[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Licence change
West Mids mappers... If you haven't logged into your OSM account or done any editing recently you may be unaware of the forthcoming proposed licence change for OSM. A major part of that process is to sign up to new contributor terms. If you have not logged into OSM recently could you please do so and decided whether you wish to accept the new contributor terms or not. Personally I encourage you to do so though I appreciate it's your choice. Its important to make a decision so that data you have already contributed can be left in or removed as required should the change in licence go ahead. The link below shows is centred on Brum and highlights in red those ways in the map data where contribution is from someone who has declined the new terms (almost zero thankfully). Green means all contributors for a given way have agreed and blue means one or more are undecided (user hasn't agreed or declined yet). The other hues are various in-between states where an object has seen many editors of it over the last 6 years of OSM. See below the map for the key. http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/?zoom=13lat=52.48479lon=-1.89151; layers=B0 The map shows plenty of green for the west mids which is excellent, that's principally because the major contributors have already agreed to the new terms. If you need more info on the licence change process see the following link: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License Cheers Andy ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
[Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
Hi All, In making my recent transport map[1] I've found there's a (relatively) large number of nodes in the UK tagged railway=station, when they aren't stations (and often aren't any railways there, either). I'm proposing that we don't tag former, disused or fictional stations in a way that confuses mainstream users of OSM, in the same way we don't tag proposed motorways as highway=motorway. I realise that there are additional tags to try to indicate that they don't exist (such as disused=yes) but I don't think this is a particularly useful approach, given the near infinite numbers of extra tags that could be thought up for fictional, planned, was-planned-not-built-not-planned-any-more etc stations. Even the wiki page for disused=yes suggests it's a bad idea[2], and that some other backwards-compatible approach would be better. We have a backwards-compatible approach for the disused and abandoned railway lines already. Would there be objections to changing the situation with UK railway stations to bring it into line with highways/railway lines, e.g. railway=disused, disused=station , or e.g. railway=abandoned, abandoned=station? It's such a niche interest (well, seemingly much less niche in the UK than elsewhere :-) ) that I don't think it helps to tag things in their current scheme. I don't think this is particularly controversial (my suggestions mirror the approach for both highways and railway lines already), I've discussed it already with a handful of people who have used the old approach, but I thought it best to air it here too. Cheers, Andy [1] http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/archives/2011/04/11/transport-map/ [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
On 19 April 2011 09:21, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: I realise that there are additional tags to try to indicate that they don't exist (such as disused=yes) but I don't think this is a particularly useful approach I completely agree. As a fellow data user, I think the rule of thumb should be that anything tagged as railway=station or shop=baker or amenity=bank should be a an open, functioning station, baker or bank. You shouldn't have to check a potentially ever-expanding set of additional tags to find out if they are in fact closed, proposed, imaginary, an art installation, etc. Would there be objections to changing the situation with UK railway stations to bring it into line with highways/railway lines, e.g. railway=disused, disused=station , or e.g. railway=abandoned, abandoned=station? Sounds good to me. Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
I agree Cheers Bob --- On Tue, 19/4/11, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: From: Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com Subject: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station To: Talk-GB talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Tuesday, 19 April, 2011, 8:21 Hi All, In making my recent transport map[1] I've found there's a (relatively) large number of nodes in the UK tagged railway=station, when they aren't stations (and often aren't any railways there, either). I'm proposing that we don't tag former, disused or fictional stations in a way that confuses mainstream users of OSM, in the same way we don't tag proposed motorways as highway=motorway. I realise that there are additional tags to try to indicate that they don't exist (such as disused=yes) but I don't think this is a particularly useful approach, given the near infinite numbers of extra tags that could be thought up for fictional, planned, was-planned-not-built-not-planned-any-more etc stations. Even the wiki page for disused=yes suggests it's a bad idea[2], and that some other backwards-compatible approach would be better. We have a backwards-compatible approach for the disused and abandoned railway lines already. Would there be objections to changing the situation with UK railway stations to bring it into line with highways/railway lines, e.g. railway=disused, disused=station , or e.g. railway=abandoned, abandoned=station? It's such a niche interest (well, seemingly much less niche in the UK than elsewhere :-) ) that I don't think it helps to tag things in their current scheme. I don't think this is particularly controversial (my suggestions mirror the approach for both highways and railway lines already), I've discussed it already with a handful of people who have used the old approach, but I thought it best to air it here too. Cheers, Andy [1] http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/archives/2011/04/11/transport-map/ [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused ___ 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] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
