Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

[Paul Sladen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Andy Robinson wrote:
> I've now reverted.

I fear that unless the render starts rendering
"bridge={viaduct,yes,etc}" such re-tagging is likely to continue---or
at least "highway=track; access=private" getting added to more things.

Is there a suggested plan for how we can get the missing
viaducts/tunnels onto the default rendering to avoid future
"tagging for the renderer" diff noise?

-Paul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFVpap0c444tukM+iQRAmI0AJ9fwH3ip15FHrJ6pjOCTkKDoqOkPQCfXyQH
OHlSp7llF+uDUlZHAa+5m2k=
=LA/A
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

[Andy Robinson]

Actually it was pmailkey who changed the tags on that structure a few months 
back and did other incorrect changes to what's left of the viaduct. I've now 
reverted.

-Original Message-
From: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 14 July 2015 22:24
To: 'Andy Townsend'; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

We could take that line of thought further. A viaduct/bridge etc actually has 
nothing to do with a railway per se. It’s a structural object in its own right. 
What we should be doing is rendering the bridge structure first and then if 
appropriate putting a way over the top if the structure is in use in some way - 
whether original railway (current or disused), unofficial footpath or 
designated cycleway etc.

Vauxhall/Bordesley Viaduct in Birmingham was built to carry a railway over it 
but was never used because the rail connection was never made. Its currently 
tagged as railway=disused but that’s not really true.

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Andy Townsend [mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 July 2015 21:31
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

On 14/07/2015 20:24, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> The only significant difference seems to be that the latter is tagged:
>
> railway=disused
>
> rather than "abandoned". In actual fact, "unused" would be more 
> appropriate, as it was never used.
>

It looks like it was recently changed from "abandoned" to "disused".  
Call me a cynic, but I wonder if that was someone simply "tagging for the 
renderer"?  If there are no in-situ rails, it's not "disused".

Cheers,

Andy.


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

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4821 / Virus Database: 4365/10222 - Release Date: 07/13/15


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4821 / Virus Database: 4365/10222 - Release Date: 07/13/15


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

[Andy Robinson]

We could take that line of thought further. A viaduct/bridge etc actually has 
nothing to do with a railway per se. It’s a structural object in its own right. 
What we should be doing is rendering the bridge structure first and then if 
appropriate putting a way over the top if the structure is in use in some way - 
whether original railway (current or disused), unofficial footpath or 
designated cycleway etc.

Vauxhall/Bordesley Viaduct in Birmingham was built to carry a railway over it 
but was never used because the rail connection was never made. Its currently 
tagged as railway=disused but that’s not really true.

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Andy Townsend [mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 14 July 2015 21:31
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

On 14/07/2015 20:24, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> The only significant difference seems to be that the latter is tagged:
>
> railway=disused
>
> rather than "abandoned". In actual fact, "unused" would be more 
> appropriate, as it was never used.
>

It looks like it was recently changed from "abandoned" to "disused".  
Call me a cynic, but I wonder if that was someone simply "tagging for the 
renderer"?  If there are no in-situ rails, it's not "disused".

Cheers,

Andy.


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

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4821 / Virus Database: 4365/10222 - Release Date: 07/13/15


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

[Andy Townsend]

On 14/07/2015 20:24, Andy Mabbett wrote:

The only significant difference seems to be that the latter is tagged:

railway=disused

rather than "abandoned". In actual fact, "unused" would be more
appropriate, as it was never used.



It looks like it was recently changed from "abandoned" to "disused".  
Call me a cynic, but I wonder if that was someone simply "tagging for 
the renderer"?  If there are no in-situ rails, it's not "disused".


Cheers,

Andy.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

[Andy Mabbett]

On 13 July 2015 at 08:53, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> The significant (and massive) disused railway viaduct near Thrapston:
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264894970
>
> does not render on our default map

However, this viaduct of comparable size, does:

   https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4929040

The only significant difference seems to be that the latter is tagged:

   railway=disused

rather than "abandoned". In actual fact, "unused" would be more
appropriate, as it was never used.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi all,

Thanks to those 65 people who have responded to the survey so far. I want
to address a few of the comments on the mailing list.

The idea of a group has been discussed many time before but it has never
progressed. I believe that this is because it has never been clear what the
group should do - some people want it to focus on X, others on Y. The
survey is designed to gather quantitative data on the "what" and also the
"how". With the results of the survey we can look at the next step with
real evidence to support it.

