Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode data

[Rob Nickerson]

I would imagine that this would add a fair number of postcodes, and
although those interested in address lookup can just use the centroid
database without needing to go to OSM, this requires knowledge of the
database (which non-UK developers might not have) and does not link
postcodes back to address numbers and street names. Also recall that the
Auto industry asked in 2012 how OSM intends to bridge the gap between us
and commercial map providers. Something like this would be a good step in
the right direction in my opinion.

>From what I have heard, this sounds like a very cautious import and I am
happy to support it. It may even have lower "error" rates than some manual
edits!!

RobJN

p.s. Matt, if you are reading this, do you still update your graph of
number of postcodes added to OSM? Might be interesting to see it.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of disused railway stations

[Richard Fairhurst]

Bogus Zaba wrote:
> Anybody know where should this be reported as a rendering bug?

It's not so much a rendering bug, more a tagging discrepancy. The railway
stations in question are those tagged as

railway=station; disused=yes

There are those who say (and I can see their point) that this is a really
dumb way of tagging things. It's effectively saying "This is a railway
station; OH NO IT'S NOT". It means every single client using OSM data has to
know about "disused=yes" and add an extra processing rule. If you're writing
a Mapnik stylesheet, that's an extra condition on pretty much every single
rule - disused pubs, disused stations, disused roads, and so on. OSM tagging
doesn't, and shouldn't, usually work like that.

So the better approach is to tag it differently. Unfortunately there isn't
really an agreed, simple way of doing this. Sometimes you'll see something
like

railway=disused; disused=station

which (IMHO) is ugly, and means nothing can be two disused things at once
(which would be a problem if Stalybridge station and its pub were to close
;) ).

And, of course, this is OSM so there are always people who think the
solution is namespacing, aka liberal use of colons.
railway:historic=station_site seems mildly popular, but heck, that's
unwieldy.

Personally I like these simple variants reported by taginfo:

railway=disused_station
railway=abandoned_station
or even
historic=station

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Rendering-of-disused-railway-stations-tp5745223p5745232.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] Rendering of disused railway stations

[Derick Rethans]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Bogus Zaba wrote:

> Has anybody else noticed / been annoyed by the way that disused railway
> stations are rendered just like regular railway stations on the cycle map,
> transport map and MapQuest open views of OSM?

I think disused railways and raillines that are not visible on the 
ground shouldn't be in the data base. If the structure and/or tracks are 
still there, they should be rendered differently. However, because it's 
no longer a station, railway=station seems inappropriate.

cheers,
Derick

-- 
http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug
Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of disused railway stations

[Richard Mann]

One in London has had disused: put in front of the tags

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1528661184


On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Bogus Zaba  wrote:

> Has anybody else noticed / been annoyed by the way that disused railway
> stations are rendered just like regular railway stations on the cycle map,
> transport map and MapQuest open views of OSM?
>
> Mapnik seems to know the difference and renders the disused stations with
> a smaller symbol and grey label, but viewing the other three layers leads
> you to the conclusion that these are all regular stations.
>
> For an example see this (http://www.openstreetmap.org/**
> ?lat=53.43943&lon=-2.96918&**zoom=15&layers=C)
> in North Liverpool where I was cycling using the cycle map recently. Bank
> Hall and Kirkdale are regular stations which are both useful landmarks for
> a cyclist and offer a potential ride home whereas Spellow and Walton &
> Anfield do not exist.
>
> I understand that there are enthusiasts out there who are interested in
> historic maps, but the features which are important for that type of
> mapping can just get in the way of useful everyday find-your-way-around
> maps.
>
> Anybody know where should this be reported as a rendering bug?
>
> Thanks
>
> Bogus Zaba
>
> __**_
> 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

[Talk-GB] Rendering of disused railway stations

[Bogus Zaba]

Has anybody else noticed / been annoyed by the way that disused railway 
stations are rendered just like regular railway stations on the cycle 
map, transport map and MapQuest open views of OSM?


Mapnik seems to know the difference and renders the disused stations 
with a smaller symbol and grey label, but viewing the other three layers 
leads you to the conclusion that these are all regular stations.


For an example see this 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.43943&lon=-2.96918&zoom=15&layers=C) 
in North Liverpool where I was cycling using the cycle map recently. 
Bank Hall and Kirkdale are regular stations which are both useful 
landmarks for a cyclist and offer a potential ride home whereas Spellow 
and Walton & Anfield do not exist.


I understand that there are enthusiasts out there who are interested in 
historic maps, but the features which are important for that type of 
mapping can just get in the way of useful everyday find-your-way-around 
maps.


Anybody know where should this be reported as a rendering bug?

Thanks

Bogus Zaba

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

Re: [Talk-GB] European Walking Route E2 / Staffordshire Way / Viking Way

[SomeoneElse]

Gregory Williams wrote:

I know that E2 exists down here in Kent. In the past couple of years a number 
of new signs have been put up on the North Downs Way, which E2 follows. These 
include an insert with a European flag and E2 on them.



Thanks to all who replied.  It's good to know that at least in some 
places the E2 is actually signed as such.  I'll not manually add "new" 
bits of Staffordshire Way to the E2 relation, and I'll not further mess 
with the three relations and super-relation that make up most of the 
Staffordshire Way now, as I suspect that if it was merged it would only 
need to be split later as it got too big.


Cheers,
Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Alton Towers

[Andy Allan]

On 17 January 2013 01:38, SomeoneElse  wrote:
> Anyone familiar with Alton Towers / rollercoasters in general?
>
> This changeset:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14382319
>
> has merged a number of different-layered sections of "Nemesis" into one.
> It's by a very new mapper, so I suspect that the layer changes were
> accidental.  It's also now apparently "railway = light_rail"; is that OK?

No, the light_rail stuff isn't OK. It's not a light rail system, it's
a rollercoaster!

Cheers,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode data

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 16 January 2013 13:04, Brian Prangle  wrote:
> You might like to get a volunteer to check a pilot import that's limited
> within a manageable area - suggest a limited range of postcodes

Another useful check would be to apply your matching over the OSM
database, and pull out all the potential polygons that are already
tagged with a postcode. Then compare the existing tagging with the
postcode you get from the external data. Loot at the number /
percentage of dependencies, and for each one try to work out which
source is correct. This might will give you another indication of the
accuracy of the proposed import.

(Personally, I'm not sure I see much benefit to the import. It's
presumably going to add relatively few postcodes, so won't be that
much use for anyone wanting to use OSM data for postcode look-ups.
Indeed anyone wanting to do that could just as easily use the centroid
data directly to map a postcode to a location, and then use that
location to do whatever searching they want to do on OSM. There is
obviously some advantage in that we'll have more buildings / amenities
with properly assigned post-codes. But because of the relatively low
benefit (unless I'm missing something) I would say that the community
should see good evidence for an extremely low error rate on the import
before agreeing that it would be a good thing to do.)

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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