Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Projects

[SK53]

A while back I played with trying to create watersheds
 using available OSM data. Each group of
waterways which interconnect (note I used st_intersects() on osm2pgsql
data, not the true topological relations in way_nodes) is given a different
colour. The map gives a fairly good synoptic overview of density and
completeness of waterway mapping. Of course it doesn't show accuracy, and
much of the dense coverage in Wales was done by Steve Chilton many years
ago from NPE maps.

Also I didnt try and handle rivers which pass through a lake or
rivers/streams only mapped as areas (this is really obvious on the
equivalent map for Ireland as the Shannon appears as several disconnected
watersheds). For this reason, and concave hull throwing errors on PostGis I
have not followed through with the aim of creating watershed polygons.

Jerry

On 14 March 2016 at 21:09, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 14/03/2016 20:50, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>
>> My concern with rivers is that we don't have tools to measure progress -
>> taginfo gives a count of nodes/ways/relations whereas we'd want total
>> length of features per region (in miles/km).
>>
>
> I'd agree that tracking progress with that one would be tricky. I've
> mapped lots of rivers and streams from a combination of survey, imagery and
> OS OpenData, and while we've got something approaching the "length" of
> major rivers and streams, what we've got in some areas is largely ex-NPE,
> and in many cases some distance from the actual waterway on the ground.
>
> GPS traces (unless there are lots) and Bing imagery can of course be
> misplaced, but OS OpenData is normally pretty good (actually better than
> the OS vector data that people have imported in a couple of areas) although
> it can be wrong when watercourses have changed, and the top end of small
> Welsh streams is often a bit "wishful thinking" in OSSV - where in reality
> there's just a boggy mess the OS sometimes has well-defined streams.
>
> The other problem with the waterways we've got in OSM is that many are
> just either "stream" or "river" - with things that I'd normally map as
> drains and ditches just in as "stream".  Obviously changing a tag
> post-survey is pretty straightforward, but it's something else to bear in
> mind.
>
> There is a real benefit of having OSSV streams, ditches and drains in
> though - it's often clear that a watercourse hasn't moved for years, and it
> can then be used to help align imagery and GPS traces.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andy (SomeoneElse)
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] UK Quarterly Projects

[Lester Caine]

On 14/03/16 21:09, Andy Townsend wrote:
> There is a real benefit of having OSSV streams, ditches and drains in
> though - it's often clear that a watercourse hasn't moved for years, and
> it can then be used to help align imagery and GPS traces.

That would be useful where the source has been properly tagged. The ons
I had problems with often had no source, although NPE ones were fairly
obvious when one zoomed out.

-- 
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] UK Quarterly Projects

[Andy Townsend]

On 14/03/2016 20:50, Rob Nickerson wrote:
My concern with rivers is that we don't have tools to measure progress 
- taginfo gives a count of nodes/ways/relations whereas we'd want 
total length of features per region (in miles/km).


I'd agree that tracking progress with that one would be tricky. I've 
mapped lots of rivers and streams from a combination of survey, imagery 
and OS OpenData, and while we've got something approaching the "length" 
of major rivers and streams, what we've got in some areas is largely 
ex-NPE, and in many cases some distance from the actual waterway on the 
ground.


GPS traces (unless there are lots) and Bing imagery can of course be 
misplaced, but OS OpenData is normally pretty good (actually better than 
the OS vector data that people have imported in a couple of areas) 
although it can be wrong when watercourses have changed, and the top end 
of small Welsh streams is often a bit "wishful thinking" in OSSV - where 
in reality there's just a boggy mess the OS sometimes has well-defined 
streams.


The other problem with the waterways we've got in OSM is that many are 
just either "stream" or "river" - with things that I'd normally map as 
drains and ditches just in as "stream".  Obviously changing a tag 
post-survey is pretty straightforward, but it's something else to bear 
in mind.


There is a real benefit of having OSSV streams, ditches and drains in 
though - it's often clear that a watercourse hasn't moved for years, and 
it can then be used to help align imagery and GPS traces.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Lester Caine]

On 14/03/16 20:18, Neil Matthews wrote:
> P.S. Which building is the pub?
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.45246/-2.42691

http://developments.southglos.gov.uk/online-applications/files/6FA7555C98FA66267FE1EC868218327D/pdf/PK11_2312_LB-SITE_LOCATION_PLAN-4150384.pdf

I would be looking to update the site outline to match that planning
application, but of cause the 'OS' factor comes into play :( But one can
at least pick up dates of the buildings construction from the Listed
Building registration.

-- 
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] UK Quarterly Projects

[Rob Nickerson]

My concern with rivers is that we don't have tools to measure progress -
taginfo gives a count of nodes/ways/relations whereas we'd want total
length of features per region (in miles/km).

Would anyone on this list be able to produce an online tracking tool?

*Rob*

On 14 March 2016 at 20:47, Rob Nickerson  wrote:

> Thanks Brian,
>
> I've also put this on Loomio [1] 
>
[1] https://www.loomio.org/d/xagnZoK4
>
> *Rob*
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Projects

[Rob Nickerson]

Thanks Brian,

I've also put this on Loomio [1] because at some stage we will need to
decide and I find it difficult to interpret messages on talk-gb which often
provide some pro, some cons but then don't say yes/no clearly enough to
judge opinion.

For those interested, the healthcare data is all available at
http://systems.hscic.gov.uk/data/ods/datadownloads

I would propose limiting ourselves to just a small, manageable section.
[1] https://www.loomio.org/d/xagnZoK4

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Neil Matthews]

I'd argue all approaches can be considered correct from the wiki:
"Add a node at the centre of the pub and add amenity=pub to it. ... If 
the whole building is used for this feature and its footprint is present 
in OSM, you can apply the tags on the area if you prefer."
Area obviously applies to "the whole building" but some might read it 
differently :-)


If you're using the whole area style and there are elements, e.g. 
roads,  that don't belong to it then the whole area needs to be split 
into pieces and use a site relation -- like schools?


You also need to "layer" in landuse retail on the "site" that actually 
has the retail portion, and not the car park.


The building probably should be tagged as building=retail? Or 
building=pub? Or both?


Cheers,
Neil

P.S. Which building is the pub? 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.45246/-2.42691 / 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.45395/-2.43063


On 14/03/2016 19:51, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:

A quick query on IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way


True, but not with a zealous committment to it "absolutely being the 
best way".  I'm open to persuasion.


Part of the reason might be that I'm probably more likely to sit in 
the beer garden than most people (as evidenced by the mapping trip to 
Consall Forge where my suggestion that we sit outside was met with 
disbelieving "are you mad?" looks from all around). Another is that 
I've tended to map the entire site of other businesses - see for 
example http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/241928696 , which is a large 
site surrounded by a fence - it's very clear what's part of the car 
dealership and what is not.


To take a deliberately problematic example 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419244 - how would you map them if 
you weren't going to map the whole area as the pub?  How would you say 
that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419080 and 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419082 belong to the pub? That's 
"deliberately problematic" because clearly a section of road there 
isn't owned by the pub.


Maybe if people have got better suggestions they could show how they'd 
do it by editing at 
http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.87134/-3.24177 (on the 
dev server, preferably after dragging the imagery to one side so that 
other people can also have a go)?


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)


___
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] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:

A quick query on IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way


True, but not with a zealous committment to it "absolutely being the 
best way".  I'm open to persuasion.


Part of the reason might be that I'm probably more likely to sit in the 
beer garden than most people (as evidenced by the mapping trip to 
Consall Forge where my suggestion that we sit outside was met with 
disbelieving "are you mad?" looks from all around).  Another is that 
I've tended to map the entire site of other businesses - see for example 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/241928696 , which is a large site 
surrounded by a fence - it's very clear what's part of the car 
dealership and what is not.


To take a deliberately problematic example 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419244 - how would you map them if 
you weren't going to map the whole area as the pub?  How would you say 
that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419080 and 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419082 belong to the pub? That's 
"deliberately problematic" because clearly a section of road there isn't 
owned by the pub.


Maybe if people have got better suggestions they could show how they'd 
do it by editing at 
http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.87134/-3.24177 (on the dev 
server, preferably after dragging the imagery to one side so that other 
people can also have a go)?


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Andy Mabbett]

On 11 March 2016 at 23:46, Edward Betts  wrote:

Thank you again for your continued work on this. However...

> I think the next step is show the list of items to be tagged in human readable
> form with a form where mappers can sign their name or username and assert that
> they are local, then hit an upload button. The wikidata links will be uploaded
> to OSM with the mappers name in the changeset.

This is overkill, We're supposed to be discussing automated edits, not
manual edits using a new tool.

This approach will not scale.

-- 
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] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Edward Betts]

Sorry about that. Thanks for the bug report. I've fixed it.

Andrew Hain  wrote:
> I’m getting internal server errors when I try to look at the previews.
> 
> --
> Andrew
> 
> 
> From: Edward Betts 
> Sent: 11 March 2016 15:46
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland
> 
> I've added a code to preview the XML of the changeset that adds wikidata tags
> to objects in a given area. You can find preview links on region, county and
> district pages, but only if there are less than 150 objects to annotate with a
> wikidata tag.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> Norwich
>  http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/district/Norwich
>  preview: http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/preview/8/Norwich
> 
> Swindon
>  http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/county/Swindon
>  preview: http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/preview/6/Swindon
> 
> Hackney
>  http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/preview/8/London_Borough_of_Hackney
> 
> Isle of Man
>  http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/region/Isle_of_Man
>  preview: http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/preview/2/Isle_of_Man
> 
> The preview page might be a little slow the first time, but the data is cached
> so future access will be fast.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Andrew Hain]

I’m getting internal server errors when I try to look at the previews.

--
Andrew


From: Edward Betts 
Sent: 11 March 2016 15:46
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

I've added a code to preview the XML of the changeset that adds wikidata tags
to objects in a given area. You can find preview links on region, county and
district pages, but only if there are less than 150 objects to annotate with a
wikidata tag.

Examples:

Norwich
 http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/district/Norwich
 preview: http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/preview/8/Norwich

Swindon
 http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/county/Swindon
 preview: http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/preview/6/Swindon

Hackney
 http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/preview/8/London_Borough_of_Hackney

Isle of Man
 http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/region/Isle_of_Man
 preview: http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/preview/2/Isle_of_Man

The preview page might be a little slow the first time, but the data is cached
so future access will be fast.

I think the next step is show the list of items to be tagged in human readable
form with a form where mappers can sign their name or username and assert that
they are local, then hit an upload button. The wikidata links will be uploaded
to OSM with the mappers name in the changeset.

The tags on the changeset might look like:

comment=Add wikidata tags to objects in Norwich
district=Norwich
checked_by=Edward
assertion=Edward, a mapper local to Norwich, has checked these Wikidata 
links are correct

--
Edward.

___
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] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Lester Caine]

On 14/03/16 15:08, Dave F wrote:
>>   * Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may
>> apply also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one
>> would be opening_hours).
> 
> I'm unsure how common that would be, but it could go on the boundary as
> the garden might be used for each instance.

Just as with the school 'element' we have an amenity tag at the higher
level, then a pub or any other establishment would have the same
approach. As I have already said, and area within another structure can
then be tagged as the various amenities, but there may be larger areas
such as building=shopping_mall or food_court where the pub, cafe or the
like shares the overall facilities, but has perhaps a combination of
covered and open seating areas. There may well be separate 'opening
times' for each area in which case those tags are omitted at the higher
level.

While mapping the school areas, adjacent pubs/restaurants/halls and the
like followed on nicely in the same style.

Some areas of the world with little detail would benefit from a simple
node describing the amenity, but certainly within the UK we are now
adding the service roads and access ways to the various parking areas
used by these facilities. If the amenity is only accessible by foot,
then the footpath routes from the adjacent car park would be useful, but
still a work in progress. For the majority of the sites I've added this
year, the route into the car park and the access restrictions are
documented. In many cases while there are access road into a school it
is not leading to parking which may in fact be a shared adjacent space
such as the village hall ... and in village locations it may be that the
pub is also sharing that parking area, in which case the boundary may be
difficult to identify fully, at which point the building boundary may
well be the fall back 'amenity' boundary.

-- 
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] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Dave F]

On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:

Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets


This is new to me. Is there a way find all changesets with my locale?


The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:

  * Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this
way, although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM
would find this the straightforwardly obvious approach.



Discovering many new things are often "Non-intuitive" & doesn't 
necessarily make them wrong. Given time to sink in they often become 
'normal'



  * Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate
to the building.



If that were true then wouldn't the beer garden need a separate license?


  * Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may
apply also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one
would be opening_hours).



I'm unsure how common that would be, but it could go on the boundary as 
the garden might be used for each instance.



  * Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if
we fully accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how
we can tell renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on
IRC a label node, but this implies a relation: do we want to
replace a simple node &/or area tag with a node, an area & a
relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team to deal with it? It
seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just for
inexperienced mappers but also those of us who have been at it for
a while. In the meantime the CartoCSS rendering will look rather
daft in such cases.



A location tag was discussed a few years ago, unsure why it didn't catch 
on. It wouldn't need to be a relation, just a sub-tag of co-ordinates on 
the boundary way. It wouldn't be compulsory, if the co-ords weren't 
supplied, it would render centrally as it does now. All polygon 
entities, such as schools, hospitals etc. render centrally in precisely 
the same manner. In OSM things are only difficult to do if their not 
explained clearly. Good wiki descriptions are essential.



  * Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as nodes
over the pub building, and attributes on a node easily transfer to
a building outline + (usually) building=pub. In particular the
node & area centroid will tend to be very close. Thus the two
different ways of mapping relate to each other in a clear way.



As has been pointed out by others, mapping pubs this way will make it 
consistent with the tagging of other objects.


landuse=retail shouldn't be used for individual properties. It also 
doesn't link the entities together.


I don't see the centroid of the area being offset from the building as a 
problem for postcode location or routing.


IMO places of worship should also have an boundary tag to encompass all 
ancillary objects operated by the organisation, but that's for another 
discussion



Cheers
Dave F.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Projects

[SK53]

Anything covered by FHRS has decent Open Data coverage across the country:
hospitals, care homes, pharmacies.

Charity Care Commission Open Data has a significant overlap with doctors,
dentists, care homes, clinics etc.

Both contain postcodes so one can locate things approximately, but in many
cases there's plenty of other visual cues on aerial imagery or OSSV to
locate these. For smaller GP practices and many dentists a survey may be
necessary because they will be run from an ordinary house.

Some councils provide Open Data listings of Places of Worship (Nottingham
for instance). Be aware that many smaller christian groups and many mosques
may be in atypical premises. I have come across a number of Hindu temples &
Gurdwaras making use of former industrial buildings. The New Basford
Industrial area  in Nottingham
has a surprising number of small places of worship which we would not have
found without the council data.

Although OSSV shows most Places of Worship, unless they are obviously
anglican churches by position, size, and presence in a churchyard, it is
difficult to deduce much more about them. I don't know if OpenMap Local has
any more information. For instance I gather that the distribution of
unitarian churches in Wales is rather interesting, but the information we
have is scant in the extreme.

It should be possible to locate the older established churches in England &
Scotland (and also Church in Wales) through use of old maps &
out-of-copyright guides. GSGS 3906 is very useful for Northern Ireland as
it often includes both the name & denomination of churches. Newer churches
in Northern Ireland may be recognised both by structure & large car parks,
especially when in the rural countryside. As an example there are currently
just over 2400 places of worship in Wales. There are/were about 1400
parishes many of which would have had several non-conformist chapels as
well as the parish church. Only around 350 had denomination=anglican, and
1900 religion=christian. (An additional problem in Wales is that churches,
and non-conformist chapels in particular, have been closing quite rapidly
over the past couple of decades). Finding ways to improve tagging of
existing places of worship, whether through survey or using other
resources, would be useful in its own right.

Jerry

On 14 March 2016 at 14:15, Stuart Reynolds  wrote:

> It might also be worth doing some kind of survey to see what motivated
> participants in teh Schools project, what they liked, what they didn't
> like, how we could improve, how they heard of the project (if indeed some
> of the single editors were even aware they were being counted as part of a
> project)
>
>
> My interest lies primarily with points of interest data. As many of you
> may recall, I work for one of the traveline regions for public transport
> journey planning. We are most interested, therefore, in the places that
> people actually want to travel to. Hospitals and other medical facilities
> are obviously one of those, as are schools. Churches also seem to be a key
> destination, and I have had contact from organisations that are trying to
> create directories of Mosques and other places of worship.
>
> At present we buy in our point of interest data. However, we would like to
> use OSM because it is free, and because we don’t have to worry about POI
> locations moving or being missing - we can just create them in the map
> ourselves, and have it in our next data release. On that basis, I
> participated in the schools project because I was slightly horrified at the
> number of schools that were missing in a relatively small area like
> Southend. I didn’t participate in the previous project (which, if I recall,
> was postboxes) because I frankly don’t care about such “micro" objects when
> large objects like schools are missing, and for a future project I would be
> interested in mapping larger objects that we can reasonably accurately fix
> in space and track. So hospitals / medical facilities are one, places of
> worship another, and probably also parks / woods / nature reserves. These
> latter fall into the category of large areas which are not suited to
> points, but where there are defined access points and possibly central
> “information” points that could be considered “main entrances” or the focal
> point of the area.
>
> Regards,
> Stuart
>
> 
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
> On 13 Mar 2016, at 17:31, Brian Prangle  wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Following the extraordinary success of the Schools project we need  to
> decide how to proceed with the next quarter's project.
>
> There is a view we shoud rollover the project for another quarter so as to
> approach completion.
>
> I favour rolling it into an ongoing UK national project (similar to the
> Irish Townlands project), keeping the existing tools 

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Projects

[Lester Caine]

On 13/03/16 17:31, Brian Prangle wrote:
> Following the extraordinary success of the Schools project we need  to
> decide how to proceed with the next quarter's project.
> 
> There is a view we shoud rollover the project for another quarter so as
> to approach completion.

Given that there is a clean set of data to compare against, keeping the
current tools available would be appreciated. I'm hoping to have another
session myself, but moving away from my local area, that will take more
time. The data is available so lets use it.

One thing I did find while working on the schools was a lot of poor
quality data that had to be tidied at the same time. Watercourses were
the main problem with crude blue lines running straight through the land
areas I was mapping. Some were fairly easy to relocate as traces of the
real path were visible, but I was tempted at times to simply delete
them, opting instead to push them to one side where the route was not
actually detectable ... unless they run under the school buildings :) So
is a more accurate set of data available for these?

What other databases such as edubase are available?

-- 
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] UK Quarterly Projects

[Stuart Reynolds]

It might also be worth doing some kind of survey to see what motivated 
participants in teh Schools project, what they liked, what they didn't like, 
how we could improve, how they heard of the project (if indeed some of the 
single editors were even aware they were being counted as part of a project)

My interest lies primarily with points of interest data. As many of you may 
recall, I work for one of the traveline regions for public transport journey 
planning. We are most interested, therefore, in the places that people actually 
want to travel to. Hospitals and other medical facilities are obviously one of 
those, as are schools. Churches also seem to be a key destination, and I have 
had contact from organisations that are trying to create directories of Mosques 
and other places of worship.

At present we buy in our point of interest data. However, we would like to use 
OSM because it is free, and because we don’t have to worry about POI locations 
moving or being missing - we can just create them in the map ourselves, and 
have it in our next data release. On that basis, I participated in the schools 
project because I was slightly horrified at the number of schools that were 
missing in a relatively small area like Southend. I didn’t participate in the 
previous project (which, if I recall, was postboxes) because I frankly don’t 
care about such “micro" objects when large objects like schools are missing, 
and for a future project I would be interested in mapping larger objects that 
we can reasonably accurately fix in space and track. So hospitals / medical 
facilities are one, places of worship another, and probably also parks / woods 
/ nature reserves. These latter fall into the category of large areas which are 
not suited to points, but where there are defined access points and possibly 
central “information” points that could be considered “main entrances” or the 
focal point of the area.

Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 13 Mar 2016, at 17:31, Brian Prangle 
> wrote:

Hi everyone

Following the extraordinary success of the Schools project we need  to decide 
how to proceed with the next quarter's project.

There is a view we shoud rollover the project for another quarter so as to 
approach completion.

I favour rolling it into an ongoing UK national project (similar to the Irish 
Townlands project), keeping the existing tools in place to monitor progress. As 
a byproduct do a major revamp of the UK projects wiki page to bring it up to 
date.

As for the subject for next quarter's project if we move the Schools project to 
a national project and don't roll it over, a number of ideas have been put 
forward:

1. Water: add sewage works, rivers,streams and ponds from OSSV, improve lake 
outlines, improve alignments, separate natural and reservoir tags,improve 
coastlines, add bridges or tunnels where waterways cross highways and railways 
etc.
2. Healthcare: add hospitals, doctors, dentists, pharmacies. Or possibly just 
add doctors which is a smaller target. I think national single Open Data 
sources exist for all of these. It will need more surveying than Schools (not 
visible on OSSV or aerial imagery)
3. Highway Maxheights, maxwidths, maxweights: various data sources exist but I 
don't  think there's one national resource. Improving this data will make our 
data more usable for routing. There is the possibility to involve couriers, 
haulage companies etc either organisationally, or individual drivers
4.There's also a suggestion to group-mentor a GSoC (Google Summer of Code) 
project, which I believe doesn't fit well as a quarterly project, as it won't 
involve a wide swathe of the community. We could explore it as an additional 
project
5. And a light-hearted suggestion - map some monkey puzzle trees as part of 
this project

It might also be worth doing some kind of survey to see what motivated 
participants in teh Schools project, what they liked, what they didn't like, 
how we could improve, how they heard of the project (if indeed some of the 
single editors were even aware they were being counted as part of a project)

As ever: opinions and other suggestions welcome

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Projects

[Jez Nicholson]

For the quarterly project, would you say that we're looking for something
that does all of the following?:
* include/attract lots of people
* improve the UK map in either accuracy or coverage
* attract outside attention
* be sort-of interesting to us

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 at 17:33 Brian Prangle  wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> Following the extraordinary success of the Schools project we need  to
> decide how to proceed with the next quarter's project.
>
> There is a view we shoud rollover the project for another quarter so as to
> approach completion.
>
> I favour rolling it into an ongoing UK national project (similar to the
> Irish Townlands project), keeping the existing tools in place to monitor
> progress. As a byproduct do a major revamp of the UK projects wiki page to
> bring it up to date.
>
> As for the subject for next quarter's project if we move the Schools
> project to a national project and don't roll it over, a number of ideas
> have been put forward:
>
> 1. Water: add sewage works, rivers,streams and ponds from OSSV, improve
> lake outlines, improve alignments, separate natural and reservoir
> tags,improve coastlines, add bridges or tunnels where waterways cross
> highways and railways etc.
> 2. Healthcare: add hospitals, doctors, dentists, pharmacies. Or possibly
> just add doctors which is a smaller target. I think national single Open
> Data sources exist for all of these. It will need more surveying than
> Schools (not visible on OSSV or aerial imagery)
> 3. Highway Maxheights, maxwidths, maxweights: various data sources exist
> but I don't  think there's one national resource. Improving this data will
> make our data more usable for routing. There is the possibility to involve
> couriers, haulage companies etc either organisationally, or individual
> drivers
> 4.There's also a suggestion to group-mentor a GSoC (Google Summer of Code)
> project, which I believe doesn't fit well as a quarterly project, as it
> won't involve a wide swathe of the community. We could explore it as an
> additional project
> 5. And a light-hearted suggestion - map some monkey puzzle trees as part
> of this project 
>
> It might also be worth doing some kind of survey to see what motivated
> participants in teh Schools project, what they liked, what they didn't
> like, how we could improve, how they heard of the project (if indeed some
> of the single editors were even aware they were being counted as part of a
> project)
>
> As ever: opinions and other suggestions welcome
>
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[John Aldridge]

On 14-Mar-16 10:43, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

The one pub that I plotted, I added when I was doing a couple of nearby
schools and noticed that it was missing. I used exactly the same
principle as for the schools - an outer “amenity=pub”  polygon and an
inner “building=pub” for the actual building.


Sounds good to me... similarly for restaurants which have their own 
car-park and perhaps outdoor seating area?


--
Cheers,
John

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Dave F]

+1
This corroborates what I said on the changeset & how I mapped it.

Dave F.

On 14/03/2016 10:43, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
The one pub that I plotted, I added when I was doing a couple of 
nearby schools and noticed that it was missing. I used exactly the 
same principle as for the schools - an outer “amenity=pub”  polygon 
and an inner “building=pub” for the actual building.


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389684953

Personally, I think that this is fine. The fact that the pub icon sits 
in the garden is hardly the end of the world, and the garden _is_ part 
of the pub after all. And I bet if you turned up at the location you’d 
be able to spot where the pub was :)


My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that there is way too much 
inconsistency in the way that things get mapped in OSM which makes it 
difficult to understand the data. Country pubs, in particular, will 
often have car parks & gardens as well as the physical building, and 
using an enclosing polygon is surely the right way to make sure that 
they are all kept together - and using a style of data that then 
compares directly to other amenities like schools, hospitals, parks …


Cheers
Stuart


On 14 Mar 2016, at 10:26, Jez Nicholson > wrote:


I normally plot and tag a pub building as an area. I've noticed a few 
points appearing for existing pubs. They may be coming from the new 
OSM online editing programs.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 22:48, Neil Matthews > wrote:


It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and
tag that. I'd expect to put the name and address on the building too!

If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll
adversely affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes
the map look more complete.

However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a
public house (emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map,
especially at the end of a long day mapping, then that doesn't
rely help. And since I use mapnik renderings and OSMAnd+ it's
important that they work well -- especially as that way I find
other non-obvious issues.

Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open
to the public -- it's probably more important to map the
entrances on the perimeter -- as more and more schools are
fencing kids in and public out.

But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get
served? And pub for the whole area.

Cheers,
Neil


On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:

Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I
noticed a comment about reverting a duplicate pub node, and
glanced at the changeset
.

The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed).
However what caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag
had been applied to the entire area of the pub grounds (car
park, buildings etc.). A quick query on IRC and Andy
(SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way, however rarely with as
much detail as this particular one. The general alternative is
to map pubs as areas on the building of the pub.

The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub
property are largely to do with the immediate association of car
parks, beer gardens, children's playgrounds with the pub and
thus ready interpretation of things like access tags and
resolution as to which car park belongs to the pub. This
approach is clearly less cumbersome than using a relation, such
as associatedCarpark (invented I believe by Gregory Williams in
Kent).

The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:

  * Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping
pubs this way, although I can see the point. I doubt that a
newcomer to OSM would find this the straightforwardly
obvious approach.
  * Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually
relate to the building.
  * Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises
which may apply also to other parts of the pub property (an
obvious one would be opening_hours).
  * Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park.
Even if we fully accept "not tagging for the renderer",
let's consider how we can tell renderers to improve icon
placement. Andy suggested on IRC a label node, but this
implies a relation: do we want to replace a simple node &/or
area tag with a node, an area & a relation? And then ask the
Carto-CSS team to deal with it? It seems to me that this
pushes the bar too high not just for inexperienced mappers
but also those of us who have been at it for a while. In the
meantime the CartoCSS rendering will look rather daft in
such cases.
  * 

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Colin Smale]

Can I make a plea to keep away from using landuse polygons for this, as
SK53 suggested in the original post? In town centres, pubs are often
just a "shop" in a row of shops; they are therefore already in a
landuse=retail polygon. Having to have an island of landuse=retail
within the larger retail area so it can carry a particular tag is going
to get messy, and I don't see why urban and rural pubs should be tagged
differently.

//colin 

On 2016-03-14 11:43, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

> The one pub that I plotted, I added when I was doing a couple of nearby 
> schools and noticed that it was missing. I used exactly the same principle as 
> for the schools - an outer "amenity=pub"  polygon and an inner "building=pub" 
> for the actual building. 
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389684953 
> 
> Personally, I think that this is fine. The fact that the pub icon sits in the 
> garden is hardly the end of the world, and the garden _is_ part of the pub 
> after all. And I bet if you turned up at the location you'd be able to spot 
> where the pub was :) 
> 
> My opinion, for what it's worth, is that there is way too much inconsistency 
> in the way that things get mapped in OSM which makes it difficult to 
> understand the data. Country pubs, in particular, will often have car parks & 
> gardens as well as the physical building, and using an enclosing polygon is 
> surely the right way to make sure that they are all kept together - and using 
> a style of data that then compares directly to other amenities like schools, 
> hospitals, parks ... 
> 
> Cheers 
> Stuart 
> 
> On 14 Mar 2016, at 10:26, Jez Nicholson  wrote: 
> I normally plot and tag a pub building as an area. I've noticed a few points 
> appearing for existing pubs. They may be coming from the new OSM online 
> editing programs.
> 
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 22:48, Neil Matthews  wrote: 
> It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and tag that. 
> I'd expect to put the name and address on the building too!
> 
> If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll adversely 
> affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes the map look more 
> complete.
> 
> However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a public house 
> (emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map, especially at the end of a 
> long day mapping, then that doesn't rely help. And since I use mapnik 
> renderings and OSMAnd+ it's important that they work well -- especially as 
> that way I find other non-obvious issues.
> 
> Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open to the 
> public -- it's probably more important to map the entrances on the perimeter 
> -- as more and more schools are fencing kids in and public out.
> 
> But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get served? And pub 
> for the whole area.
> 
> Cheers,
> Neil 
> 
> On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote: 
> 
> Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I noticed a comment 
> about reverting a duplicate pub node, and glanced at the changeset [1].
> 
> The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed). However what 
> caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag had been applied to the 
> entire area of the pub grounds (car park, buildings etc.). A quick query on 
> IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way, however rarely with as 
> much detail as this particular one. The general alternative is to map pubs as 
> areas on the building of the pub.
> 
> The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub property are 
> largely to do with the immediate association of car parks, beer gardens, 
> children's playgrounds with the pub and thus ready interpretation of things 
> like access tags and resolution as to which car park belongs to the pub. This 
> approach is clearly less cumbersome than using a relation, such as 
> associatedCarpark (invented I believe by Gregory Williams in Kent).
> 
> The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:
> 
> * Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this way, 
> although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM would find this 
> the straightforwardly obvious approach.
> * Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate to the 
> building.
> * Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may apply 
> also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one would be 
> opening_hours).
> * Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if we fully 
> accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how we can tell 
> renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on IRC a label node, but 
> this implies a relation: do we want to replace a simple node &/or area tag 
> with a node, an area & a relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team to deal 
> with it? It seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just for 
> inexperienced 

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Stuart Reynolds]

The one pub that I plotted, I added when I was doing a couple of nearby schools 
and noticed that it was missing. I used exactly the same principle as for the 
schools - an outer “amenity=pub”  polygon and an inner “building=pub” for the 
actual building.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389684953

Personally, I think that this is fine. The fact that the pub icon sits in the 
garden is hardly the end of the world, and the garden _is_ part of the pub 
after all. And I bet if you turned up at the location you’d be able to spot 
where the pub was :)

My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that there is way too much inconsistency in 
the way that things get mapped in OSM which makes it difficult to understand 
the data. Country pubs, in particular, will often have car parks & gardens as 
well as the physical building, and using an enclosing polygon is surely the 
right way to make sure that they are all kept together - and using a style of 
data that then compares directly to other amenities like schools, hospitals, 
parks …

Cheers
Stuart


On 14 Mar 2016, at 10:26, Jez Nicholson 
> wrote:

I normally plot and tag a pub building as an area. I've noticed a few points 
appearing for existing pubs. They may be coming from the new OSM online editing 
programs.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 22:48, Neil Matthews 
> wrote:
It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and tag that. I'd 
expect to put the name and address on the building too!

If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll adversely 
affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes the map look more complete.

However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a public house 
(emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map, especially at the end of a long 
day mapping, then that doesn't rely help. And since I use mapnik renderings and 
OSMAnd+ it's important that they work well -- especially as that way I find 
other non-obvious issues.

Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open to the public 
-- it's probably more important to map the entrances on the perimeter -- as 
more and more schools are fencing kids in and public out.

But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get served? And pub for 
the whole area.

Cheers,
Neil


On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:
Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I noticed a comment 
about reverting a duplicate pub node, and glanced at the 
changeset.

The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed). However what 
caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag had been applied to the entire 
area of the pub grounds (car park, buildings etc.). A quick query on IRC and 
Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way, however rarely with as much detail 
as this particular one. The general alternative is to map pubs as areas on the 
building of the pub.

The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub property are 
largely to do with the immediate association of car parks, beer gardens, 
children's playgrounds with the pub and thus ready interpretation of things 
like access tags and resolution as to which car park belongs to the pub. This 
approach is clearly less cumbersome than using a relation, such as 
associatedCarpark (invented I believe by Gregory Williams in Kent).

The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:

  *   Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this way, 
although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM would find this 
the straightforwardly obvious approach.
  *   Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate to the 
building.
  *   Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may apply 
also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one would be opening_hours).
  *   Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if we 
fully accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how we can tell 
renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on IRC a label node, but 
this implies a relation: do we want to replace a simple node &/or area tag with 
a node, an area & a relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team to deal with it? 
It seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just for inexperienced 
mappers but also those of us who have been at it for a while. In the meantime 
the CartoCSS rendering will look rather daft in such cases.
  *   Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as nodes over the 
pub building, and attributes on a node easily transfer to a building outline + 
(usually) building=pub. In particular the node & area centroid will tend to be 
very close. Thus the two different ways of mapping relate to each other in a 
clear way.

This issue of course is more general than pubs. For instance we map schools, 

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Jez Nicholson]

I normally plot and tag a pub building as an area. I've noticed a few
points appearing for existing pubs. They may be coming from the new OSM
online editing programs.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 22:48, Neil Matthews  wrote:

> It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and tag that.
> I'd expect to put the name and address on the building too!
>
> If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll adversely
> affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes the map look more
> complete.
>
> However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a public house
> (emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map, especially at the end of a
> long day mapping, then that doesn't rely help. And since I use mapnik
> renderings and OSMAnd+ it's important that they work well -- especially as
> that way I find other non-obvious issues.
>
> Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open to the
> public -- it's probably more important to map the entrances on the
> perimeter -- as more and more schools are fencing kids in and public out.
>
> But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get served? And pub
> for the whole area.
>
> Cheers,
> Neil
>
>
> On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:
>
> Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I noticed a
> comment about reverting a duplicate pub node, and glanced at the changeset
> .
>
> The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed). However
> what caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag had been applied to
> the entire area of the pub grounds (car park, buildings etc.). A quick
> query on IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way, however rarely
> with as much detail as this particular one. The general alternative is to
> map pubs as areas on the building of the pub.
>
> The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub property are
> largely to do with the immediate association of car parks, beer gardens,
> children's playgrounds with the pub and thus ready interpretation of things
> like access tags and resolution as to which car park belongs to the pub.
> This approach is clearly less cumbersome than using a relation, such as
> associatedCarpark (invented I believe by Gregory Williams in Kent).
>
> The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:
>
>- Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this
>way, although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM would
>find this the straightforwardly obvious approach.
>- Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate to
>the building.
>- Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may
>apply also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one would be
>opening_hours).
>- Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if
>we fully accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how we can
>tell renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on IRC a label
>node, but this implies a relation: do we want to replace a simple node &/or
>area tag with a node, an area & a relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team
>to deal with it? It seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just
>for inexperienced mappers but also those of us who have been at it for a
>while. In the meantime the CartoCSS rendering will look rather daft in such
>cases.
>- Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as nodes over
>the pub building, and attributes on a node easily transfer to a building
>outline + (usually) building=pub. In particular the node & area centroid
>will tend to be very close. Thus the two different ways of mapping relate
>to each other in a clear way.
>
> This issue of course is more general than pubs. For instance we map
> schools, colleges, universities and hospitals as areas and place all the
> relevant tags on the area. Churches & other places of worship, on the other
> hand, tend to have the amenity tag placed on the building. (This makes
> sense as in many cases it is the building which is the place of worship not
> the grounds). Also, I certainly will map a supermarket as the building
> rather than the whole area including car parks, petrol stations etc.
>
> Obviously I prefer for supermarkets, places of worship and pubs that the
> area mapped should be the building. However I can equally see that there
> are certain issues which are otherwise intractable where mapping the whole
> area offers some advantages.
>
> One approach which would reflect my own mapping approach would be to tag
> the complete area associated with the pub as landuse=retail, with a tag
> such as retail=pub. This would require no more additional OSM elements than
> used at the moment, and would provide for the identification of
> associations with car parks etc (and would work fine with