS and physical survey is not welcomed on this list much like the continuing animosity over armchair mapping/using aerial imagery. The wiki is a consensus of opinion over the years about how to tag things. The lack of respect for this I find staggering. I have no problem with people using minority tags but if you choose to use them that conflict and/or are easily confused with existing tags. e.g. if you want to use something for describing the type of grass used, use grasstype= or something not natural=grass that *most* have been entered incorrectly when they mean landuse=grass for grass landcover. To be honest I am less likely to engage in discussion about future edits as all they will seem to end in is: always message the original editor, always do a manual survey and you don't know what you are doing - all of which I strongly disagree with. Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:17:32 +0100 From: o...@raggedred.net To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags On 25/04/13 17:00, John Baker wrote: Wow creating a storm here. I cannot believe we are have so much discussion about grass. I have had some before not about this type... See! Discussion is needed. There are points of view that you don't understand and didn't find out about because you didn't ask. Things should be tagged first and foremost with both wiki definitions and what is in general usage. In both of these cases landuse=grass should be used for grass landcover. No. The wiki is hardly an oracle or fount of all knowledge. It is a muddle that 'just growed'. There is no right tag or wrong tag and a wiki page is certainly not a licence to mass edit. You are squashing subtle meanings from people's tagging that you don't seem to understand even exists. This is what is defined in landcover, landuse wiki pages. That is what is used in general around the UK. So? It's a guide, not a law. It is at the mercy of whomsoever last edited the page. I know how few natural=grass where in the database before I changed them so there were not in common usage and a agreed standard and I am confused at the passion this brings for those that didn't even edit it as such. A minority tag is not there to be squashed out of existence with a mass edit, it is there because someone chose to use it. The passion is to show respect for the process of discussing mass edits to prevent people who don't get it from doing it. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags
If the original editor applied the tags on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dmeadow there is no issue. There it defines the state of the managed or unmanaged. Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:54:42 +0100 From: les...@lsces.co.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags John Baker wrote: The wiki is a consensus of opinion over the years about how to tag things. The lack of respect for this I find staggering. It would be nice if there WAS a consensus. There are a number of 'contradictions' and the area of landuse vs natural has been debated many times and I don't think any of the current 'selections' accurately describe the situation so there is still room for improvement. The general consensus seems to be that 'landuse' is used where an area is managed or has been artificially created and natural where there is no discernible management. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dgrassland highlights some of the subtle differences, and there is a valid argument for natural=meadow co existing with landuse=meadow since there are still some remaining natural meadowlands, or should that be natural=grassland/grassland=meadow ? I don't see the need for the 'grasslands' here at all - just use meadow,veld,pampas or what ever with natural. 'wood' is another area where there are managed and unmanaged woodland which is not forest. landcover was I think proposed at one time to remove the distinction between managed and unmanaged but in reality the distinction IS important even if it's use is not being applied properly. So what checks are you making that there is not such a distinction between the areas that you arbitrarily changing? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags
Frederik, Like I said before all these are not scripted/automated and I look for conflicts. I explained the process I used and that seemed to completed with your original post here. Are you saying now it does not? *shrug* And I use both wiki pages and common practice, like I explained previously. Are there any cases that I have changed where I have not? John Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:33:11 +0200 From: frede...@remote.org To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags Hi, On 25.04.2013 19:07, John Baker wrote: The wiki is a consensus of opinion over the years about how to tag things. It isn't. There have been more than enough cases where after *years* it was found that somewhere hidden away in a wiki page there was a statement that was absolutely not reflecting any kind of consensus. There are, regularly, votes in which Wiki users decide to deprecate some tag used by thousands, and replace it with something else - all that with 20 people participating and voting. We aim to make the Wiki a good documentation of our work in OSM, but where Wiki and practice diverge, practice rules. That's why before you take some wiki page and interpret it as code to modify the database, you are expected to discuss - to make sure that (a) the wiki page is right, (b) your reading of the wiki page is right, (c) the algorithm you are planning to apply has no unfortunate side effects, and so on. To be honest I am less likely to engage in discussion about future edits as all they will seem to end in is: always message the original editor, always do a manual survey and you don't know what you are doing - all of which I strongly disagree with. As long as you're making manual edits you can get away with a lot; people will assume that if you make a specific change then you have valid reasons for that (e.g. some kind of additional source rather than just an algorithm). Any sort of mechanical mass-edit requires discussion so if you don't feel like discussing then you must not make the edit. There's scope for widely accepted automatic or mechanical edits. Some guy in Germany removes, I believe, trailing spaces from names - but only in Germany because he hasn't discussed this idea outside. It is also very unlikely that you find someone who objects to e.g. automaticall yreplacing the mis-typed highway=residentail with highway=residential. But even such simple things should, if applied in a wider scope, be discussed beforehand - out of politeless if nothing else, but also to avoid a potential flaw in your reasoning to go undetected. Someone once replaced all name=McDonalds with name=McDonald's, arguing that that was the correct name of the fast food chain but accidentally renaming a couple of totall different things that were really called McDonalds. A short discussion beforehand could helped to avoid that mistake. Re. your latest point you don't know what you're doing - my impression is that your attitude is I know better anyway, an attitude that is problematic enough in mappers but becomes inacceptable as soon as people make large-scale edits. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags
I did this. AFAIC these were typo edits and getting the whole database more consistent. I have done dozens of changes to fix typos worldwide over the past few weeks and it would be crazy to have lengthy discussions on each one for multiple countries in multiple communication channels. I understood that typos are ok to be undertaken but I will happily create a wiki page and/or another account for doing these. For this case there I don't understand your basis for natural=meadow being correct. Landuse=meadow is the correct tag and IMHO Natural=scrub would be used if not kept. cheers, John Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:09:34 +0100 From: sk53@gmail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags I notice that there have been a large number of mass edits of tags associated with either land cover or land use recently. Some may indeed be useful corrections, but altering all natural=meadow to landuse=meadow probably interferes with the intentions of the original mapper: meadows can be created and retained by entirely natural means. Mass edits however well-intentioned should always be discussed in advance (preferably here, and on the wiki, possibly on IRC). Jerry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of a reservoir/lake in Cornwall.
I deleted that relation 2759916 seems to be a dup of 2759917 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2759917which was/is the same and has more details and they were created on the same date. Renders ok now. From: cbain...@gmail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 12:48:15 +0100 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of a reservoir/lake in Cornwall. On Sun, 2013-04-21 at 12:20 +0100, ael wrote: Hello, I noticed that Siblyback Lake: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.5077lon=-4.49397zoom=15layers=M is not rendering properly (in Mapnik, at least). I emailed the last user to modify the area, and he said that he had tried to fix it without success: it was already broken. I confess that I haven't tried to diagnose the problem, but it seems likely that someone here will know what is wrong and fix it in short order :-) The lake does look fine, the problem looks to be with relation 2759916 [1]. I am not sure what it is trying to describe, so perhaps contact the author, to find out what they intended. 1: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2759916 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Taginfo Golf Tags
The French OSM site has worldwide mapnik rendering of golf courses and nifty sports pitches mapped too. http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=16lat=48.72648lon=2.60806layers=B0 I imagine they will be migrated to osm.org when cartoCSS eventually goes live. Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 01:35:41 +0100 From: dave...@madasafish.com To: openstreetmapcraigmil...@yahoo.co.uk CC: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Taginfo Golf Tags On 05/04/2013 15:04, Bob Kerr wrote: Hi, I have been looking at TagInfo for tags with golf= There are a number of tags which are golf=Tee instead of golf=tee. Is there any easy way that I find out where these tags are located so that I can correct them. Hi Again Bob Just discovered in Taginfo there's a similar, but quicker site to the one I suggested earlier. In the top right of the screen there's an icon next to where it says XPI JOSM (looks a bit like a 3 spoked steering wheel). Clicking on it takes you to another site. Left hand side you can amend the key value then click Run. BTW, are there any renderings that show golf course details like tees, bunkers, greens etc? It's a shame mapnik doesn't. Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere)
I have had more correspondence from Mauls. He is adamant that he is correct and that I don't know what I am doing (mainly because he has contributed way more than me and doing it a lot longer. 104k nodes me vs 140k node Maulsyeah way more and I started with this (did some minor stuff before) account in 2009 vs Mauls in 2008 ). His attitude is that he will do what he wants. Anyway the exchanges are getting rather nasty now so I may give up communicating with him or might embark on some more troll baiting later. So maybe someone else (...well anyone else not necessarily user SomeoneElse) can talk sense to him. John Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:42:03 -0800 From: rich...@systemed.net To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere) Philip Barnes wrote: I did briefly discuss this with Andy on IRC and the other issue is the insertion of soft-hyphens into the names so Hatton becomes Hat-ton. Not sure why, is he trying to make a satnav pronounce each syllable? Or copied and pasted from a document? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/road-names-along-the-A50-and-elsewhere-tp5749880p5750045.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere)
I had a response. Apparently these are official Department of Transport road names. Now I don't know as this differs to what is on the ground what should be done about this. Foston Hatton Hilton Bypass, etc don't as far I I know appear on the ground however I think the some record should appear in OSM. I am worried about the trend in this case of placing them as the name of the road as what reference point would people use for these. Any thoughts? John From: rovas...@hotmail.com To: li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:48:53 + Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere) The user looks like a troll. None of his/her/bot changesets have any comments. And they bounce all over the world. I think he deleted the original roads on the 21 jan 2013 as the history in OSM says they are new roads. Can someone look at reverting them all. I sent the user this PM. What are you doing with your edits here?: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14728720 You appear to have deleted major roads A50 and replaced them with strange names. Where are you getting your information. Your changesets have no notes in them explaining what you have done. Can you explain what you are doing before we revert the changes and look at getting you banned. Cheers, John Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:11:53 + From: li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere) Recently various sections along the A50 between Derby and Stoke have grown names, for example here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/202232245/history I've driven along that section of road many times, and I don't believe I've seen a name on any of the new sections. According to Musical Chairs, there are genuinely no names: http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?zoom=15lat=52.87983lon=-1.66551layers=B0TTview_mode=pseudorandom Some similar roads in Derbyshire do have official names, such as the A52 Brian Clough Way between Derby and Nottingham, or well-used unoffical ones such as the A61 which locals regularly used to refer to as just the Dronfield Bypass, but I've never heard of ones for the A50 being used. I'm planning to remove names that I can't find evidence for, but thought that I'd better check to make sure that I'm not missing anything obvious. Do these names have any basis in reality? Foston Hatton Hilton Bypass** sounds like something that might have been written on a planning application, but I've never seen it used anywhere. Cheers, Andy ** Some of the given names (such as Foston Hatton Hilton Bypass) are further complicated by having soft hyphens (hex AD) inserted between syllables, which results in the rendering of hyphens in some places but not others. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere)
The user looks like a troll. None of his/her/bot changesets have any comments. And they bounce all over the world. I think he deleted the original roads on the 21 jan 2013 as the history in OSM says they are new roads. Can someone look at reverting them all. I sent the user this PM. What are you doing with your edits here?: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14728720 You appear to have deleted major roads A50 and replaced them with strange names. Where are you getting your information. Your changesets have no notes in them explaining what you have done. Can you explain what you are doing before we revert the changes and look at getting you banned. Cheers, John Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:11:53 + From: li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere) Recently various sections along the A50 between Derby and Stoke have grown names, for example here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/202232245/history I've driven along that section of road many times, and I don't believe I've seen a name on any of the new sections. According to Musical Chairs, there are genuinely no names: http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?zoom=15lat=52.87983lon=-1.66551layers=B0TTview_mode=pseudorandom Some similar roads in Derbyshire do have official names, such as the A52 Brian Clough Way between Derby and Nottingham, or well-used unoffical ones such as the A61 which locals regularly used to refer to as just the Dronfield Bypass, but I've never heard of ones for the A50 being used. I'm planning to remove names that I can't find evidence for, but thought that I'd better check to make sure that I'm not missing anything obvious. Do these names have any basis in reality? Foston Hatton Hilton Bypass** sounds like something that might have been written on a planning application, but I've never seen it used anywhere. Cheers, Andy ** Some of the given names (such as Foston Hatton Hilton Bypass) are further complicated by having soft hyphens (hex AD) inserted between syllables, which results in the rendering of hyphens in some places but not others. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Gibraltar - Mapping Party?
I feel that you doubt the authenticity of my links as you have (maybe valid) grievances with an authors previous article (which I had to look up and was from 2005...when wikipedia was not established with the same level of confidence as it now) To be honest I just picked an article at random. However the articles are widely published, here are a couple more. (and plenty more if you bother to google them) http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57514677-93/corruption-in-wikiland-paid-pr-scandal-erupts-at-wikipedia/ http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/09/19/new-wikipedia-scandal-uk-head-was-paid-to-promote-topics/ I think it is common knowledge, if you look around, what is occurred and since Roger Bamkin (forcibly?) resigned from his position with Wikipedia UK because of it says something. Fair enough if you don't want to comment but I do feel aggrieved that you seem to think I am making it up as I have an axe to grind. I am only bothered by those abusing their positions of power in the open community which I feel this is, or at least could be, the situation. Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:41:25 +0100 From: nick_whitel...@yahoo.co.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Gibraltar - Mapping Party? I won't comment on the Gibraltar issue, but I do have to say I am highly suspect of the author of one of these articles. With articles such as Wikipedia will fail in five years, and another Wikipedia will fail in *four* years, he comes across as someone who, for one reason or another, has an axe to grind about open source projects. From: John Baker rovas...@hotmail.com To: ajrli...@gmail.com; nomoregra...@googlemail.com; chippy2...@gmail.com; sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2012, 20:25 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Gibraltar - Mapping Party? Maybe no-one cares but Roger was paid ($80,000 apparently) to create articles and promote Gibraltar. I see this is part of that. Promote Gibraltar by linking it to OSM, get on the OSM wiki pages, etc, etc. Personally I do feel uneasy working on crowded sourced/open sourced projects on the request of others that are paid to do it. I would have thought they could at least chip in for the flights, accomadation, etc http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/10/05/wikipedias-pay-for-play-scandal-highlights-wikipedias-vulnerabilities/ http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/20/roger_bamkin_gibraltor_s_repeated_appearance_on_did_you_know_provkes_existential_crisis_for_wikipedia_.html Just want to let people know the score beforehand. From: ajrli...@gmail.com To: nomoregra...@googlemail.com; chippy2...@gmail.com; sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:31:30 +0100 CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Gibraltar - Mapping Party? Sounds like there is a the comings together of interest for perhaps early in the New Year? I’ll communicate that back to Roger and see where we go. I think he’s looking for OSM to organise themselves but I’ll get confirmation of what accommodation was on offer and what, if any, strings are attached with going at their request. CheersAndy From: Gregory [mailto:nomoregra...@googlemail.com] Sent: 05 October 2012 13:26 To: Tim Waters Cc: Andy Robinson; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Gibraltar - Mapping Party? basic accommodation in an old fort might be available free of chargeYou've got me listening.But advance notice and doing it after Christmas is more likely to work for me. I presume this would end up as an Isle of Wight type exercise. Make a really good example(buildings addressing) and cover the whole land in a short time. Then if we finished earlier than planned we could pop over to Spain for the remaining days and stay in Gibraltar, or if people planned to stay longer arranged their own accommodation then Spain mapping could be planned too. -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.comNo virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5809 - Release Date: 10/04/12 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Gibraltar - Mapping Party?
Maybe no-one cares but Roger was paid ($80,000 apparently) to create articles and promote Gibraltar. I see this is part of that. Promote Gibraltar by linking it to OSM, get on the OSM wiki pages, etc, etc. Personally I do feel uneasy working on crowded sourced/open sourced projects on the request of others that are paid to do it. I would have thought they could at least chip in for the flights, accomadation, etc http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/10/05/wikipedias-pay-for-play-scandal-highlights-wikipedias-vulnerabilities/ http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/20/roger_bamkin_gibraltor_s_repeated_appearance_on_did_you_know_provkes_existential_crisis_for_wikipedia_.html Just want to let people know the score beforehand. From: ajrli...@gmail.com To: nomoregra...@googlemail.com; chippy2...@gmail.com; sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:31:30 +0100 CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Gibraltar - Mapping Party? Sounds like there is a the comings together of interest for perhaps early in the New Year? I’ll communicate that back to Roger and see where we go. I think he’s looking for OSM to organise themselves but I’ll get confirmation of what accommodation was on offer and what, if any, strings are attached with going at their request. CheersAndy From: Gregory [mailto:nomoregra...@googlemail.com] Sent: 05 October 2012 13:26 To: Tim Waters Cc: Andy Robinson; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Gibraltar - Mapping Party? basic accommodation in an old fort might be available free of chargeYou've got me listening.But advance notice and doing it after Christmas is more likely to work for me. I presume this would end up as an Isle of Wight type exercise. Make a really good example(buildings addressing) and cover the whole land in a short time. Then if we finished earlier than planned we could pop over to Spain for the remaining days and stay in Gibraltar, or if people planned to stay longer arranged their own accommodation then Spain mapping could be planned too. -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.comNo virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5809 - Release Date: 10/04/12 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
