Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL
On 17 February 2015 at 23:57, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: I could imagine that OGL-3 has imported OS ODL's clause on sublicensing that caused incompatibility with ODbL, which would make OGL-3 incompatible with ODbL.Do we have confirmation that this is not the case, i.e. that OGL-3 and ODbL are compatible? -- Matthijs All the OGL versions are online. A comparison of v2 and v3 shows nothing to worry me. Hopefully Robert W will chip in as he's clued up on all this. Version 3: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ Version 2: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Road Names Quarterly Project
A small story about this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31117763/history Laurie Gray Avenue, Bluebell Hill, Kent, used to have a street sign saying Laurie Gray. Various council documentation and OS locator referred to the 'Avenue' form. After two discussions an openstreetmap mapper asked the relevant council (Tonbridge and Malling) who replied 'That's funny, we'd better sort that' or words to that effect. The sign now has the Avenue suffix. Actually, I rather regret the change as I was imagining the person the road was named after telling the council that if they wanted to call it an avenue they'd better plant trees along it. As there were no trees, no Avenue. Paul On Tuesday 17 Feb 2015 12:16:52 Dan S wrote: 2015-02-17 11:46 GMT+00:00 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: A better paradigm is that the data should be independently verifiable from open sources. If the sign is wrong, it is wrong. Propagating that error does not change that by magical thinking. It is true that street signs can be wrong, but other official data is wrong with roughly the same frequency. There is no absolute truth that we can appeal to. So we need a community standard for which sources of evidence we use for OSM, and that is broadly agreed to prefer things observable on the ground. This does not rule out the use of common sense! Ground truth is of course no good if there is nothing on the ground - such as boundary lines, postcodes and even source=local_knowledge. If there is no sign at all, should we remove the name from OSM, even though we, the local authority and Royal Mail agree that it has a certain name? This is a straw man argument, so let's skip over it. This ground truth business needs a bit of nuance now and then. It's not black and white - in between there are many shades of grey, where common sense needs to be factored in. Common sense, yes of course, no-one said otherwise. I used to find it odd that OSM preferred ground truth over official data, but I've increasingly come to see the wisdom of this. Ground truth however does not mean purely street signs - it's a common-sense combination of evidence, where we give most credit to the evidence that is freely accessible at the location (e.g. street signs, talking to people, looking at bus stops...). This is different from Wikipedia's consensus, which prefers official sources rather than direct experience - a really interesting contrast IMHO! Best Dan On 2015-02-17 11:48, Jonathan Harley wrote: On 17/02/15 10:03, Colin Smale wrote: It's only correct because that's the frame of reference you have chosen in this case. The local authority decides what a street is officially called. How that is transposed to signs sometimes introduces errors, and these errors are sometimes volatile. The OS is not the source of the official name either is it? The frame of reference we use is ground truth - what is actually there in the physical world. Also, the signage at the end of the street is what visitors and delivery drivers see, so it's surely the most practically useful thing to have on a map. J. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL
Hi All, At long last the open data licence scene in the UK has now become a lot simpler as OS have ditched their OS OpenData Licence and replaced it with the standard OGL: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2015/02/were-using-the-open-government-licence-to-encourage-greater-use-of-os-opendata-products/ http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ Good news for OpenStreetMap :-) Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM University of Liverpool exercise (or 200 free(ish) volunteers)