Andy Allan gravitystorm@... writes: In making my recent transport map[1] I've found there's a (relatively) large number of nodes in the UK tagged railway=station, when they aren't stations I realise that there are additional tags to try to indicate that they don't exist (such as disused=yes) but I don't think this is a particularly useful approach, I thoroughly agree. It's not just stations: any kind of extra oh no it isn't tag makes life difficult for users of the data. I've even seen status=desire to indicate that a path doesn't exist, but it would be nice if it did... Any unambiguous tagging scheme you can think of would be fine. (railway=abandoned_station would also be possible) -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: I've even seen status=desire to indicate that a path doesn't exist, but it would be nice if it did... Ed, you might be mis-understanding the meaning of that tag. Desire paths do very much exist on the ground and don't fall into the same category as abandoned or proposed railway stations. Here's a description, and a nice photo, of a desire path: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
80n 80n80n@... writes: I've even seen status=desire Here's a description, and a nice photo, of a desire path: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path Ah, you're right. I'm glad I didn't try to retag it. -- Ed Avis e...@waniassset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
Any unambiguous tagging scheme you can think of would be fine. (railway=abandoned_station would also be possible) This variant has the added benefit that it would make it into most current rendering databases for free. Data users that do want to show this, don't have to do anything special to their import stages. Using a key suffix (railway:disused=*) would mean extra work. Granted, as a maintainer of a few maps, I'm biased. I just detest those negating tags. This is a $shazbaz. Oh, no, it isn't! -- Lennard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
Lennard wrote: Any unambiguous tagging scheme you can think of would be fine. (railway=abandoned_station would also be possible) This variant has the added benefit that it would make it into most current rendering databases for free. Data users that do want to show this, don't have to do anything special to their import stages. Using a key suffix (railway:disused=*) would mean extra work. Additionally it does allow for the growing number of lines and stations that are being re-opened ;) Broadway near me is currently abandoned but IS being restored as part of the Gloucestershire railway and the track is slowly working it's way up the old abandoned line ... But a part that may be useful in the UK is cleaner identification of preserved over main line railway stations? -- 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// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
Hi, On 04/19/11 11:10, Lennard wrote: Granted, as a maintainer of a few maps, I'm biased. I just detest those negating tags. This is a $shazbaz. Oh, no, it isn't! It's often natural language that makes people do that. For example, people say: This is a railway line under construction, or this is an abandoned railway line which implies that the object is first and foremost a railway line, with some attributes - when in fact it is *not* a railway line, but a construction site, and so on. Bye Frederik ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Things that aren't stations tagged railway=station
On 19 April 2011 10:30, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Lennard wrote: Any unambiguous tagging scheme you can think of would be fine. (railway=abandoned_station would also be possible) This variant has the added benefit that it would make it into most current rendering databases for free. Data users that do want to show this, don't have to do anything special to their import stages. Using a key suffix (railway:disused=*) would mean extra work. Additionally it does allow for the growing number of lines and stations that are being re-opened ;) Broadway near me is currently abandoned but IS being restored as part of the Gloucestershire railway and the track is slowly working it's way up the old abandoned line ... But a part that may be useful in the UK is cleaner identification of preserved over main line railway stations? I have been using the prefix 'construction:' and 'proposed:' on tags to indicate that something is in the process of changing and there may also be a role for 'former:'. For example tags on part of the M25 which is being widened: lanes=3 construction:lanes=4 And on the A11 where one carriageway is being demoted to a minor two-way road: highway=trunk; oneway=yes; proposed:highway=unclassified proposed:oneway=no It would seem logical to include the status of 'former' elements in the same way. So a former station would be tagged using as follows: former:railway=station The lifecycle of a feature would then be. proposed:railway=station construction:railway=station railway=station former:railway=station Regards, Peter -- 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// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ 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] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
