[Talk-GB] FixMyPaths - Hampshire rights of way problem reporting app - now available for testing

[Nick Whitelegg]

Hi,

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I have developed "FixMyPaths" (formerly 
"OpenHants") an initial prototype version of an Android app to report problems 
on Hampshire rights of way directly
to the council (as well as storing it in my own database, accessible via a web 
service). Currently it's Hampshire only but it's planned in the future to 
extend it to other counties.

The app is now ready for testing at the website:

http://www.fixmypaths.org/

which can also be used to report and view problems.

So if anyone is interested in testing it this weekend or next and is in or near 
Hampshire, please download!
The app initially downloads a large (8-9MB) map file (it uses the client-side 
Mapsforge library) so you'll probably need to have wifi access or have a decent 
download usage limit.

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

[Talk-GB] Sittingbourne

[Chris Baines]

I was looking at the OSM Inspector, and happened to notice a large red bit
over Sittingbourne [1], on closer inspection, there seems to loads of good
data for Sittingbourne in OSM. However in my opinion, its not presented
(tagged, ...) in the best way.

The three issues that I have seen are:
 - landuse=residential building=yes tags on the buildings
   - in most cases this should just be building=house
 - building footprints are too big and often cover many houses
   - just need spiting up, one house, one building way
 - addr data separate from the building outlines
   - merge data per [3]

So, if anyone is having problems finding places to map... Also, if anyone
disagrees with the above assessment, please shout. I have already done a
bit of improvement here [2].

1:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses&lon=0.73599&lat=51.34400&zoom=14&overlays=buildings,buildings_with_addresses,postal_code,nodes_with_addresses_defined,nodes_with_addresses_interpolated,no_addr_street,street_not_found,interpolation,interpolation_errors,connection_lines,nearest_points,nearest_roads
2: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.335704&lon=0.73662&zoom=18&layers=M
3: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Telegraph releases Green Belt data

[Tom Chance]

On Nov 29, 2012 11:57 AM, "Jonathan Harley"  wrote:
>
> On 28/11/12 20:46, Tom Chance wrote:
>> This points to the major flaw with importing this data - it changes year
to year, and we can't easily observe the changes on the ground. We might
spot development on green belt and so remove the designation, we don't spot
where new green space is designated as greenbelt. Unless we had ongoing
co-operation from local authorities, within a year we'd be hosting a
dataset that's out of date and impossible to check.
>
>
> Hardly impossible, since it's public
> information.

Sort of. As you say, it's always shown on maps as part of planning policy
documents, but they're based on Ordnance Survey maps and are themselves
copyrighted. We'd have to get clear permission to use them as a source for
updating openstreetmap.

> Green belt land is supposed to be
> "permanent", if I remember the
> Town and Country Planning Act
> correctly, so it should change less
> often than local government
> boundaries

The general sweep of the belts are permanent, but individual plots can
change designations with a simple change to a local development plan
document, and planning permission can be given on green belt land.

> which have no evidence on the
> ground at all in most places

We used to use bins and local knowledge! These days we also have Ordnance
Survey open data.

> I'm not arguing for a rush to import > this dataset, but it would be
great to > have this information in OSM

I quite agree, I just don't think we have a suitable source yet. In the
meantime it would be quite easy to overlay the Telegraph data on
OpenStreetMap maps, and for GIS users to do interesting analysis.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Telegraph releases Green Belt data

[Gregory]

On 28 November 2012 19:40, Andy Robinson  wrote:

>  Also although it’s called Green Belt it includes many areas that also
> have other designations, such as Country Parks, Golf Courses Recreation
> Grounds, etc etc etc.
>
> **
>
Would you map all the items and then tag their green_beltness (e.g.
leisure=golf_course + protected_area=green_belt), or would you just map an
area around all of them for protected_area=green_belt?

You can tell when it changes.
1) If people stop playing golf and 200 houses are built on the land, it's
probably lost it's green belt status.
2) If you read all the planning notices/applications in your area, and one
is to de-designate the green belt status.

-- 
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] Telegraph releases Green Belt data

[Jonathan Harley]

On 28/11/12 20:46, Tom Chance wrote:
On 28 November 2012 19:40, Andy Robinson > wrote:


Some of the area’s most certainly are not “protected” as they are
actively being discussed for development. 



These are probably areas that have been de-designated, or are being 
considered for this fate, since the Telegraph's data source was compiled.


This points to the major flaw with importing this data - it changes 
year to year, and we can't easily observe the changes on the ground. 
We might spot development on green belt and so remove the designation, 
we don't spot where new green space is designated as greenbelt. Unless 
we had ongoing co-operation from local authorities, within a year we'd 
be hosting a dataset that's out of date and impossible to check.


Hardly impossible, since it's public information. Green belt land is 
supposed to be "permanent", if I remember the Town and Country Planning 
Act correctly, so it should change less often than local government 
boundaries, which have no evidence on the ground at all in most places - 
yet we still maintain them in OSM.


Local authorities normally publish green belt maps as part of their 
planning statements. Unfortunately these are often in hard-to-use 
formats like PDF.


I'm not arguing for a rush to import this dataset, but it would be great 
to have this information in OSM and much easier to maintain it after 
import/tracing than to author it by hand. When I say it would be great 
to have it, in fact I believe this is a huge opportunity for OSM to play 
a vital role in local democracy. And when I say vital, I'm not exaggerating.


The Localism Act 2011 sweeps away a lot of restrictions on planning. 
There is now a thing called "neighbourhood planning" which means that 
communities - or in practice, the tiny proportion of people who take an 
interest in planning - will be able to grant planning permission where 
"they want" to see things built. It limits the powers of professional 
planners to place restrictions on what will be built where - if "the 
community" votes to allow building, it will be allowed without any 
professional input. (Sorry, I mean interference from government.)


This means that property developers will be able to "convince" just a 
few people to vote in favour of a development (you can use your 
imagination how this convincing might be accomplished) and it will go 
ahead. The only safeguard left against this will be to get enough people 
involved in the process, and that requires people to be well informed.


I had some discussions with someone at the Campaign for the Protection 
of Rural England a while ago and they sound very keen to provide tools 
to help communities understand their local geography, given these huge 
new responsibilities that we have been given. Maps are of course key to 
this. If we can present this sort of information in OSM, it could even 
become the de facto source of information for community planning activities.


Worth a shot, no?

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