Hi, Thank you everyone for your replies (both on and off list) - I really appreciate the time you've taken to write them. There is a lot to think about in there, which I will spend some time doing. I've not made any decisions yet (the university have kept me quite busy since December) but I will let you know what I end up doing. Best wishes, and many thanks again. Nick. On 27 November 2014 at 13:50, Nick Bearman n.bear...@liverpool.ac.uk wrote: Hi, I hope this is the correct place to post this - if not, please be kind to me (as a newbie) and point me in the right direction! I'm teaching a 1st year Undergraduate module on GIS with approx. 200 Planning and/or Geography students on it next year (Oct 2015 - Mar 2016). This is an Introduction to GIS module, and I'd also like to explore the potential of getting the students to explore and contribute to OSM. This is still quite a way off so I am still developing the material and what the students are going to cover elsewhere in the module. I've found various bits of material on using OSM in this form ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Education, http://teachosm.org/en/w, http://learnosm.org/en/osm-data/). I'm looking for someone who has completed something similar in the past and has any recommendation on how to do this most effectively, and what areas in Liverpool would benefit most from the students contribution. Currently, giving the time available to the students, I would be thinking of a desk-based digitisation exercise, but this can be flexible. I've already contacted John McKerrell but I'm interested to talk to other mappers in Liverpool that can suggest areas that need the most attention and/or who might like to be involved. Please feel free to get in touch (on-list or off-list) if you'd like more details. Best wishes, Nick. -- Dr Nick Bearman | Research Associate University Teacher | n.bear...@liverpool.ac.uk Department of Geography and Planning | University of Liverpool -- Dr Nick Bearman | Research Associate University Teacher Department of Geography and Planning | University of Liverpool ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-gb-london] Pub meet-up tomorrow night at the Parcel Yard
Sorry. Short notice again Tomorrow (Wednesday) night we'll be at the Parcel Yard for a casual social pub meet-up. It's a pub inside Kings Cross station, but not as grotty as it sounds. http://osm.org/go/euu4xjtjx-?m= When you get there... this is a fairly big pub with a confusing layout. There is an upstairs (2nd floor) but we'll mostly likely be on the 1st floor (pub not dining). We'll aim to get a table somewhere but it can be crowded earlier on, so may be standing near the bar at first. If you turn up a little later you may find it easier to spot the group. We'll try to get organised with an OpenStreetMap sign and / or an orange OSM Surveyors Jacket / Polo shirts. From here we inevitably end up going to Benitos Hat, on the station balcony bit at 8 / 8:30 pm before returning to the pub afterwards. You can sign up on lanyrd here: http://lanyrd.com/2015/18-feb-openstreetmap-london/By signing up there, you make the event look more popular (Note: A lot of people don't bother signing up. We expect between 5 and 15 people. It is popular, honest) Hope to see you tomorrow! The next Humanitarian Mapping event, is a week today, but has just run out of places again (sorry. You have to be quick!) However... * Re-check the eventbrite page to see if tickets have come available, and join a waiting list: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/missing-maps-hot-february-2015-mapathon-tickets-15713792376* To avoid missing the next one, which will happen next month, you might sign up here for email updates: https://missingmaps.wufoo.com/forms/missing-maps-project-keep-me-up-to-date/* If you have a bit of OpenStreetMap editing experience and you would like to teach others how to do it, we may be able to sneak you in. Get in touch with me or Pete Masters to get on the OSM trainers list. As always... London events listed here: http://wiki.osm.org/London#Upcoming_Events And you should follow https://twitter.com/OSMLondon Harry ___ Talk-gb-london mailing list Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
Re: [Talk-GB] Road Names Quarterly Project
On 17/02/15 10:03, Colin Smale wrote: It's only correct because that's the frame of reference you have chosen in this case. The local authority decides what a street is officially called. How that is transposed to signs sometimes introduces errors, and these errors are sometimes volatile. The OS is not the source of the official name either is it? The frame of reference we use is ground truth - what is actually there in the physical world. Also, the signage at the end of the street is what visitors and delivery drivers see, so it's surely the most practically useful thing to have on a map. J. -- Dr Jonathan Harley SpiffyMap Ltd j...@spiffymap.net www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Road Names Quarterly Project