I have been wondering how much data has been imported into OSM from OS Opendata and who has accepted the CTs. I still think that the CTs ask for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are the most prolific Opendata users (in terms of version 1 objects) that have accepted the CTs, along with their user IDs: 9065brianboru 41362Eriks Zelenka 69853Central America 51722Chris Parker 57884EdLoach 26825Warofdreams 91225tms13 592JonS 229419piedwagtail91 82783Paul The Archivist The top contributor, brianboru, has 29020 objects that use opendata source tags (and are version 1 objects). We should not focus too much on these specific individuals, as there are probably hundreds of users that have done the same thing. Now, if we were to accept my concern that Opendata and the CTs are incompatible, these users, along with users not listed above, are bringing OSM into disrepute, because they are not respecting other's license terms. The fact that they might plan to remove the data is in a way irrelevant, they should only agree to the CTs after they are in compliance. Here is a link to a random example, from each of the above contributors: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/693084884 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/58688965 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/737268177 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/856782137 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/753395732 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/771249204 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/699639016 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/719665162 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/697029337 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/688497237 The list of people accepting the CTs is here: http://planet.openstreetmap.org/users_agreed/users_agreed.txt The only solution is to reject their CTs response until their edits are no longer in violation of the Opendata license. Unless I am mistaken in my interpretation of the CTs, in which case this might be a non-issue! Regards, TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Hi, On 04/19/11 12:32, TimSC wrote: I still think that the CTs ask for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are the most prolific Opendata users (in terms of version 1 objects) that have accepted the CTs, along with their user IDs: Does the explicit naming of these people actually contribute anything to solving the problem? Bye Frederik ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 19/04/11 11:45, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/19/11 12:32, TimSC wrote: I still think that the CTs ask for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are the most prolific Opendata users (in terms of version 1 objects) that have accepted the CTs, along with their user IDs: Does the explicit naming of these people actually contribute anything to solving the problem? Determining the scope of the problem is perhaps the first step to solving it. And we might want to find out why these users felt the need to (possibly) violate OS Opendata's license. User education might be something we can work on? However, does your question go towards solving the problem? Ad hominem tu quoque! TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 18 April 2011 23:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Richard Bullock wrote: It's on the Copyright page though http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright United Kingdom: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2010. That is, IIRC, what we were required to state. Well in that case, as long as nobody is planning to remove that, we should be fine with CT/ODbL? No. The OS OpenData licence also requires The same attribution statements must be contained in any sub-licences of the Information that you grant, together with a requirement that any further sub-licences do the same. Which I interpret to mean that not only must OSM provide that attribution, we must ensure that all derived works, and any works derived from them must too. In which case, *just* providing attribution on the OSM website isn't, in itself, sufficient. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
Andy Allan just asked me a question privately about changes I have made to layers in Wandsworth which has prompted me to do a post here saying what I have been up in order to rationalise use of the layers in East Anglia, London and now Kent. The ITO Map 'Layers' view highlighted a huge amount of weird layer tags in the area. London seemed to be particularly bad. There were parks at layer-5 and lakes at layer 1; railways at layer=1 or -1 even though they were on the ground. I have been my way south and west from Norfolk though Suffolk and Essex and now London and Kent sorting issues out as I find them. In the process I have added probably 100 bridges in order to gets rivers and railways to work properly. You can see the current view here: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=22bbox=-45397.555877915,6692718.780745626,35709.774820957,6725408.451752373layers=base_style=clear_map_history=true There is still plenty wrong as far as I am concerned, but it is getting there. There are two underground lines which cross at the same level to the south of Regents Park and also at Bond Street Tube. The Railway engineering layer shows up a bunch of additional issues. Railways crossing at the same layer without a bridge close to Crofton Park and again just North of New Cross. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=55bbox=-6970.6313936487495,6706135.318464111,-1901.42322496925,6708178.42290209layers=base_style=clear_map_history=true I have also done an edit pass on the 'key:layer' wiki page in order to make the rules clearer without changing the rules. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer The only extra rule I introduced was that power lines were assumed to float about everything else and didn't need layers unless they crossed each other, in which case one can choose appropriate layers for those sections of line. This seemed to make more sense that guessing at a level which is what people have been doing from time to time. Setting all power lines to 'layer=5' is abritrary and will cause difficulties if it crosses above another line. As such the approach seemed to be more suitable. Here is the current layer wiki page which is written very much as a set of rules for someone wanting to understand how to use them. Here is the old version of the key:layer wiki page that I started with. It has the same message as the current page (I hope), but it is much harder to follow. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:layeroldid=590097 Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 19 April 2011 14:14, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: - Original Message - From: TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence On 19/04/11 11:45, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/19/11 12:32, TimSC wrote: I still think that the CTs ask for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are the most prolific Opendata users (in terms of version 1 objects) that have accepted the CTs, along with their user IDs: Does the explicit naming of these people actually contribute anything to solving the problem? Determining the scope of the problem is perhaps the first step to solving it. And we might want to find out why these users felt the need In defence of those users, I suspect they did not feel the need to (possibly) violate OS OpenData's license, i.e I suspect they did not make a conscious decision to possibly violate the licence; I suspect that either: (a) they were unaware there might be a problem, because when you are asked to agree to sign the CT's there really is no warning to those who have not followed the licensing debate that some existing sources of data may not be compatible with the CT's ; or (b) they have been persuaded by those on this (and the legal list) who have argued that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's . Ultimately, however, those users motives are not the most relevant issue. What is more relevant are the as yet unanswered questions: (i) is OS OpenData compatible with the CT's; and (ii) what will happen to the contributions of users who have breached the CT's David to (possibly) violate OS Opendata's license. User education might be something we can work on? However, does your question go towards solving the problem? Ad hominem tu quoque! This is a good question, and a perenial one and not really one that we can resolve as we are not lawyers and are not on the license working group. Some readers may remember that I asked the same question some time back. In the end I got reassurance from the board that it was OK and I signed up. The License team are well aware of the issue and I hope they will ensure that there is not a problem. Personally, I am not going to let it worry me. I expect them to do their job and ensure that it works and I will get on with mapping. Regards, Peter Miller (user:PeterIto) TimSC ___ 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] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
On 19/04/2011 14:31, Peter Miller wrote: ... railways at layer=1 or -1 Well, that might be correct if they're at layer -1 or +1 relative to a feature that hasn't been mapped yet. A conversation with the original mappers (or a visit) should be able to resolve that easily. In the process I have added probably 100 bridges in order to gets rivers and railways to work properly. Please tell me that you've actually visited these places to check that there is actually a bridge there (and not something best described as a tunnel), and note where the start and end of bridge actually are. If I railway crosses a river and there's nothing indicating how it's a very useful indication that something's mapped incorrectly and needs checking. Faking the data so that it doesn't look wrong actually removes very useful information from the map. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Andy Allan just asked me a question privately about changes I have made to layers in Wandsworth which has prompted me to do a post here saying what I have been up in order to rationalise use of the layers in East Anglia, London and now Kent. The ITO Map 'Layers' view highlighted a huge amount of weird layer tags in the area. London seemed to be particularly bad. There were parks at layer-5 and lakes at layer 1; railways at layer=1 or -1 even though they were on the ground. So my concern was that data is being removed for no particularly good reason. For example, at http://osm.org/go/euum@dsaa-- the two central carriageways were tagged layer=-1 to show they are below the nearby sliproads, but Peter has removed these layer tags. I'm assuming his map layers view has some logic that layers tags only apply to ways that cross but I don't believe that to be true. He's also removed the layer tags from stretches of the railway, for example at http://osm.org/go/euunor2Ku-- which again, those of us who know that area know the railway is on a different layer to the surrounding roads. While there is an argument in both cases that there could be additional methods of tagging the situation (such as adding embankment or cutting tags) I still don't see that removing the layer tags is doing anything other than removing the correct information that was there previously. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
On 19/04/11 14:50, Andy Allan wrote: He's also removed the layer tags from stretches of the railway, for example at http://osm.org/go/euunor2Ku-- which again, those of us who know that area know the railway is on a different layer to the surrounding roads. Even better, the railway there is now on the same layer as the road but there is no bridge or level crossing marked so arguably it is now worse than it was before then the layering was right but the bridge was missing. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
On 19 April 2011 15:50, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: I'm assuming his map layers view has some logic that layers tags only apply to ways that cross but I don't believe that to be true. Actually, that's exactly how I understood the layer tag to be used. It is simply there to disambiguate cases where there would otherwise be z-fighting. -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
On 19 April 2011 14:49, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 19/04/2011 14:31, Peter Miller wrote: ... railways at layer=1 or -1 Well, that might be correct if they're at layer -1 or +1 relative to a feature that hasn't been mapped yet. A conversation with the original mappers (or a visit) should be able to resolve that easily. There number of errors in a key that no one really understood two years back and which only has subtle effects on rendering means that it is not really practical to find the original mapper. Particularly if the tagging is clearly wrong. In the process I have added probably 100 bridges in order to gets rivers and railways to work properly. Please tell me that you've actually visited these places to check that there is actually a bridge there (and not something best described as a tunnel), and note where the start and end of bridge actually are. If I railway crosses a river and there's nothing indicating how it's a very useful indication that something's mapped incorrectly and needs checking. Faking the data so that it doesn't look wrong actually removes very useful information from the map. Bing aerial is a very useful resource and allows many issues to be resolved very fast. Bridges and tunnels can be clearly seen in most situations. The random streets at level=1 for miles after they have crossed a bridge connecting to side streets without layer tags is also very clearly a mistake. Rivers at layer=-1 for miles so as to avoid needing to add bridges. Regards, Peter Cheers, Andy ___ 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] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: On 19 April 2011 15:50, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: I'm assuming his map layers view has some logic that layers tags only apply to ways that cross but I don't believe that to be true. Actually, that's exactly how I understood the layer tag to be used. It is simply there to disambiguate cases where there would otherwise be z-fighting. But my point is that ways don't need to actually cross, they can just be pretty close together (e.g. parallel), for the layer tags to be useful and required. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
On 19 April 2011 14:50, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: Andy Allan just asked me a question privately about changes I have made to layers in Wandsworth which has prompted me to do a post here saying what I have been up in order to rationalise use of the layers in East Anglia, London and now Kent. The ITO Map 'Layers' view highlighted a huge amount of weird layer tags in the area. London seemed to be particularly bad. There were parks at layer-5 and lakes at layer 1; railways at layer=1 or -1 even though they were on the ground. So my concern was that data is being removed for no particularly good reason. For example, at http://osm.org/go/euum@dsaa-- the two central carriageways were tagged layer=-1 to show they are below the nearby sliproads, but Peter has removed these layer tags. I'm assuming his map layers view has some logic that layers tags only apply to ways that cross but I don't believe that to be true. He's also removed the layer tags from stretches of the railway, for example at To my mind the lower road is at 'modified ground level' which is layer=0 which is optional. It it is in a cutting the the 'cutting' tag would be appropriate. because the layer tag saying nothing about relative height to a parallel way, only about the z ordering at crossing points. Consider the path that the top and bottom of the Grand Canyon both of which are at 'ground level'. http://osm.org/go/euunor2Ku-- which again, those of us who know that area know the railway is on a different layer to the surrounding roads. While there is an argument in both cases that there could be additional methods of tagging the situation (such as adding embankment or cutting tags) I still don't see that removing the layer tags is doing anything other than removing the correct information that was there previously. Since the railway crosses the Old York Road then I believe that there should indeed be a bridge (with a layer tag). Adding a layer tag for the full section of track and not having a bridge is not the right answer. If the whole section of railway is up on a concrete platform then it may be more appropriate to use a viaduct for the whole section but that does not seem to be the case from Bing. If it is raised up on a bank then an embankment may be appropriate. However... the layer tag is not the right tag to use and doesn't give any of that information. On balance I think bridge is right for the section over the road. I failed to add that bridge section - sorry about missing that one. Make that 101 bridges! It may well be good to add an embankment tag to the section between the bridges. Regards, Peter Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
Lately I've been doing some tagging of the South-West region of the National Byway, and I'm finding it quite disappointing that it is not rendered on the cycle map. I've rummaged around in the history of this issue and located what I think are the most relevant thread starters: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/009449.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2007-September/005861.html also Richard's summary on the forum: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=4141 These, and other threads I haven't listed, tend to end with Andy saying that he will render the National Byway tags in their own colour some time in the future. Is there any likelihood that that time is nigh? I know this sounds like a nag, so if there anything that can be done (style files?) to help get to that point, I'm happy to volunteer. (I know not everyone here cares for the National Byway. For me, it hits the spot for route planning much better than the Sustrans routes, which tend to be just too slow for long journeys.) -- digression -- FWIW, I don't really agree with the view that the regional cycle route tags should be exclusively reserved in the UK for Sustrans regional routes. The National Byway regions fit pretty well as regional routes. There exist other regional routes which are not Sustrans routes; for example the Wiltshire Cycleway is a signed route which is too extensive to be categorised as an LCN. So if I start tagging it as an RCN, will that be allowed to stand? I can't see it would be sustainable to have distinct tagging / cycle map rendering for every RCN as is required for the National Byway regions. And I understand that Sustrans is doing away with its regional route numbering anyway, so will the RCN tags eventually fall out of use in the UK? -- end digression -- ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
On 19 April 2011 15:20, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote: On 19 April 2011 15:50, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: I'm assuming his map layers view has some logic that layers tags only apply to ways that cross but I don't believe that to be true. Actually, that's exactly how I understood the layer tag to be used. It is simply there to disambiguate cases where there would otherwise be z-fighting. But my point is that ways don't need to actually cross, they can just be pretty close together (e.g. parallel), for the layer tags to be useful and required. That is not what the wiki says (and said before my edits). Before my edits it said: The layer Key can be used to mark if a way/node/area is above or under another one. This tag should only be used for height differences that are real, like bridges over a street or tunnels under another object When tagging things, try to avoid the layer tag most of the time. Especially do not use it in these circumstances: * Do not tag areas like landuse, natural etc. with a layer * Do not tag waterways like rivers, streams etc. with a layer just because you have a bridge running above them and do not want the bridge to be layer=1 Remember: The layer tag has no meaning for absolute heights. The bridge within a perfectly flat street should be layer=1 even if the stream is as far below it as the Grand Canyon. The track on top of Mount Everest would be layer=0 even though it is 8848 meters above sealevel. In other words, the ground level, as would be shown on a topographic map, is always layer=0. if two roads intersect in mid-air, they must both have the same layer to display properly. This means that it may be necessary to break one of them at a nearby point. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:layeroldid=590097 In general I have be interpreting those rules across the area I mentioned. Regards, Peter Cheers, Andy ___ 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] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent
On 19/04/2011 15:26, Peter Miller wrote: That is not what the wiki says (and said before my edits). Before my edits it said: ... It really doesn't matter what the wiki says. What matters is that someone's mapped something and recorded some information and you're removing that information from the database. Please don't do that. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
I recently cycled following Byway signs to the Cambridgeshire border near Gamlingay (where the signs disappeared ..) I later extended the relation for that part of the Byway which I found by searching the Wiki. The Sustrans network is often better mapped in OSM than on the Sustrans website. I recently rode some local signed roads that are not on the Sustrans website. The National Byway website, in contrast, has no serious online mapping. There is a low resolution representation that is useless for planning an actual cycle trip. They sell maps, but some are out of stock, and the whole Byway (and local Loops) is not covered. The Byway needs a good map, and OSM/OpenCycleMap is ideally equipped to provide it. to quote Andy Allan in another context: One of the phrases I started using a few years ago is “render and they will map” – or, in other words, if you are interested in a particular aspect of mapping data being improved then the best way to encourage mappers to improve that is to make it visible and useful. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
monxton [mailto:gm...@jordan-maynard.org] wrote: Sent: 19 April 2011 3:24 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap Lately I've been doing some tagging of the South-West region of the National Byway, and I'm finding it quite disappointing that it is not rendered on the cycle map. I've rummaged around in the history of this issue and located what I think are the most relevant thread starters: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/009449.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2007- September/005861.html also Richard's summary on the forum: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=4141 These, and other threads I haven't listed, tend to end with Andy saying that he will render the National Byway tags in their own colour some time in the future. I guess we need to be patient with Andy. Yes it would be nice to see it rendered as a brown line or whatever with little http://www.thenationalbyway.org/img/nb_logo.gif shields instead of the Sustrans NCN numbering. But I'm sure it will happen eventually. Is there any likelihood that that time is nigh? I know this sounds like a nag, so if there anything that can be done (style files?) to help get to that point, I'm happy to volunteer. (I know not everyone here cares for the National Byway. For me, it hits the spot for route planning much better than the Sustrans routes, which tend to be just too slow for long journeys.) The two are trying to do very different things, each to their own. Cheers Andy (Yet another Sustrans Volunteer) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Being cast as the most guilty party threatening OSM by having the greatest number of OS data edits and signing the CTs - I thought I'd contribute to make it clear where I stand. I'm absolutely with Peter Miller on this. I trust the OSMF implicitly to get it right which is why I signed the CTs. Why make the OS data available to us if we can't use it? I'm not worried in the slightest by this - I'm too busy mapping. All I see these discussions doing is generating heat but no light Regards brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Another Nottingham Pub Meet-up Week after Easter
