[Talk-GB] Missing/blank tiles

[ael]

Some tiles on an area that I recently edited seem to be blank? 
Example:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.45764&lon=-4.45504&zoom=17&layers=M

I guess this is because of the hardware failure reported at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Platform_Status ?

ael


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Richard Fairhurst]

Barry Cornelius wrote:
> Robert Whittaker wrote:
> > I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be 
> > that useful -- you should be able to work that out from the 
> > county that the way resides in.
> My view is that it would be useful to include the id of the council 
> as I do not think it's obvious which authority is involved.  For 
> example, the data for Devon does not include Torbay.

I agree with Robert. OSM is a geographic database. We should (and do) have
boundary polygons for Devon County Council, Torbay Council (unitary
authority), and so on. Finding out which authority is responsible for the
path is simply a matter of querying the database to find out whether a
point/line is within this polygon. Many sites using OSM data already do this
sort of query as a matter of course.

As a general principle, we optimise for the mapper. Mappers are our most
important resource, therefore we make it as easy as possible for them to
enter the data, and minimise the 'barriers to entry' - tagging rules they
have to learn before they can enter data. One way we can do this is by
reducing unnecessary duplication - such as entering tags when in fact the
information can be inferred from a boundary polygon.

By analogy, we don't tag roads as ref=A361, operator=Devon County Council.
In line with the principle of optimising for the mapper, we only tag the
exceptions, which in this case are Strategic Roads (ref=A38,
operator=Highways Agency).

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-Guidance-for-adding-PRoW-to-OSM-prow-ref-tp5742085p5742800.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

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Steven Horner]

I've been looking at Durham records online (not available to download) they
are recorded like below:

Status: BW
Parish: Crook
Path Number: 37
Path Ref Number: 028037

The long reference number identifies the Parish (first part) and the path
number (last part) or I believe that's how it is made up from checking
different areas.

If sticking with one PROW code then I guess either prow_ref or prow:ref. I
used prow_ref.
If multiple codes are to be used then to my mind it would make sense to use.

prow:ref
prow:parish
prow:authority




On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Barry Cornelius  wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:47:34 Steven Horner 
> wrote:
>
>> I have followed the guidelines
>> at http://wiki.openstreetmap.**org/wiki/United_Kingdom_**
>> Tagging_Guidelines
>>  but
>> should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would
>> aid
>> logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths, if so how?
>>
>
> Although I cannot add anything useful to the discussion about prow:ref and
> prow_ref, I do have some thoughts about the content of the tag.
>
> Often the data a council provides about a PROW includes duplication.  For
> example, often the parish is given as a nice friendly name and also as a
> number.  Here's an example of the data given about a PROW that is provided
> by Devon County Council (both council and PROW chosen at random):
>Abbots Bickington
>Footpath
>1
>0
>801FP1
>Abbots Bickington Footpath 1
>
> So the id of the parish appears three times (twice as a name and once
> as a number); the number of the path appears three times; and the fact
> that it is a footpath appears three times.
>
> For this, I guess you've got a choice betwen using the contents of CODE or
> NUMBER1. I would recommend choosing whatever appears on the Council's
> interactive map.  Devon County Council uses the contents of the NUMBER1
> field, i.e.:
>Abbots Bickington Footpath 1
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 16:36:53 Craig Loftus 
> >
> wrote:
>
>> Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the namespace? As an example,
>> one
>> additional tag that occurs to me is "prow:operator" (or
>> "prow:authority"), to
>> describe the local authority the references 'belong' to.
>>
>
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:35:31 Robert Whittaker  *com > wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be that
>> useful -- you should be able to work that out from the county that the
>> way resides in.
>>
>
> My view is that it would be useful to include the id of the council as I
> do not think it's obvious which authority is involved.  For example, the
> data for Devon does not include Torbay.  And Bedfordshire is provided by
> two councils: Bedford and Central Bedfordshire.  Gloucestershire is
> provided by the councils of Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire.
>
> For my web site (www.rowmaps.com), I've chosen to use the two letter
> codes that are used by the OS Opendata 1:50 000 Scale Gazetteer:
>http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.**uk/oswebsite/products/50k-**
> gazetteer/index.html
>
> The two letter code is in field 12 of their colon-separated file.  There
> are 208 different values.  Fields 13 and 14 of that file also provide short
> names and long names.
>
> Here are some examples of fields 12, 13 and 14:
>BF:Beds:Bedford
>BK:C Beds:Central Bedfordshire
>DN:Devon:Devon
>DU:Durham:Durham
>GR:Glos:Gloucestershire
>SG:S Glos:South Gloucestershire
>TB:Torbay:Torbay
>
> Either you bundle the id of the council in with the name of the PROW as in:
>Devon Abbots Bickington Footpath 1
>
> Or as suggested by Craig you could provide it in a separate tag - he was
> suggesting "prow:operator" or "prow:authority".
>
> All of the data for councils that I've seen specify the parish in which
> the PROW appears.  So, really there are three separate pieces of
> information:
>id of council
>id of parish
>id of PROW
> e.g.,:
>Devon
>Abbots Bickington
>Footpath 1
> or:
>DN
>801
>FP1
>
> --
> Barry Cornelius
> http://www.northeastraces.com/
> http://www.thehs2.com/
> http://www.rowmaps.com/
> http://www.oxonpaths.com/
> http://www.barrycornelius.com/
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>


-- 
www.stevenhorner.com  
 @stevenhorner 
 0191 645 2265
 stevenhorner
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Rob Nickerson]

I did wonder whether someone would ask something like that!

