Re: [Talk-GB] Geovation - Location information innovation grants - now open for applications

[SK53]

I hadn't even thought of the travel side tbh! Faily glaring when its
pointed out!

This type of competition for a grant or similar has become increasingly
common. I think Nottingham spent £500,000 to try & win a slot as a venue
for England's wonderfully successful World Cup bid, and the local Wildlife
Trust has pitched for a few (e.g., for revamping Sherwood Forest visitor
centre).

I rather suspect they're a decent source of fee income for the sundry
consultants and judges necessary for running them. Also like most
grantsmanship the idea is that you use money from your last grant to help
bid for the second (e.g., by scheduling grant-funded travel to coincide
with next round bid meetings).

Jerry

On 15 February 2016 at 19:33, Killyfole and District Development
Association  wrote:

> I think you are quite right Jerry, looks like participants are expected to
> travel to London?!?  Thats one way to keep the numbers down and limit it to
> the South East England area!
>
> On Monday 15 February 2016 17:23:37 SK53 wrote:
> > I think most folk on this list are fairly familiar with these: they've
> been
> > running for quite a few years. I think CycleStreets participated in one
> of
> > them a while back. My general impression is that the cost of
> participating
> > is often non-trivial in comparison with the potential reward.
> >
> > Jerry
>
>
> ___
> 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] Geovation - Location information innovation grants - now open for applications

[Killyfole and District Development Association]

I think you are quite right Jerry, looks like participants are expected to 
travel to London?!?  Thats one way to keep the numbers down and limit it to 
the South East England area!

On Monday 15 February 2016 17:23:37 SK53 wrote:
> I think most folk on this list are fairly familiar with these: they've been
> running for quite a few years. I think CycleStreets participated in one of
> them a while back. My general impression is that the cost of participating
> is often non-trivial in comparison with the potential reward.
> 
> Jerry


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Other Routes With Public Access

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

Many thanks for this.  I take your point about the use of an OS specific term.  
It would be good to have a consensus on a suitable designation tag and an 
addition to the wiki on UK rights of way to cover its use.  

As suggested, I will try and contact the highways department to see if they 
will confirm the actual access for this particular highway.

Kind Regards

Dudley

> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 18:34:29 +
> From: robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com
> To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Other Routes With Public Access
> 
> On 13 February 2016 at 14:57, Dudley Ibbett  wrote:
> > I came across a paved single lane "road" on a recent walk that was sign
> > posted in both directions as a "Public Road" It makes a loop between two
> > "unclassified" roads.
> > Functionally, is seems to be a service route for an isolated farm that sits
> > at the top of the loop, although it would make quite an useful link road
> > between the two "unclassified" roads .  I crossed it at the top of the loop
> > so I don't know what there was with regards to signs at each end.  On the OS
> > 1:25 it is marked as "Other Routes With Public Access".  Is there anything I
> > can infer from the use of the term "Public Road".  i.e foot, horse, bicycle,
> > vehicle = yes/no? How are people tagging the "designation" of such routes,
> > i.e. are people using  "designation=other routes with public access"?
> 
> Routes marked by OS as "Other Route with Public Access" will most
> probably be routes that appear on the local Highway Authority's "List
> of Streets Maintainable at the Public Expense", but are not maintained
> to a standard for regular motor traffic. They will generally be
> Unclassified Highways (i.e. not an A, B or C road) and unless there is
> a specific Traffic Regulation Order to the contrary, there will be
> full vehicle, horse and pedestrian rights over them.
> 
> As far as tagging is concerned, I would strongly advise against
> designation="other routes with public access", designation=orpa and
> similar. The "Other Route with Public Access" is an OS-specific term,
> and even if that status hasn't been copied from OS, such tagging may
> give the impression that it may have been -- which is not something we
> want to give or accidentally encourage.
> 
> Instead, I would suggest that mappers do their best to determine the
> precise status of the route in question -- which is most likely to be
> an Unclassified Highway. Then an appropriate designation=* tag can be
> given (e.g. designation=unclassified_highway). Despite a route
> technically being an Unclassified Highway, if the route isn't suitable
> for general motor traffic, I would avoid tagging it with
> highway=unclassified -- as that would be misleading to data consumers.
> Instead I'd give it a suitable highway tag based on the physical
> condition of the route -- probably highway=track or highway=service.
> 
> Appropriate access tags should also be used (access=yes if everything
> is allowed, and foot=*, horse=*, bicycle=*, motor_vehicle=* etc if
> not) since routers and other tools shouldn't be expected to translate
> UK-specific terms into access defaults. There are some more details
> about different types of Rights of Way and the implied access rights
> at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Table
> 
> To determine the precise classification of a road/track, you'll need
> the "List of Streets Maintainable at the Public Expense" from the
> local Highway Authority (usually the County Council or Unitary
> Authority). Some councils will have online maps of their Highways, but
> these will generally be derived from OS data, and so we're unable to
> make use of them. For details about getting hold of this "List of
> Streets" and permission to re-use it in OSM, see
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-docs.html . There's a
> (short) list of councils known to have given permission so far at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Information_in_the_.22List_of_Streets.22_maintained_by_local_councils
> 
> Hope that helps,
> 
> Robert.
> 
> -- 
> Robert Whittaker
> 
> ___
> 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] Geovation - Location information innovation grants - now open for applications

[SK53]

I think most folk on this list are fairly familiar with these: they've been
running for quite a few years. I think CycleStreets participated in one of
them a while back. My general impression is that the cost of participating
is often non-trivial in comparison with the potential reward.

Jerry

On 15 February 2016 at 16:12, Blake Girardot  wrote:

> Just in case anyone is interested and had not heard of it yet:
>
> 10-20k GBP grants for location based products/services.
>
> "Think of the Programme as an ideas incubator. Whether you’re a developer,
> innovator or entrepreneur it’s the perfect funded start-up accelerator if
> you want to create a product or business using location information and
> technology."
>
> https://geovation.uk/programme/
>
> Cheers,
> Blake
>
> ___
> 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] place=village/town/city

[Lester Caine]

>> Bath has not lost it's city status, unlike Rochester, so the designation
>> is correct.
> Absolutely, I was questioning the "arbitrary population limit", not the
> city status. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I was just indicating that while the population is less than 100k, it's
status as a city is still secure ;) In the UK the city designation is
well defined, so the use of an "arbitrary population limit" in the wiki
does not apply.

> In England "places" themselves don't have well-defined boundaries - only
> admin areas, down to the level of parish/electoral wards (of which the
> population is known, more-or-less). Unless the NLPG can help? But I
> suspect they are more oriented towards postal addresses, which is a
> whole different can of worms.

NLPG is purely 'land' parcels and has no concept of the number of people
resident. The boundaries that are available via NLPG would help define
areas, but the last extracts I have still lack that detail as well. In
theory over time the legal boundary information should be added in
parallel with the land registry, but currently even OSM may be more
accurate than official channels :)

The ONS statistics are the official reference to population, but even
here just what is listed makes difficult reading. Some 'village'
populations cover the entire parish or ward while others may be split
between different parts of the same location. Again, no consistent
information that we can use :(

-- 
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

[Talk-GB] Geovation - Location information innovation grants - now open for applications

[Blake Girardot]

Just in case anyone is interested and had not heard of it yet:

10-20k GBP grants for location based products/services.

"Think of the Programme as an ideas incubator. Whether you’re a 
developer, innovator or entrepreneur it’s the perfect funded start-up 
accelerator if you want to create a product or business using location 
information and technology."


https://geovation.uk/programme/

Cheers,
Blake

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

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

[Colin Smale]

On 2016-02-15 16:46, Lester Caine wrote:

> On 15/02/16 14:15, Colin Smale wrote: On 2016-02-15 13:42, Lester Caine wrote:
> 
> So Bath is also a
> city despite being below some arbitrary population limit. Bath has around 
> 100k inhabitants, not exactly a hamlet... But it doesn't
> have a city council, only Charter Trustees.
 Bath has not lost it's city status, unlike Rochester, so the
designation
is correct. 

Absolutely, I was questioning the "arbitrary population limit", not the
city status. Sorry if I wasn't clear. 

> If we know the
> population then it should be recorded, or a link to some other database
> that can provide a current and possibly historic population record?
> There is a well-established key population=*
> : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:population
> 
> Populations change every day of course, so they are never entirely
> accurate. But the wiki describes also population:date and
> source:population which are important to put the number in the right
> context, as is putting the tag on the right geometrical object which
> really should be a polygon (so either admin boundaries or landuse or
> place) and not a node.