I've been remiss in getting another Nottingham Pub Meet-up organised. I'm going to suggest next Tuesday 26th April at the Lincolnshire Poacher, Mansfield Road, from 19:30 onwards. Preferably in the back-room snug. I'll check out if they do food at that time. I'll be outside at 18:30 for anyone who fancy joining me doing a bit of mapping. Suggested options, which I'll prepare with walking papers, include: * Rock Cemetery * The Aboreteum * collecting some no-name roads in St Anns (there are about 30 roads within 250 yards of Mansfield Road where names need checking) If this date is inconvenient we can perhaps try another day next week. I'd like to keep Tuesdays, particularly as Wednesday is the open evening at NottingHack, and fingers crossed, we'll do some future events with them. Cheers, Jerry PS. I'll add this to the wiki shortly. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
I have also made some contributions based on OS OpenData and have just accepted the new CTs. I am disappointed that it got to the point that we had to accept or decline the new terms before the issue over the OS data has been settled, but reasoned that the vast majority of my contributions have been from surveys and I have put a source tag everywhere that I have used OS data. Declining the new terms would have been silly because it would have meant my non-OS based contributions being removed, and I have nothing against the new licence or contributor terms. If someone decides that OS data is not appropriate they can identify them and remove them. That said I think we would be stupid as an organisation to change our license to one that is not compatible with OS data given that the UK government has released it - I am just not that interested in licences! Graham. On 19 April 2011 17:29, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: Being cast as the most guilty party threatening OSM by having the greatest number of OS data edits and signing the CTs - I thought I'd contribute to make it clear where I stand. I'm absolutely with Peter Miller on this. I trust the OSMF implicitly to get it right which is why I signed the CTs. Why make the OS data available to us if we can't use it? I'm not worried in the slightest by this - I'm too busy mapping. All I see these discussions doing is generating heat but no light Regards brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
On 19/04/2011 17:05, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: monxton [mailto:gm...@jordan-maynard.org] wrote: These, and other threads I haven't listed, tend to end with Andy saying that he will render the National Byway tags in their own colour some time in the future. I guess we need to be patient with Andy. Yes it would be nice to see it rendered as a brown line or whatever with little http://www.thenationalbyway.org/img/nb_logo.gif shields instead of the Sustrans NCN numbering. But I'm sure it will happen eventually. It would be nice to see it rendered anyhow. I really, really, don't want to annoy Andy, because if we didn't love the cycle map so much we wouldn't care what it rendered. So I hope his sense of humour is robust enough for me to mention that it's 3.5 years since since the schedule for rendering the National Byway was this week. I'll get my coat. I know not everyone here cares for the National Byway. For me, it hits the spot for route planning much better than the Sustrans routes, which tend to be just too slow for long journeys. The two are trying to do very different things, each to their own. That's something that's said a few times on this list, but IMHO it's only partly true. I'd rather say that the Sustrans routes are trying to do about three different things, and the National Byway does only one of those three. If that were not so, there would not be so many places where the NB takes the same route as a Sustrans route. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 19 April 2011 20:06, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: Declining the new terms would have been silly because it would have meant my non-OS based contributions being removed, That would only be the case if/when we proceed to the next stage in the licence change process and you still hadn't accepted the (possibly amended) terms by then. A decline choice at the moment can be reversed at any time, and in the mean time you can continue to edit and your previous edits remain in the database. (But I'm not sure if this has now been made clear anywhere on the CTs form -- I only found out when I asked the LWG what would happen if I declined when forced to make a choice.) If you're not certain that you're previous contributions satisfy the CTs, then surely the best course of action is not to sign until such time as you are. If people are signing up with potentially incompatible data just to ensure that their other contributions doesn't get deleted, then that rather defeats the whole point of the strict CTs. The more people that don't sign up yet because of the uncertainties, the more pressure there will be for OSMF to find a solution that allows OS OpenData to be used. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
