Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road

[Andy Allan]

On 19 June 2012 14:11, Gregory  wrote:

>> I use "admin:ref" for refs that are predominantly intended for
>> administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage.
>
> Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer.

No, that's not true. Please see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer ,
especially:

"the tags being used are accurate and not misleading" - that describes
to me the use of "admin:ref". If Richard was using, say,
"source:generator = B234", or "landuse = B234" that would be
"deliberately tag[ging] incorrectly for the renderer".

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road

[Andy Allan]

On 19 June 2012 12:59, David Groom  wrote:

> a) Not a problem at all;
> b) simply a problem for the rendering, and no change to the tagging is
> required;
> c) a possible problem with the tagging?

I'd say c). It seems to me like the road reference number (e.g. A514)
and public right of way reference number (e.g. B442) are not mutually
exclusive - i.e. a particular way could have both a road reference
number and also a public right of way reference number. If we are
using the same tag key (i.e. "ref") for non-mutually exclusive tags,
then that suggests to me there's a problem with the tagging.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Olympic torch route on Guardian website

[Dave F.]

On 19/06/2012 17:22, Ben Pollinger wrote:

Hello all,

I just noticed this uses OSM data:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/interactive/2012/may/18/olympic-torch-route-map-london-2012

I quite like the rendering style, though it shows up the patchiness of
things like farmland and woodland in rural areas. I wonder if The
Guardian did this in house?


It looks similar to the render used by First Great Western on their 
screens in the 'media' carriage.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 14:33 +0100, Gregory wrote:
> 
> 
> On 19 June 2012 14:13, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> Gregory wrote:
> > On 19 June 2012 14:07, Richard Fairhurst
>  wrote:
> 
> >> I use "admin:ref" for refs that are predominantly intended
> for
> >> administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage.
> > Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer.
> 
> 
> How dare you! :p
> 
> In road terms, there is a big difference between the "C64" and
> the
> "B2018". The former is of no use to man nor beast, unless man
> or beast
> happens to work for the County Council. Tell me, what would
> you think if
> your satnav suddenly told you "at the next roundabout, take
> the
> [unsignposted] C64"?
> 
> 
> I would think, wow OSM data is much more complete than TomTom. (and
> then I'd have to dangerously look at the screen to see which exit it
> was).
> 
> 
> But my GPS could be clever and not tell me unless it's a primary or
> secondary road.
> The Standard/Mapnik rendering shows the C-road ref in a different
> style, instead it could decide not to show those refs at all. I think
> they look a bit messy so I would agree with this style change.
> 
> 
> If man nor beast works at the County Council, who does(I often wonder
> this)?
> 
A neighbouring mapper to me does work for the Council, and his area is
complete with C road numbers.

Phil



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

[Talk-GB] Olympic torch route on Guardian website

[Ben Pollinger]

Hello all,

I just noticed this uses OSM data:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/interactive/2012/may/18/olympic-torch-route-map-london-2012

I quite like the rendering style, though it shows up the patchiness of
things like farmland and woodland in rural areas. I wonder if The
Guardian did this in house?

And yes, OSM is credited appropriately (though not linked).

Regards,
Ben

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

Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] National Memorial Arboretum this Saturday

[Andy Robinson]

Hi Brian,

 

Brilliant. And thanks for the heads up on the standing water.

 

Cheers

Andy

 

From: Brian Prangle [mailto:br...@mappa-mercia.org] 
Sent: 19 June 2012 13:46
To: Andy Robinson
Cc: Philip John; talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org;
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] National Memorial Arboretum this
Saturday

 

Hi Andy

 

As you know I won't be able to make it on Saturday. However I feel guilty,
having suggested this venue and then ducking out. So I took advantage of the
good weather today and spent a couple of hours surveying at NMA so that I
have made a contribution to the mapping effort - mostly the Far East
memorials and gardens to the NE of the Visitor Centre. I'll try to edit much
of the data over the next couple of days. There are still hundreds of
memorials left!  In fact just about every tree is dedicated to someone or
some organisation.  The ground in many places is very waterlogged with
surface water.

 

Regards

 

Brian

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Andy Robinson  wrote:

Phil,

 

The more the merrier!

 

Cheers

Andy

 

From: phil.pe...@gmail.com [mailto:phil.pe...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Philip
John
Sent: 18 June 2012 13:37
To: Andy Robinson
Cc: talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] National Memorial Arboretum this
Saturday

 

As I live in Lichfield I was hoping to attend but now can't.