I've seen numerous examples of this in OS OpenData, including fields marked up as woodland (which aren't on their paid paper maps), also they move things out of the way, e.g. buildings and drains to make way for the roads. Also, if anyone has used the OS VectorData to any extent, they'll notice it's also been altered (simplified) unnecessarily, or random things have been omitted for no apparent reason, e.g. large ponds, whilst the small ones are included. It almost seems to me that the OpenData is purposely created this way to limit its usefulness (e.g. No vector version of StreetView, missing tracks (but they include historical roman roads??), so they've done the absolute minimum to make their data open. Compared with other countries who offer all of their data for public use, it's pretty sad unfortunately. I think it's safe to say that OS OpenData should not be used as an authoritative source. Tony On 17 February 2015 at 11:31, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: Local authorities name streets. If the name board on a street is wrong people tend to complain and get it replaced. If the street name on an open version of OS data is wrong no one complains. I would always trust the name board rather than OS open data. Strangely enough the names on the streets match the names on the paid-for versions of OS data (that we can't use in OSM) so I wonder how and why the OS open data has the names wrong in the first place. Cheers, Chris On 17 February 2015 10:03:42 GMT, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: It's only correct because that's the frame of reference you have chosen in this case. The local authority decides what a street is officially called. How that is transposed to signs sometimes introduces errors, and these errors are sometimes volatile. The OS is not the source of the official name either is it? On 2015-02-17 10:45, Philip Barnes wrote: On Mon Feb 16 23:35:41 2015 GMT, Pmailkeey . wrote: On 16 February 2015 at 15:51, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: In these cases you should check the name on the signs and if osm is wrong correct it. I my experience osm is often right and os opendata is incorrect, in these cases add the opendata name to a not:name tag. Where osm in incorrect it is often caused by an awkward spelling, so a photo can be useful. Sommerfeld Road in Telford took me a few attempts to get right, originally mapped as Summerfield. Phil (trigpoint) What's the general consensus where *current *OS data and the sign is wrong ? Should OSM show the wrong name but flag it as being wrong or show the correct name and add the wrong name as a not:name ? OSM should show the correct name, which is the one on the sign. Not:name is there to suppress the error and to indicate a mapper has surveyed it and shown the OS are incorrect. From my experience OSM is usually correct, the biggest cause of error is OS getting apostrophes wrong, and if OSM is wrong it is usually a weird spelling where the mapper has remembered the name but has forgotten how it was spelt. Phil (trigpoint ) Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb --- cheers, Chris osm user, chillly ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Road Names Quarterly Project
On Mon Feb 16 23:35:41 2015 GMT, Pmailkeey . wrote: On 16 February 2015 at 15:51, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: In these cases you should check the name on the signs and if osm is wrong correct it. I my experience osm is often right and os opendata is incorrect, in these cases add the opendata name to a not:name tag. Where osm in incorrect it is often caused by an awkward spelling, so a photo can be useful. Sommerfeld Road in Telford took me a few attempts to get right, originally mapped as Summerfield. Phil (trigpoint) What's the general consensus where *current *OS data and the sign is wrong ? Should OSM show the wrong name but flag it as being wrong or show the correct name and add the wrong name as a not:name ? OSM should show the correct name, which is the one on the sign. Not:name is there to suppress the error and to indicate a mapper has surveyed it and shown the OS are incorrect. From my experience OSM is usually correct, the biggest cause of error is OS getting apostrophes wrong, and if OSM is wrong it is usually a weird spelling where the mapper has remembered the name but has forgotten how it was spelt. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Road Names Quarterly Project
A better paradigm is that the data should be independently verifiable from open sources. If the sign is wrong, it is wrong. Propagating that error does not change that by magical thinking. Ground truth is of course no good if there is nothing on the ground - such as boundary lines, postcodes and even source=local_knowledge. If there is no sign at all, should we remove the name from OSM, even though we, the local authority and Royal Mail agree that it has a certain name? This ground truth business needs a bit of nuance now and then. It's not black and white - in between there are many (50?) shades of grey, where common sense needs to be factored in. On 2015-02-17 11:48, Jonathan Harley wrote: On 17/02/15 10:03, Colin Smale wrote: It's only correct because that's the frame of reference you have chosen in this case. The local authority decides what a street is officially called. How that is transposed to signs sometimes introduces errors, and these errors are sometimes volatile. The OS is not the source of the official name either is it? The frame of reference we use is ground truth - what is actually there in the physical world. Also, the signage at the end of the street is what visitors and delivery drivers see, so it's surely the most practically useful thing to have on a map. J. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