> There we will have to disagree ... In my book there should be a node for
> every place in the UK. And it's location should be suitable to the
> 'centre' of the place. Personally I use the geonames.com as a cross
> reference and the population figures there are an alternative. It may
> actually be useful to add the geomnames reference to OSM and then use
> the name transalations via that ... but for population we still need a
> more reliable source?

No harm in having a node as well, it's just that putting the population
on a node is ambiguous as to what is considered part of that place
whereas putting the population on a 2D object is unambiguous. 

In England "places" themselves don't have well-defined boundaries - only
admin areas, down to the level of parish/electoral wards (of which the
population is known, more-or-less). Unless the NLPG can help? But I
suspect they are more oriented towards postal addresses, which is a
whole different can of worms. 
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

[Lester Caine]

On 15/02/16 14:15, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2016-02-15 13:42, Lester Caine wrote:
> 
>>  So Bath is also a
>> city despite being below some arbitrary population limit.
>>  
> Bath has around 100k inhabitants, not exactly a hamlet... But it doesn't
> have a city council, only Charter Trustees.
Bath has not lost it's city status, unlike Rochester, so the designation
is correct.

>> If we know the
>> population then it should be recorded, or a link to some other database
>> that can provide a current and possibly historic population record?
>>  
> There is a well-established key population=*
> : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:population
>  
> Populations change every day of course, so they are never entirely
> accurate. But the wiki describes also population:date and
> source:population which are important to put the number in the right
> context, as is putting the tag on the right geometrical object which
> really should be a polygon (so either admin boundaries or landuse or
> place) and not a node.
There we will have to disagree ... In my book there should be a node for
every place in the UK. And it's location should be suitable to the
'centre' of the place. Personally I use the geonames.com as a cross
reference and the population figures there are an alternative. It may
actually be useful to add the geomnames reference to OSM and then use
the name transalations via that ... but for population we still need a
more reliable source?

-- 
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] place=village/town/city

[Colin Smale]

How is that similar circumstances? 

The current council (Medway Council) hasn't tried to get Rochester's
city status back.

--colin 

On 2016-02-15 16:32, paul.bivand wrote:

> Bath is still a city with Charter Trustees. 
> 
> In similar circumstances Rochester lost its city status on local authority 
> merger because they didn't appoint charter trustees.  
> 
> The city status would have applied to the former boundary. The successor 
> council has failed repeatedly at getting city status.  
> 
> Not that this bothers the centre for cities which counts lots of places as 
> cities that legally  aren't.   
> 
> Paul 
> 
>  Original message 
> From: Colin Smale  
> Date: 15/02/2016 14:15 (GMT+00:00) 
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city 
> 
> On 2016-02-15 13:42, Lester Caine wrote:
> 
>> So Bath is also a
>> city despite being below some arbitrary population limit.
> 
> Bath has around 100k inhabitants, not exactly a hamlet... But it doesn't have 
> a city council, only Charter Trustees. 
> 
>> If we know the
>> population then it should be recorded, or a link to some other database
>> that can provide a current and possibly historic population record?
> 
> There is a well-established key population=* : 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:population 
> 
> Populations change every day of course, so they are never entirely accurate. 
> But the wiki describes also population:date and source:population which are 
> important to put the number in the right context, as is putting the tag on 
> the right geometrical object which really should be a polygon (so either 
> admin boundaries or landuse or place) and not a node. 
> 
> ___
> 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] place=village/town/city

[paul.bivand]

Bath is still a city with Charter Trustees.
In similar circumstances Rochester lost its city status on local authority 
merger because they didn't appoint charter trustees. 
The city status would have applied to the former boundary. The successor 
council has failed repeatedly at getting city status. 
Not that this bothers the centre for cities which counts lots of places as 
cities that legally  aren't.  
Paul

 Original message 
From: Colin Smale  
Date: 15/02/2016  14:15  (GMT+00:00) 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city 


On 2016-02-15 13:42, Lester Caine wrote:

 So Bath is also a
 city despite being below some arbitrary population limit.
 

Bath has around 100k inhabitants, not exactly a hamlet... But it doesn't have a 
city council, only Charter Trustees.
 

 
If we know the
 population then it should be recorded, or a link to some other database
 that can provide a current and possibly historic population record?
 

There is a well-established key population=* : 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:population
 
Populations change every day of course, so they are never entirely accurate. 
But the wiki describes also population:date and source:population which are 
important to put the number in the right context, as is putting the tag on the 
right geometrical object which really should be a polygon (so either admin 
boundaries or landuse or place) and not a node.
 
 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

[John Aldridge]

On 15-Feb-16 13:48, Colin Smale wrote:

And would this
mean that St Davids is place=town, place:designation=city or the other
way round?


I have no axe to grind here (the city I live near has a population 
>100,000 anyway), but if the former, I suspect the residents of St 
David's would not be happy with this, and they'd still keep editing it 
back to place=city!


I don't really see the point, either: if you want to signal the 
population, then use the population=* tag. I'm content with letting 
place=* be the name by which the place is widely known: if the residents 
call it a city, then that's what it should be.


--
Cheers,
John

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

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

[Colin Smale]

On 2016-02-15 13:42, Lester Caine wrote:

> So Bath is also a
> city despite being below some arbitrary population limit.

Bath has around 100k inhabitants, not exactly a hamlet... But it doesn't
have a city council, only Charter Trustees. 

> If we know the
> population then it should be recorded, or a link to some other database
> that can provide a current and possibly historic population record?

There is a well-established key population=* :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:population 

Populations change every day of course, so they are never entirely
accurate. But the wiki describes also population:date and
source:population which are important to put the number in the right
context, as is putting the tag on the right geometrical object which
really should be a polygon (so either admin boundaries or landuse or
place) and not a node. 

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

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

[Gregory]

It might not have gone actually, my e-mailing doesn't always do the right
thing for the lists.

I quoted it in my last e-mail though.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2016-February/018474.html

On 15 February 2016 at 13:48, Colin Smale  wrote:

> I can't find Gregory's suggestion in my mailbox... did it go to the list?
>
> Is the suggestion to put place:designation=city on the place node? Or on
> an admin boundary, or on a landuse=residential or what? Why is
> place:designation needed, and not simply designation? And would this mean
> that St Davids is place=town, place:designation=city or the other way round?
>
>
> //colin
>
> On 2016-02-15 14:21, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> On 15/02/2016 12:35, Gregory wrote:
>
> What did people think of my place:designation=* suggestion?
>
>
> Sounds good to me.  No uses yet (obviously), but would allow a more sane
> "place" tagging for e.g. St David's, which isn't a really city in any
> normal sense.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> 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
>
>


-- 
Gregory
o...@livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

[Colin Smale]

I can't find Gregory's suggestion in my mailbox... did it go to the
list? 

Is the suggestion to put place:designation=city on the place node? Or on
an admin boundary, or on a landuse=residential or what? Why is
place:designation needed, and not simply designation? And would this
mean that St Davids is place=town, place:designation=city or the other
way round?

//colin 

On 2016-02-15 14:21, Andy Townsend wrote:

> On 15/02/2016 12:35, Gregory wrote: 
> 
>> What did people think of my place:designation=* suggestion?
> 
> Sounds good to me.  No uses yet (obviously), but would allow a more sane 
> "place" tagging for e.g. St David's, which isn't a really city in any normal 
> sense.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Andy
> 
> ___
> 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] place=village/town/city

[Mark Goodge]

On 15/02/2016 12:35, Gregory wrote:

What did people think of my place:designation=* suggestion?


That would make sense, yes.

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

[Andy Townsend]

On 15/02/2016 12:35, Gregory wrote:

What did people think of my place:designation=* suggestion?


Sounds good to me.  No uses yet (obviously), but would allow a more sane 
"place" tagging for e.g. St David's, which isn't a really city in any 
normal sense.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/02/2016 17:10, Philip Barnes wrote:

The original node, http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3216768/history


http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=3216768

Thanks.

So mostly city, but it did spend a couple of years as a town and a 
couple of shorter periods as village.


Cheers,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

[Lester Caine]

On 15/02/16 11:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
> The only way to reconcile this, in the long run, is to have two separate
> tags for populated places, one describing the size according to global
> OSM guidelines, and one describing the legal status according to local law.

Since there is a 'Should normally' in the wiki entry for place=city,
then the population is NOT a hard and fast rule. It was left woolly
specifically because the legal status should take priority, so St.
David's has been a city since 1994 having had that status restored by
the request of the Queen. city up until 1888 and as a prominent
cathedral location that is the well established rule. So Bath is also a
city despite being below some arbitrary population limit. If we know the
population then it should be recorded, or a link to some other database
that can provide a current and possibly historic population record?

-- 
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] place=village/town/city

[Gregory]

What did people think of my place:designation=* suggestion?

>From the "historic cathedral city of Durham",
Gregory.

>Should place:designation=* be a thing, so that we can save the legal
definition somewhere.
>
>You could then say we are tagging place=* for the renderer. But population
is not appropriate to be stored in OSM, and it seems a lot to ask of a
renderer to lookup population data for every city so it can order which
ones are most important to show (avoiding label collision). Renderers could
even use place=city|town on low zooms, but on high zooms use
place:designation=city to overlay a transparent label.
>
>In the UK a city was traditionally a place with a cathedral, legally it's
recognition from the queen. Lately she's make a few towns into cities for
giggles(or maybe something more serious/political, I don't follow it). I've
noticed every non-native English speaker (including Americans) seems to
struggle with the word "city" and even uses it for what I might consider a
village!
>
>From a very small city that has a magnificent cathedral,
>Gregory.

On 15 February 2016 at 12:22, Colin Smale  wrote:

> Agreed...
>
>
> FWIW I have been using council_style=city or council_style=town on admin
> boundary relations (mostly civil parishes) to indicate non-default
> situations.
>
> This works where the status is held by a local authority, but where
> Charter Trustees are involved I don't have a solution in mind but Bath
> might be a good example to look at.
>
> --colin
>
> On 2016-02-15 12:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> On 12/02/2016 17:18, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> Several attempts have been made to "correct" the tagging from city to
> village/town... each time it was changed back to city...
>
>
> This, I think, illustrates why we really could do with a "legal_status"
> tag or similar for populated places. People, particularly those living in
> small (by population size) cities (in the legal sense) tend to be very
> protective of their city status, and dislike any attempt to override it.
> And saying that it's a global OSM policy isn't going to persuade them.
> Their argument (and to be fair, it's a very good argument) is that for a UK
> location, UK law takes precedence over the policy of a self-appointed
> voluntary group (which, ultimately, is all that OSM is). It's an argument
> that you won't win, short of banning people who disagree.
>
> The only way to reconcile this, in the long run, is to have two separate
> tags for populated places, one describing the size according to global OSM
> guidelines, and one describing the legal status according to local law.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>


-- 
Gregory
o...@livingwithdragons.com
http://www.livingwithdragons.com
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

[Colin Smale]

Agreed... 

FWIW I have been using council_style=city or council_style=town on admin
boundary relations (mostly civil parishes) to indicate non-default
situations. 

This works where the status is held by a local authority, but where
Charter Trustees are involved I don't have a solution in mind but Bath
might be a good example to look at. 

--colin 

On 2016-02-15 12:08, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On 12/02/2016 17:18, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> Several attempts have been made to "correct" the tagging from city to
>> village/town... each time it was changed back to city...
> 
> This, I think, illustrates why we really could do with a "legal_status" tag 
> or similar for populated places. People, particularly those living in small 
> (by population size) cities (in the legal sense) tend to be very protective 
> of their city status, and dislike any attempt to override it. And saying that 
> it's a global OSM policy isn't going to persuade them. Their argument (and to 
> be fair, it's a very good argument) is that for a UK location, UK law takes 
> precedence over the policy of a self-appointed voluntary group (which, 
> ultimately, is all that OSM is). It's an argument that you won't win, short 
> of banning people who disagree.
> 
> The only way to reconcile this, in the long run, is to have two separate tags 
> for populated places, one describing the size according to global OSM 
> guidelines, and one describing the legal status according to local law.
> 
> Mark
 ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] place=village/town/city

[Mark Goodge]

On 12/02/2016 17:18, Colin Smale wrote:

Several attempts have been made to "correct" the tagging from city to
village/town... each time it was changed back to city...


This, I think, illustrates why we really could do with a "legal_status" 
tag or similar for populated places. People, particularly those living 
in small (by population size) cities (in the legal sense) tend to be 
very protective of their city status, and dislike any attempt to 
override it. And saying that it's a global OSM policy isn't going to 
persuade them. Their argument (and to be fair, it's a very good 
argument) is that for a UK location, UK law takes precedence over the 
policy of a self-appointed voluntary group (which, ultimately, is all 
that OSM is). It's an argument that you won't win, short of banning 
people who disagree.


The only way to reconcile this, in the long run, is to have two separate 
tags for populated places, one describing the size according to global 
OSM guidelines, and one describing the legal status according to local law.


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

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