 

However, in the interests of boosting interest in and membership of
OSM/Mappa Mercia would it be useful for me to post something on my
hyperlocal site, Lichfield Live   inviting
people to join in?

 

Phil

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Andy Robinson  wrote:

We have a micro mapping party proposed for this Saturday to the National
Memorial Arboretum [1] at Alrewas, Staffs [2]. I'm now available so will be
able to make it and I'll do a little planning this week to smooth the day.
It would be handy to get an idea of numbers who are planning to come along
so if you can respond to the list that would be great.

The NMA is a sobering place to visit so don't be surprised if you spend more
time reading the memorial details than mapping if you haven’t been before.
At 150 acres the site is far bigger than you can individually get around in
one day and see everything.

The NMA has its own map which they sell for £3 together with a detailed
guidebook for £6.50. They also have a simple 3D map on their website [3].
Our plan is to improve our own detail and get as many of the memorials on
OpenStreetMap as possible (there are hundreds!)

Entrance to the NMA is Free (they encourage donation) and car parking is £3
Pay and Display. Alternatively you can cycle to it by taking Route 54 from
Lichfield/Burton [4] and looking out for the signs to the Arboretum through
Alrewas or Fradley. Suggest you plan the route first as the Sustrans cycle
signs are not that easy to spot. The quiet route signed is through Fradley.
Note there is no access from Alrewas directly to Croxall Road, you have to
use the main Burton Road (A513) instead.

There is a visitor café/restaurant on site which is where I suggest we meet
at 10am (they open at 9) and also would be the logical place for lunch
unless you bring your own sandwiches.
Note that the site is quite exposed and can be bracing when windy so be
prepared for the weather on the day.

Cheers
Andy

[1] http://www.thenma.org.uk/
[2]  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.72855

&lon=-1.7266&zoom=16&layers=M
[3] http://www.thenma.org.uk/the-nma/map/map-of-the-arboretum/
[4] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.72986

&lon=-1.73671&zoom=15&layers=C






___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

 


___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Andy Allan]

On 17 June 2012 12:44, Martin - CycleStreets
 wrote:

> This data for each area is now available, converted, and ready for easy
> merging in with a new Potlatch2 tool Andy has written. The DfT is very keen
> to see the data more widely used, by OSM.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/England_Cycling_Data_project

I've just uploaded another 41 areas - you can see them now on the wiki
page above (scroll down to "Ashford" and go down from there).

That should hopefully be all of them now, but I'll update the list if
we add any more.

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road

[Gregory]

On 19 June 2012 14:13, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> Gregory wrote:
> > On 19 June 2012 14:07, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> >> I use "admin:ref" for refs that are predominantly intended for
> >> administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage.
> > Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer.
>
> How dare you! :p
>
> In road terms, there is a big difference between the "C64" and the
> "B2018". The former is of no use to man nor beast, unless man or beast
> happens to work for the County Council. Tell me, what would you think if
> your satnav suddenly told you "at the next roundabout, take the
> [unsignposted] C64"?
>
>
> I would think, wow OSM data is much more complete than TomTom. (and then
I'd have to dangerously look at the screen to see which exit it was).

But my GPS could be clever and not tell me unless it's a primary or
secondary road.
The Standard/Mapnik rendering shows the C-road ref in a different style,
instead it could decide not to show those refs at all. I think they look a
bit messy so I would agree with this style change.

If man nor beast works at the County Council, who does(I often wonder this)?

-- 
Gregory
o...@livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road

[Richard Fairhurst]

Gregory wrote:
> On 19 June 2012 14:07, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>> I use "admin:ref" for refs that are predominantly intended for
>> administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage.
> Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer.

How dare you! :p

In road terms, there is a big difference between the "C64" and the
"B2018". The former is of no use to man nor beast, unless man or beast
happens to work for the County Council. Tell me, what would you think if
your satnav suddenly told you "at the next roundabout, take the
[unsignposted] C64"?

cheers
Richard




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

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road

[Gregory]

On 19 June 2012 14:07, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> David Groom wrote:
> > However at the north end there is a (newly erected) public footpath
> > sign showing a footpath ref of B64, pointing straight down this road,
> > and the definitive map shows this as a footpath.
>
> I use "admin:ref" for refs that are predominantly intended for
> administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage.
>
Now that sounds like tagging for the renderer.

The problem in the stated case, is that there is potentially a footpath ref
and a road ref.
I would want to suggest something like footpath:ref=B64 or prow:ref=B64,
but I don't think either is used or documented anywhere.