So open-ended questions were omitted, as was matters related to the name of
the group. And yes, I admit that the subject line could have been clearer*,
perhaps "The What and How of a UK/GB group?".

Please continue to encourage your OpenStreetMap friends to contribute to
the survey.

Regards,
Rob

* Written communication is bad, as different people interpret things in
different ways. This is especially true when crossing cultural boundaries.
My top tip is to assume positive intent and if in doubt ask :-)



On 11 July 2015 at 21:19, Rob Nickerson  wrote:

> Dear UK/GB OpenStreetMappers,
>
> ...
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

[Harry Wood]

Well done setting up the survey Rob. Good to see something happening. I think 
we should get our asses in gear and start forming some sort of organisation.

I was surprised your survey didn't have a question "What d'you think the 
organisation should be called?", because this is the question which has been 
vexing me. It would be quite interesting to know what name and geographic 
configuration most people would vote for.

OSMGB or OSMUK? It's not just a matter a geo/naming preference. There's quite a 
few existing named things to consider. This mailing list being one example. 
I've listed various things here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB/UK_Chapter#GB_vs_UK_summary

Down the pub with TomH and gravitystorm we seemed to be preferring "OSMUK" last 
time we chatted about this, although since then I've started hosting 
osmgb.org.uk on my server (a minor point in OSMGB's favour)


Of course we could call it something else entirely, but both OSMGB and OSMUK 
are nice short simple names.
Harry


From: Nick Whitelegg 
To: "talk-gb@openstreetmap.org"  
Sent: Tuesday, 14 July 2015, 9:37
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?






I agree; I don't really see what harm a UK group would have; after all, there 
are local OSM groups in other countries, so why not here?

No-one's being asked to stump up money for servers etc just yet; it's just an 
initial survey.

Nick





From: Chris Hill 
Sent: 13 July 2015 19:08
To: Dave F.; Andy Mabbett; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"? 
 
Dave,
I don't think anyone has a veto. Why would it harm you if this went ahead?


On 13 July 2015 19:00:56 GMT+01:00, "Dave F."  wrote: 
Find out first if people want it, rather than ask how they think it should be 
implemented.
>
>On 13/07/2015 14:03, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
>On 13 July 2015 at 12:39, Dave F.  wrote:
>>
>>there's no option to disagree with the whole proposal
>>
>>What else do you suppose the "Strongly disagree" column is for?
>>
>>(Though how you expect disagreement with a group of people deciding to start 
>>an organisation to stop them is beyond me)
>>
>>-- 
>>Andy Mabbett
>>@pigsonthewing
>>http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>>
>>
>
>
>>
> 
>  This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
>www.avast.com 
>
>
>
>
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
Cheers, Chris
User chillly
Blog http://chris-osm.blogspot.com
___
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] Thrapston viaduct

[SK53]

Actually creating built-up areas from OSM data is fraught with problems:
the basic one, being that OSM landuse/landcover is too fine-grained for
identifying built-up areas. This is one of the examples in my category of
'emergent data': data which is sort of there, but is actually quite hard to
create from the way it's mapped in OSM at the moment. Generally, I believe
if people want such data they should add it to OSM, rather than expect
people to do complex data wrangling which may not work: an analogy might be
streets mapped as areas, the ways are still needed.

Obviously there are other issues::

   - Incomplete data (easy to fix, map it).
   - Landuse categories which are typically urban in non-urban situations
   (various kinds of industrial, extensive grounds of private schools etc).
   - Little gaps in well-mapped urban fabric (could be filled by a step of
   positive & negative buffering).

The Heidelberg folk tried using data mining (Rapid Miner) to identify urban
areas some time ago: clusters of residential roads, lower speed limits,
lit=yes, sidewalk=both, and probably a few others are the types of tags
which could be used.

In many ways built-up areas are actually more useful than many of the
landuse/landcover categories we already use : at least for more general
applications, such as the more sophisticated cartography discussed here.

