Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
John Smith wrote: 2010/1/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're not really open, are they? What do you suggest they rename to? FreeCycleMap? :) Yeah, why not? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Dave F. wrote: John Smith wrote: 2010/1/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: I think it's high time this was done. IMO, OCM should be removed from the main map options asked persuasively to rename themselves as they're not really open, are they? What do you suggest they rename to? FreeCycleMap? :) Yeah, why not? Is there a wiki page that lists all the sites that use OSM data. I think OCM should be put there. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open
Joseph Reeves wrote: FreeCycleMap? :) Yeah, why not? What's your definition of Free? Beer, speech or freedom? Following your argument we'd have to call it NoUpFrontFinancialCostToTheUser(ApartFromBandwidth)CycleMap Or we channel the communities abilities into mapping rather than arguing about this ;-) I don't see how free speech is relevant in this case so - free beer. It can be called whatever they like - MyCycleMap perhaps. It doesn't have to declare itself in the name - explain what it's source is in an 'About...' dialog box along with an explanation about what it's keeping hidden. But, remove it from the main page where it appears comparable with OSM in the open sense, which it clearly isn't. My abilities have spent much time mapping over the previous week so I'm quite happy now, pointing out things that I think are out of proportion. Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Garmin cycle map download available again
It's at http://richard.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/gmapsupp.img and it's a 271Mb file (including contours, etc. etc.). Freshly updated from the latest Geofabrik planet excerpt. How to install: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin/Download Technical details: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin/Cycle_map cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OSM coverage by local authority
A few months ago I compared the length of roads on the OSM database against the figures quoted by the Department for transport, and posted the results here. I've now updated the figures using the OSM database extract at the end of 2009. The resulting map is here - http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/OSMCoverJan2010.png and the data from my analysis is here - http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/OSMCoverageJan2010.csv . The DfT data can be found here - http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/roadstraffic/roa dlengths/ In summary, the length of roads on OSM that I am able to compare with DfT data has increased by around 5% if the last few months. The south east of England is still generally better covered than the north, but there is improved coverage all over the place. The biggest increase in coverage is in Cornwall, which has moved from less than 50% coverage to more than 80%. There are also significant improvements in Plymouth, and a number of cities in northern England and the West Midlands. The length of roads plotted for all of the following authorities has increased by more than 20%: . Cornwall . Plymouth . Bury . Wirral . Telford Wrekin . Bolton . Rochdale . Oldham . Barnsley . Stoke-on-Trent Apart from minor tweaking to the way I categorise roads, I have removed anthing tagged Motorway link from the motorway totals, because I've discovered from the Department for Transport that they currently don't count links towards the length of motorways. This doesn't make a huge difference to the overall totals of course. For anyone wanting to recreate this, I should point out that I'm still using the admin boundaries as they stood four months ago. The reason for this is that I had to do a fair amount of tidying up last time to remove overlaps and inconsistencies in the boundaries. There have been some changes to the data for admin boundaries on OSM over the last few months, and I really ought to do the same tidying again, but it takes forever, and I don't have time at the moment. That means that I've not picked up some new boundaries in Wales that have been added since I did the last extract. In England I don't think this can be making a great deal of difference, except possibly at the margins of some local authorities. Where I can't get local authority boundaries from OSM yet, I've continued to use the EU regions instead. This mostly affects Scotland, where I can't find any local authority boundaries on OSM. I don't have the EU regional boundaries at the same level of precision as OSM admin boundaries so these figures will be a but fuzzy round the edges. As before, thoughts and comments are invited, and welcome. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM coverage by local authority
Peter Reed wrote: A few months ago I compared the length of roads on the OSM database against the figures quoted by the Department for transport, and posted the results here. Thank you ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