-- 
Gregory
o...@livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road

[Richard Fairhurst]

David Groom wrote:
> However at the north end there is a (newly erected) public footpath 
> sign showing a footpath ref of B64, pointing straight down this road, 
> and the definitive map shows this as a footpath.

I use "admin:ref" for refs that are predominantly intended for
administrative usage, rather than public-facing usage. (The obvious example
of this in the UK is C roads.) That would seem to work here too: granted,
the one you mention appears to be signposted but I presume that's more for
fault-reporting purposes - "dear County Council, the farmer has a bull
roaming free in the field crossed by B64", that sort of thing - rather than
actually expecting people to say "oh, I went for a nice walk on B64 today".

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-PRoW-Ref-codes-WAS-Hampshire-Rights-of-Way-Data-released-under-OS-OpenData-licence-tp5710929p5713398.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] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road

[David Groom]

Longwood Lane  when driving a car along it looks pretty much like a normal 
highway, although it is rather narrow.  It has an asphalt surface, and when 
turning in from the north, or south there is nothing to show there is 
anything special about this road at all from a vehicles point of view.


However at the north end there is a (newly erected) public footpath sign 
showing a footpath ref of B64, pointing straight down this road, and the 
definitive map shows this as a footpath.


Currently I've tagged this way as follows:

highway = unclassified
designation = public_footpath
ref = B64
name =  Longwood Lane

The "problem" is that the map now displays the "ref", as if it were a road 
ref, whilst no other footpath refs get shown


http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.664715&lon=-1.168427&zoom=15&layers=M 
. (see laso B33a and NC45a to the WNW of B64)


Is this:

a) Not a problem at all;
b) simply a problem for the rendering, and no change to the tagging is 
required;

c) a possible problem with the tagging?


David 




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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Ed Loach]

> > It's just a "vanilla" potlatch instance, by the way. All the
merging
> > panels etc are built-in to the standard potlatch, there's no
special
> > code or branch or anything in the deployment that we're using
> > here.

I wondered if the created_by changeset tag value could be the same
as the name that shows in the OAuth settings list (e.g. " Potlatch 2
(cnxc)"), but that is probably an enhancement request I should put
in trac...

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Robert Scott]

On Tuesday 19 June 2012, Andy Allan wrote:
> On 19 June 2012 09:41, Robert Scott  wrote:
> 
> > Or even could we just have the changesets tagged that they're being made by 
> > the cnxc potlatch rather than vanilla potlatch?
> 
> It's just a "vanilla" potlatch instance, by the way. All the merging
> panels etc are built-in to the standard potlatch, there's no special
> code or branch or anything in the deployment that we're using here.
> 
> It's the extra layer definitions in vectors.xml that trigger the
> merging functionality. You can take any installation of p2 and add
> your own layers in the vectors.xml file, and I'd encourage people to
> run custom deployments of p2 whenever and where-ever is appropriate!

Then I wonder if it would be totally insane to make (vanilla) potlatch add some 
sort of "potlatch instance base url" tag to changesets.


robert.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Andy Allan]

On 19 June 2012 09:41, Robert Scott  wrote:

> Or even could we just have the changesets tagged that they're being made by 
> the cnxc potlatch rather than vanilla potlatch?

It's just a "vanilla" potlatch instance, by the way. All the merging
panels etc are built-in to the standard potlatch, there's no special
code or branch or anything in the deployment that we're using here.

It's the extra layer definitions in vectors.xml that trigger the
merging functionality. You can take any installation of p2 and add
your own layers in the vectors.xml file, and I'd encourage people to
run custom deployments of p2 whenever and where-ever is appropriate!

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Robert Scott]

On Sunday 17 June 2012, Martin - CycleStreets wrote:
> 
> As previously announced [1], we've been working with Andy Allan and the 
> DfT's contractors to open up the cycling data that the DfT have collected 
> (via manual surveys on bikes) over recent years.
> 
> This data for each area is now available, converted, and ready for easy 
> merging in with a new Potlatch2 tool Andy has written. The DfT is very keen 
> to see the data more widely used, by OSM.
> 
> ...

Do you think we could have the tool add/augment source= tags for merged 
objects? I know Andy's not the greatest fan of source= tags - but it would be 
useful to keep a bit of a paper trail and explain any additions to other users.

Or even could we just have the changesets tagged that they're being made by the 
cnxc potlatch rather than vanilla potlatch?


robert.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to work with Government Open Data (e.g. Boundaries, Rights of Way)

[Jonathan Harley]

On 19/06/12 09:10, Nick Whitelegg wrote:


On 18/06/2012 13:28, Gregory wrote:

How do footpaths work legally with textual descriptions?
If a field has a stile/gate at opposite corners. The footpath may have
originally cut across, legally the landowner has to allow access
between the two gates, but can he make people walk round the edge of
his field. Also in reverse, if the footpath was originally walking
round the edge until people walked diagonally across and the landowner
allowed that by leaving a gap in crops and blocking the edge.
Has the footpath/access changed?


No, it hasn't. A landowner can offer an alternative route, but that
doesn't affect the right of way which remains in the same place as it
always was. (Assuming they haven't taken legal steps to change it.)
Landowners are required to reinstate the surface of a footpath after
ploughing, and keep it clear of vegetation to a width of 1 metre if
crosses a field or 1.5 metres if it goes round the edge.
Jonathan.

Which frequently they don't


Indeed they don't - and that's to say nothing of replacing stiles with 
unclimbable fencing or even putting electric fencing across the line of 
a RoW, as one farmer near my last house used to do all the time.


It's the responsibility of the County Council/Highway Authority to make 
sure paths are kept clear, so they're the ones to contact about it. They 
have the power to clear the path and charge the work to the landowner, 
though I'm told usually just the threat of this works.


J.

--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to work with Government Open Data (e.g. Boundaries, Rights of Way)

[Nick Whitelegg]

On 18/06/2012 13:28, Gregory wrote:
>> How do footpaths work legally with textual descriptions?
>> If a field has a stile/gate at opposite corners. The footpath may have 
>> originally cut across, legally the landowner has to allow access 
>> between the two gates, but can he make people walk round the edge of 
>> his field. Also in reverse, if the footpath was originally walking 
>> round the edge until people walked diagonally across and the landowner 
>> allowed that by leaving a gap in crops and blocking the edge.
>> Has the footpath/access changed?
>>

>No, it hasn't. A landowner can offer an alternative route, but that 
>doesn't affect the right of way which remains in the same place as it 
>always was. (Assuming they haven't taken legal steps to change it.) 
>Landowners are required to reinstate the surface of a footpath after 
>ploughing, and keep it clear of vegetation to a width of 1 metre if 
>crosses a field or 1.5 metres if it goes round the edge.

>Jonathan.

Which frequently they don't (thanks to TimSC for reminding me of this, just one 
example of many):

http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/way/111752914

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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to work with Government Open Data (e.g. Boundaries, Rights of Way)

[Jonathan Harley]

On 18/06/2012 13:28, Gregory wrote:

How do footpaths work legally with textual descriptions?
If a field has a stile/gate at opposite corners. The footpath may have 
originally cut across, legally the landowner has to allow access 
between the two gates, but can he make people walk round the edge of 
his field. Also in reverse, if the footpath was originally walking 
round the edge until people walked diagonally across and the landowner 
allowed that by leaving a gap in crops and blocking the edge.

Has the footpath/access changed?



No, it hasn't. A landowner can offer an alternative route, but that 
doesn't affect the right of way which remains in the same place as it 
always was. (Assuming they haven't taken legal steps to change it.) 
Landowners are required to reinstate the surface of a footpath after 
ploughing, and keep it clear of vegetation to a width of 1 metre if 
crosses a field or 1.5 metres if it goes round the edge.


Jonathan.

--
Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd

Email: m...@spiffymap.com   Phone: 0845 313 8457   www.spiffymap.com
Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ


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

Re: [Talk-GB] streetmap.co.uk

[Henry Gomersall]

On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 08:02 +0100, Borbus wrote:
> On 18/06/12 20:59, Graham Jones wrote:
> > in you go from OS rendering that includes  lots of crude outlines of
> > buildings, garden boundaries etc., to OSM.which doesn't.I
> must try
> > to interest some school children to do some tracing - I am far to
> lazy!
> 
> They're not rendering buildings from OSM anyway.
> 
> Oddly, they've used OSM for just that one layer.  The highest zoom
> level
> uses OS Streetview. 

And a load of paths disappear on higher zooms!


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

Re: [Talk-GB] streetmap.co.uk

[Borbus]

On 18/06/12 20:59, Graham Jones wrote:
> in you go from OS rendering that includes  lots of crude outlines of
> buildings, garden boundaries etc., to OSM.which doesn't.I must try
> to interest some school children to do some tracing - I am far to lazy!

They're not rendering buildings from OSM anyway.

Oddly, they've used OSM for just that one layer.  The highest zoom level
uses OS Streetview.

-- 
Borbus.

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