Jerry

On 14 July 2015 at 09:36, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> Dan S wrote:
> > Sounds good. Mind if I ask how it is done? (i.e. rendering rules
> > for rural vs town)
>
> Post-import, I run a couple of queries along the lines of
>
> UPDATE planet_osm_point SET urban=true FROM built_up_areas WHERE
> ST_Contains(built_up_areas.geom,way)
>
> using a pre-existing 'built_up_areas' table which contains polygons of,
> well, built-up areas. I use OS Open Data for the polygons but you could no
> doubt construct them from OSM landuse if that floats your boat.
>
> The Mapnik stylesheet queries then simply respond to that column:
>
> #poi[type='pub'][urban=true][zoom>=15],
> #poi[type='pub'][urban=false][zoom>=13] {
>   ...rendering rules...
> }
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Thrapston-viaduct-tp5849991p5850090.html
> Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> 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] Thrapston viaduct

[Mark Goodge]

On 13/07/2015 18:14, Andy Allan wrote:

On 13 July 2015 at 14:34, Mike Evans  wrote:


It seems to me that the viaduct and the railway are two separate
entities and should mapped as such. Just because an abandoned
railway happens to run on the top of the viaduct is irrelevant in
my opinion.


Exactly. If there was a massive viaduct that used to carry power
cables, it should be shown since it's a massive sodding viaduct, not
because there used to be some cables on it.

The same goes for massive trenches in the ground (i.e. cuttings) and
enormous embankments.


This.

From a general purpose mapping perspective, if you can see it (and
it's big enough to be noteworthy) then it should be mapped, irrespective
of its current or former purpose.

Usage is a separate and orthogonal consideration. Whether a bridge, for 
example, is used for a road, a railway, a footbridge or even has no 
current use will affect the iconography and colours applied to it. But 
it doesn't affect the fact that it's there, and therefore should not 
affect the question of whether it appears on the map in the first place.


Mark
--
http://www.markgoodge.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

[Nick Whitelegg]

I agree; I don't really see what harm a UK group would have; after all, there 
are local OSM groups in other countries, so why not here?

No-one's being asked to stump up money for servers etc just yet; it's just an 
initial survey.

Nick


From: Chris Hill 
Sent: 13 July 2015 19:08
To: Dave F.; Andy Mabbett; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

Dave,
I don't think anyone has a veto. Why would it harm you if this went ahead?

On 13 July 2015 19:00:56 GMT+01:00, "Dave F."  wrote:
Find out first if people want it, rather than ask how they think it should be 
implemented.

On 13/07/2015 14:03, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On 13 July 2015 at 12:39, Dave F. 
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com>> wrote:

there's no option to disagree with the whole proposal

What else do you suppose the "Strongly disagree" column is for?

(Though how you expect disagreement with a group of people deciding to start an 
organisation to stop them is beyond me)

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk





[Avast logo] 

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com





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

Cheers, Chris
User chillly
Blog http://chris-osm.blogspot.com
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

[Richard Fairhurst]

Dan S wrote:
> Sounds good. Mind if I ask how it is done? (i.e. rendering rules 
> for rural vs town)

Post-import, I run a couple of queries along the lines of

UPDATE planet_osm_point SET urban=true FROM built_up_areas WHERE
ST_Contains(built_up_areas.geom,way)

using a pre-existing 'built_up_areas' table which contains polygons of,
well, built-up areas. I use OS Open Data for the polygons but you could no
doubt construct them from OSM landuse if that floats your boat.

The Mapnik stylesheet queries then simply respond to that column:

#poi[type='pub'][urban=true][zoom>=15],
#poi[type='pub'][urban=false][zoom>=13] {
  ...rendering rules...
}

cheers
Richard




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Thrapston-viaduct-tp5849991p5850090.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

[Dan S]

> Andy Townsend wrote:
> > (6) 
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse/Your_tiles_from_osm.org

Interesting hack Andy, thanks


2015-07-14 6:18 GMT+01:00 Richard Fairhurst :
>> Unfortunately I suspect what I'd choose works well for a
>> certain type of countryside, but less well for town centres [...]
>> so I suspect that we'd soon hit the same sort of issues as
>> the standard style has
>
> You can fairly easily adapt rendering rules for rural areas vs towns. See
> for example http://cycle.travel/map?lat=51.791&lon=-1.5087&zoom=13 : pubs
> aren't shown in towns at z13 (Witney), but are in villages (Minster Lovell,
> Ducklington). At z16 they're shown in towns but not cities.
>
> It doesn't play nicely with minutely updates, but would we need that for a
> UK map? I'd have thought a daily reimport - very feasible on a UK-sized
> extract - would be enough.

Sounds good. Mind if I ask how it is done? (i.e. rendering rules for
rural vs town) - is it simply two different stylesheets, plus a list
of specified boundaries, or something responsive to POI density,
or...? If there's a blurb online somewhere that gives a hint I'd be
interested.

(Sorry if I'm taking this off-topic, not sure.)

Dan

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