On "name=", I would avoid this because people do not refer to e.g. "Abbots
Bickington Footpath 1" in general conversation (although perhaps that’s
because we never knew the names until the Local Authorities started to
release the data).

In regards to "prow_name" and "prow_ref" my concern is that each Local
Authority uses differing conventions. In the example of Devon they have
provided a reference in both parish ID and parish Name format. Not all do
this. For those that just release e.g. "Acle FP1" then would this be a
prow_name or a prow_ref...? Due to this confusion, I suggest sticking with
the "dominant" reference (used on the Local Authoritiy's map) as suggested
by Barry, but lets see what the others think.

Rob




On 4 January 2013 17:04, Ed Loach  wrote:

> Not that Essex have released their data, so I’ve not had to worry about
> this, but wouldn’t this be an argument for prow_ref and prow_name? Or even
> prow_ref and name?
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 04 January 2013 17:01
> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
>
> ** **
>
> I agree that if there is a choice for prow_ref such as:
>
> 801FP1
>
> Abbots Bickington Footpath 1
>
> ** **
>
> then I would use the same as the councils interactive map. If this isn't
> possible I would prefer written parish names rather than codes. That is
> prow_ref=Abbots Bickington Footpath 1
>
> Rob
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Rob Nickerson]

I agree that if there is a choice for prow_ref such as:

801FP1
Abbots Bickington Footpath 1


then I would use the same as the councils interactive map. If this isn't
possible I would prefer written parish names rather than codes. That is
prow_ref=Abbots Bickington Footpath 1

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

[Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)

[Rob Nickerson]

Barry,

Local government regions in England can be very confusing. For public
rights of way the responsibility of legally collating these on the
Definitive Map and Statement lies with those regions that are “surveying
authorities”. This is the same as the 152 (151 if you exclude the “City of
London”) Local Authorities listed in the Principal Authorities table:

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_England*

As shown, “Bedfordshire” is no longer a surveying authority and this is why
you get PRoW data from both “Bedford” and “Central Bedfordshire”. If this
is understood then we shouldn’t need to tag the local authority as it can
be determined from the geography.

Similarly Torbay is its own surveying authority and hence it is excluded
from Devon’s data.

Hope this helps,
Rob

p.s. the 32 London borough, plus CoL do not have to collate PRoW data.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

[Barry Cornelius]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:47:34 Steven Horner  wrote:

I have followed the guidelines
at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but
should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would aid
logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths, if so how?


Although I cannot add anything useful to the discussion about prow:ref and 
prow_ref, I do have some thoughts about the content of the tag.


Often the data a council provides about a PROW includes duplication.  For 
example, often the parish is given as a nice friendly name and also as a 
number.  Here's an example of the data given about a PROW that is provided 
by Devon County Council (both council and PROW chosen at random):

   Abbots Bickington
   Footpath
   1
   0
   801FP1
   Abbots Bickington Footpath 1

So the id of the parish appears three times (twice as a name and once
as a number); the number of the path appears three times; and the fact that 
it is a footpath appears three times.


For this, I guess you've got a choice betwen using the contents of CODE or 
NUMBER1. I would recommend choosing whatever appears on the Council's 
interactive map.  Devon County Council uses the contents of the NUMBER1 
field, i.e.:

   Abbots Bickington Footpath 1

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 16:36:53 Craig Loftus  wrote:

Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the namespace? As an example, one
additional tag that occurs to me is "prow:operator" (or "prow:authority"), to
describe the local authority the references 'belong' to.


On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:35:31 Robert Whittaker  
wrote:

I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be that
useful -- you should be able to work that out from the county that the
way resides in.


My view is that it would be useful to include the id of the council as I 
do not think it's obvious which authority is involved.  For example, the 
data for Devon does not include Torbay.  And Bedfordshire is provided by 
two councils: Bedford and Central Bedfordshire.  Gloucestershire is 
provided by the councils of Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire.


For my web site (www.rowmaps.com), I've chosen to use the two letter codes 
that are used by the OS Opendata 1:50 000 Scale Gazetteer:

   http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/50k-gazetteer/index.html

The two letter code is in field 12 of their colon-separated file.  There 
are 208 different values.  Fields 13 and 14 of that file also provide 
short names and long names.


Here are some examples of fields 12, 13 and 14:
   BF:Beds:Bedford
   BK:C Beds:Central Bedfordshire
   DN:Devon:Devon
   DU:Durham:Durham
   GR:Glos:Gloucestershire
   SG:S Glos:South Gloucestershire
   TB:Torbay:Torbay

Either you bundle the id of the council in with the name of the PROW as 
in:

   Devon Abbots Bickington Footpath 1

Or as suggested by Craig you could provide it in a separate tag - he was 
suggesting "prow:operator" or "prow:authority".


All of the data for councils that I've seen specify the parish in which 
the PROW appears.  So, really there are three separate pieces of 
information:

   id of council
   id of parish
   id of PROW
e.g.,:
   Devon
   Abbots Bickington
   Footpath 1
or:
   DN
   801
   FP1

--
Barry Cornelius
http://www.northeastraces.com/
http://www.thehs2.com/
http://www.rowmaps.com/
http://www.oxonpaths.com/
http://www.barrycornelius.com/___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb