Re: [Talk-GB] Next UK chapter concall

[Rob Nickerson]

Brian wrote:
>On legal structures, please read Rob's excellent summary before the
>concall. I've read it and my conclusion so far, and I'm still not clear on
>some things, is that we shouldn't go for unincorporated society (unlimited
>liablity for officers) or charity (we don't have a charitable purpose and
>the legal strictures are a bit more complex than we'd want). From the rest
>I think company limited by guarantee (that's what OSMF chose) suits us
>best. Not sure yet whether CIO or CIC, given that we'd be non-profit, are
>worth considering.

Thanks Brian. I found time to look again at CIC's today and have updated
the document and wiki [1]. They are limited companies with extra features.
The extra features mean more paperwork (although apparently not too much
more) but send a clear message that we are for community benefit not
personal gain.

A CIO is essentially a "Charity-light" in that it only needs to register
with the Charity Commission and not Companies House as well (as a
Charitable Company does). I'm not sure how much annual overhead and
legalise this removes. We still would need to meet the Public Benefit Test
(and presumably obey Charity Law).

Will discuss on the concall.

*Rob*
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Group#Structures
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools project - update 3

[Lester Caine]

On 26/01/16 21:20, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> 
> BTW: The amenity=college page on the wiki [1] is lacking a lot. Could do
> with some extra details (rather than simply linking to wikipedia) and
> it's context needs expanding beyond just the UK. Any takers?
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcollege

Actually the way that the UK higher education structure has changed it's
possibly pointless today bothering with 'college' as a category. Many
'Technical Colleges' now call themselves Universities, and secondary
education now extends into the sixth form college sector. When a
University includes 'Hairdressing' or 'Car mechanics' then it's degree
status looks a little suspect? Even the Wikipedia article is tagged as
'Outdated' for 'Further Education' :)

That said, The remaining college sector does seem to be consolidating
with a well defined 'non-university' prospectus and the EduBase2
categories for University and College is probably an ideal division to
follow, and I was tagging sixth form colleges as College rather than
School following that tagging. The question perhaps is should the fancy
'Academy' Secondary school be tagged separately at all? Since these do
not have to include that in their titles ... The tricky bit being the
16-19 age range campuses. Of cause once the URN is included one can look
up the secondary data anyway.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools project - update 3

[Rob Nickerson]

Am aware of this Lester. It makes the blog post a lot harder though. Feel
free to write something up and send it through :-)

BTW: The amenity=college page on the wiki [1] is lacking a lot. Could do
with some extra details (rather than simply linking to wikipedia) and it's
context needs expanding beyond just the UK. Any takers?

*Rob*
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcollege
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools project - update 3

[Lester Caine]

On 26/01/16 19:38, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> 4. HS and ZE are 100% complete!
> Wow! The HS (Outer Hebrides) and ZE (Lerwick) postcodes are complete.
> Thanks go to OpenStreetMapper seumas. Many other postcodes (with more
> schools within them ;-) ) are close to this now too
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/

Actually the completion list is actually a lot better than that. The
current process has problems with special cases which ARE complete as
best we can tag them, but the progress tool does not understand the
problems.

But it would be better to also display what percentage actually have
edubase or similar ID tags as well. That coverage needs more work yet.
I've hacked the current name check script and can identify those schools
that exist but without an ID.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Next UK chapter concall

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi Stuart
Taking a step back, perhaps we don’t need an “organisation”
membership class.  It might be easier to manage with just one class of 
membership.  It would however mean
there would be no “formal” representation of organisations so it might not be
compatible with encouraging organisations to contribute their data etc.  

 

I might be wrong but if I was an employee of an organisation
representing them I would expect to do this in their time and for the
organisation to pay my expenses to attend meetings etc.  My concern would 
therefore be that “organisation”
members could end up holding all the posts on the committee as they would be
better resourced to do this.  

 

There may well be other ways of ensuring there is a balance
of representation on the committee apart from excluding “organisation” members. 
 Perhaps there could be a dedicated post/s to
represent “organisation” members for example.

 

I’m not so concerned about general votes and “organisation”
membership as the barrier to someone joining and voting will “only” be the
membership fee.  Finding the time and
resources to participate in the committee is a much greater issue when it comes
to ensuring balanced participation/representation. 

I see no reason why you couldn't chose the type of membership in the situation 
you describe.
I may be a in a minority of one on the above.  It would be good to know what 
other people think as we are quite a diverse "group".



Kind Regards
Dudley

From: stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk
To: dudleyibb...@hotmail.com
CC: bpran...@gmail.com; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Next UK chapter concall
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:12:33 +






Hi Dudley,



Why?



If an organisation wants to be a member, why shouldn’t it have a say in how OSM 
UK is run, including being nominated for and electing members to committees. 
I’m quite comfortable with requiring an individual to be nominated, which we 
can consider
 not allowing to be delegated, and if you wanted to protect the rights of 
non-org members then you could have two groups and allocate 51% of the votes to 
the individuals and 49% of the votes to the orgs. It’s slightly more 
complicated than votes only to individuals,
 but you don’t disenfranchise anyone then.



At the end of the day, we want to promote editing. We want to encourage orgs to 
contribute their data. And we want to encourage orgs to use OSM in their 
systems and products. That is much less likely to happen if you remove voting 
rights from
 orgs.



Incidentally, you can also have a problem of definitions, too. I’m here because 
traveline south east & anglia uses OSM, and that’s the email address I use to 
post here. But I am a consultant to them, and I have a wider interest now 
beyond just
 traveline. So I’m an individual. But then again my consultancy is a company, 
with me as a director. Not unusual, there. So am I an organisation, or am I an 
individual? You could argue the former, but I’d be rather hacked off if you 
wilfully excluded me - I’d
 rather choose my level of participation myself between zero and full rather 
than have it decided for me!



Regards,
Stuart








On 26 Jan 2016, at 07:33, Dudley Ibbett  wrote:



Hi Brian



I think we should have "ordinary" members with full voting rights.  Another 
class of membership should be for "organisations".  They should be required to 
nominate an individual to represent them.  Their voting rights should be 
limited so they
 cannot vote for committee membership or stand on the committee.



At this time I would also suggest we set a minimum age for any type of 
membership to 18. I believe this would simplify issues when it come to 
complying with child protection legislation.



Apart form the initial cost of setting up any organisation.  I would guess the 
main annual cost will be insurance and auditor fees for the accounts.  This 
assumes that we won't be paying the committee expenses!   I'm aware of a couple 
of organisations that
 seem to do this for an annual fee of £25-£35 for ordinary membership.  Any 
"organisation" type of membership would need to be excluded from the insurance 
unless we got down an affiliate model along the lines of mountaineering clubs 
that affiliate to the BMC
 for example.



Kind Regards



Dudley











Sent from my iPad


On 25 Jan 2016, at 18:36, Brian Prangle  wrote:
















Hi everyone




Don't forget this is scheduled for 8pm Wed this week 27 January




0800 22 90 900  Pass code 33224




We'll pick up on Rob's summary email i.e objectives;legal stucture; constitution




If we can I'd like to start discussing:




Name (not what it will be - but a mechanism for choosing one)


Membership classes, rights and costs




On objectives:the ensuing silence since draft 2 I'm not sure to take as 
indifference or approval, but let's use the text as a starting point:



1.To increase the size, skills, toolsets and cohesion of the OpenStreetMap 
community in the UK.

Re: [Talk-GB] [Imports] OSM with Wikidata: 27232 matches found in England

[Edward Betts]

Neil Matthews  wrote:
> I had a look at your Bristol matches -- most are reasonable, a few issues:
> 
> Q5015771 — Cabot Circus — Cabot Circus (way, distance: 165 m) building=yes
> Matched to parking not the shopping area -- OSM updated, was a suburb
> place

I've added landuse=commerical to the list of tags that the matcher looks for.

> University of Bristol
> one of three matches is to operator UWE Bristol -- OSM updated should be
> UWE

This is because the UWE building has the name B, and B is a substring of
'University of Bristol'. I can adjust the matching to stop this happening.

> Stoke Park
> should probably match to Stoke Park Estate -- remove duplicating node
> from OSM

The matcher has a list of possible name endings for parks: park, gardens
and common. I've added "estate" to this list. For parks the names "Stoke Park"
and "Stoke Park Estate" will be considered to be a match.

> Brislington West (ward)
> matched to Saint Annes -- probably needs checking further?

Saint Annes is given as a polish language alias for Brislington West on
Wikidata. I'm going to check if non-English names are useful for matching, or
if I should just ignore them.

> P.S. Might be fun to see the items for Bristol that couldn't be matched :-)

I'll see if I can produce a list. Wikidata contains items with geographic
coordinates for things no longer exist, like demolished buildings. Maybe I can
detect if the Wikipedia article about the item is written in the past tense.

-- 
Edward.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Admin Boundaries in Northern Ireland

[Brian Prangle]

AL10 boundaries came from the OSM Ireland Project on Townlands  rgds Brian

On 26 January 2016 at 17:38, Colin Smale  wrote:

> What is missing, is AL8 - used for "Districts" in the UK. Counties used to
> exist in NI but they are now defunct as administrative entities. The
> boundaries seem to be (still) there in OSM, but with boundary=historic
> admin_level=6. I am not sure where the existing AL10 data came from, and
> what these boundaries are used for in practise.
>
> The problem may be connected with a lack of open data for government
> information in NI. They (including OSNI, Ordnance Survey Northern Ireland)
> seem to be lagging behind the rest of the UK on that front.
>
> Interestingly, the UK AL4 boundaries (for the nations of the UK: England,
> Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) demarcate the territorial waters, and
> not the limits of normal administrative jurisdiction.
>
>
> //colin
>
> On 2016-01-26 18:19, Walter Nordmann wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> any reason why there are only admin boundaries with admin_level=10 in
> Northern Ireland?
>
> No counties (AL6), no cities (AL8), no Suburbs(AL9) - nothing
>
> regards
> walter/germany
>
>
> ___
> 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] Schools project - update 3

[Rob Nickerson]

A third update on the quarterly project.

0. The what project?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects

1. Open Data Manchester
Following a tweet Open Data Manchester have asked whether anyone can go and
show them how to map. Looks like their next meeting is Monday February 1st,
6.30 – 8.30pm. Any volunteers?

2. Edits continue at pace.
For those adding #OSMSchools to their changeset comments (sorry no way to
go back and add it if you forget) we reached a high of 258 changesets on
18th Jan. The map is starting to look well covered (although some gaps
missingso please continue to use this in your changesets). See
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-changesets?comment=OSMschool#6/53.495/-3.549

3. 175 people have done 5351 edits
Amazing numbers measured by Harry's tracker. Looks like Uganda has joined
the project too. It would be great if someone could turn the CSV linked
data at the bottom of the tracker into a daily chart. See
http://harrywood.dev.openstreetmap.org/diffreader/schools/

4. HS and ZE are 100% complete!
Wow! The HS (Outer Hebrides) and ZE (Lerwick) postcodes are complete.
Thanks go to OpenStreetMapper seumas. Many other postcodes (with more
schools within them ;-) ) are close to this now too
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/

5. Nodes converted to ways
Following lot's of data clean up we are nearing 80% of schools mapped as
land areas rather than simple points. We should hit this in the next couple
of days.

6. Northern Ireland still needs some work
If you map in Northern Ireland and want to get involved please do. Each
extra school mapped there will help lift it off the bottom of the tracker.
We can also look at doing some initiatives in NI if the local community
want this. Let us know :-)

7. Blogs and video
Please keep up the blogging and tweeting. It would be great if we could
attract some new mappers (a how to map schools video would be great if you
have time to do this). If you don't run a blog then I can let you post to
http://mappa-mercia.org

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Admin Boundaries in Northern Ireland

[Colin Smale]

What is missing, is AL8 - used for "Districts" in the UK. Counties used
to exist in NI but they are now defunct as administrative entities. The
boundaries seem to be (still) there in OSM, but with boundary=historic
admin_level=6. I am not sure where the existing AL10 data came from, and
what these boundaries are used for in practise. 

The problem may be connected with a lack of open data for government
information in NI. They (including OSNI, Ordnance Survey Northern
Ireland) seem to be lagging behind the rest of the UK on that front. 

Interestingly, the UK AL4 boundaries (for the nations of the UK:
England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) demarcate the territorial
waters, and not the limits of normal administrative jurisdiction.

//colin 

On 2016-01-26 18:19, Walter Nordmann wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> any reason why there are only admin boundaries with admin_level=10 in 
> Northern Ireland?
> 
> No counties (AL6), no cities (AL8), no Suburbs(AL9) - nothing
> 
> regards
> walter/germany
> 
> ___
> 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] Admin Boundaries in Northern Ireland

[Walter Nordmann]

Hi,

any reason why there are only admin boundaries with admin_level=10 in 
Northern Ireland?


No counties (AL6), no cities (AL8), no Suburbs(AL9) - nothing

regards
walter/germany


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Next UK chapter concall

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Dudley,

Why?

If an organisation wants to be a member, why shouldn’t it have a say in how OSM 
UK is run, including being nominated for and electing members to committees. 
I’m quite comfortable with requiring an individual to be nominated, which we 
can consider not allowing to be delegated, and if you wanted to protect the 
rights of non-org members then you could have two groups and allocate 51% of 
the votes to the individuals and 49% of the votes to the orgs. It’s slightly 
more complicated than votes only to individuals, but you don’t disenfranchise 
anyone then.

At the end of the day, we want to promote editing. We want to encourage orgs to 
contribute their data. And we want to encourage orgs to use OSM in their 
systems and products. That is much less likely to happen if you remove voting 
rights from orgs.

Incidentally, you can also have a problem of definitions, too. I’m here because 
traveline south east & anglia uses OSM, and that’s the email address I use to 
post here. But I am a consultant to them, and I have a wider interest now 
beyond just traveline. So I’m an individual. But then again my consultancy is a 
company, with me as a director. Not unusual, there. So am I an organisation, or 
am I an individual? You could argue the former, but I’d be rather hacked off if 
you wilfully excluded me - I’d rather choose my level of participation myself 
between zero and full rather than have it decided for me!

Regards,
Stuart


On 26 Jan 2016, at 07:33, Dudley Ibbett 
mailto:dudleyibb...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Brian

I think we should have "ordinary" members with full voting rights.  Another 
class of membership should be for "organisations".  They should be required to 
nominate an individual to represent them.  Their voting rights should be 
limited so they cannot vote for committee membership or stand on the committee.

At this time I would also suggest we set a minimum age for any type of 
membership to 18. I believe this would simplify issues when it come to 
complying with child protection legislation.

Apart form the initial cost of setting up any organisation.  I would guess the 
main annual cost will be insurance and auditor fees for the accounts.  This 
assumes that we won't be paying the committee expenses!   I'm aware of a couple 
of organisations that seem to do this for an annual fee of £25-£35 for ordinary 
membership.  Any "organisation" type of membership would need to be excluded 
from the insurance unless we got down an affiliate model along the lines of 
mountaineering clubs that affiliate to the BMC for example.

Kind Regards

Dudley




Sent from my iPad

On 25 Jan 2016, at 18:36, Brian Prangle 
mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi everyone

Don't forget this is scheduled for 8pm Wed this week 27 January

0800 22 90 900  Pass code 33224

We'll pick up on Rob's summary email i.e objectives;legal stucture; constitution

If we can I'd like to start discussing:

Name (not what it will be - but a mechanism for choosing one)
Membership classes, rights and costs

On objectives:the ensuing silence since draft 2 I'm not sure to take as 
indifference or approval, but let's use the text as a starting point:

1.To increase the size, skills, toolsets and cohesion of the OpenStreetMap 
community in the UK.
2.To promote and facilitate the use of OpenStreetMap data by organisations in 
the UK.
3.To promote and facilitate the release by organisations in the UK of OpenData  
that is suitable for use in OpenStreetMap.

On legal structures, please read Rob's excellent summary before the concall. 
I've read it and my conclusion so far, and I'm still not clear on some things, 
is that we shouldn't go for unincorporated society (unlimited liablity for 
officers) or charity (we don't have a charitable purpose and the legal 
strictures are a bit more complex than we'd want). From the rest I think 
company limited by guarantee (that's what OSMF chose) suits us best. Not sure 
yet whether CIO or CIC, given that we'd be non-profit, are worth considering.

Look forward to "seeing" you Wed

Regards

Brian
___
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