Re: [Talk-GB] Autumn Quarterly Project

[John Aldridge]

On 02-Oct-16 17:30, SK53 wrote:

My personal rules on this have always been two independent sources of
information OR a survey...



FHRS data should contain full address details most of the time, so there
should be no need to add anything from the website other than the url...


By url do you mean the fhrs:id tag?


I'm confused, then, by the assertions on the web page for this project


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2016_Q4_Project:_Food_Hygiene_Ratings


that

(a) this process might be completely automated [how does that square 
with requiring two sources of information], and


(b) that one of the goals is to accelerate our completion of UK postcode 
data [I'd assumed that implied we needed at least to add addr:postcode 
too, with or without further checks]


--
Cheers,
John

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Autumn Quarterly Project

[Neil Matthews]

> 1.We have a great tool 
developed some time ago by 
gregrs, whose work we should really recognise by making use of it.


Tool looks good, but is there any way to get a feature request: to 
identify items in the fhrs data that don't match to OSM in a region (and 
ideally get a GPX file for surveying). Maybe also sort the regions 
alphabetically on the launch page?


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I have taken a look at my data for this area.  I have a few pictures from when 
I walked through this "farmyard" that are from 2013.  It was in my early days 
of mapping.  Looking at this data on JOSM and my pictures I have tidied it up a 
bit.  I think the satellite imagery has also improved since 2013.

I must admit I don't use highway=path in the UK although it seems to be quite 
commonly used in other parts of the world.   I have changed these to 
highway=footway and add access=customers.  These "paths" seem to be about 
accessing the toilet block and car park with regard to customers using the 
campsite.  The one south of the toilet block is sign posted "booking in" where 
it joins the track.I will have removed the foot=permissive as my 
understanding that this implies general "permissive" access for the public.

When it comes to the "paths" in the woods I have changed these to footways and 
add access=customers.  I assume that if you stay on the campsite you can access 
these as paying customers.   

I don't know all the detail of the main OSM websites rendering.  If 
access=customers doesn't render any differently then the owners of this 
campsite still might not be happy.  I must admit I find it odd that people are 
walking into this area anyway.  The footpaths in the wood accessable from the 
campsite don't join up to the public footpath to the west.  There is however a 
National Trust sign at the south end of this area and it maybe that people 
presume this gives them a general right of access.

This area also currently has two "place" nodes.  One is for a "village" and the 
other a "farm".  It probably was a large farm at one tome but now looks more 
like a hamlet when you walk through it.  There is a small farmyard and a few 
residential properties.

Hopefully the above is going to be acceptable.  Its about as good as my 
knowledge and understanding of tagging gets I'm afraid.

Regards

Dudley






> Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 17:15:09 +0100
> From: davefoxfa...@btinternet.com
> To: for...@david-woolley.me.uk; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale
> 
> 
> On 02/10/2016 14:21, David Woolley wrote:
> > So I would say that highway=path was equivalent to highway=path; 
> > foot=yes; bicycle=yes; horse=yes; motor_vehicle=no (spellings may be 
> > wrong). highway=footway would imply yes to just foot.  Renderers and 
> > routers will, I think follow this policy.
> >
> 
> I certainly didn't map highway=path with those assumptions. Could you 
> please list some data users who do?
> 
> (I don't use path at all now as it's irrelevant & confusing. I use 
> footway with all other attributes described in sub-tags).
> 
> Dave F.
> 
> ___
> 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] Contact with Food Standards Agency

[Jez Nicholson]

I mentioned the quarterly project to Dr Sian Thomas, Head of Information
Management at Food Standards Agency. Her reaction was, "how exciting! When
is it and how can we help?"
https://twitter.com/drsiant/status/778887195432194048

The FSA are keen advocates of open data and I imagine would be happy to be
involved. I'm not sure how exactly, but the door is open.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly project - taginfo tracker

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 2 October 2016 at 15:38, Rob Nickerson  wrote:
> Which tags would you like me to set up a tag-info script for? We can then
> track these throughout the quarter.

Off the top of my head, I'd have thought it would be good to know
about number of instances of fhrs:id=* and addr:postcode=*, and
numbers of eating type places (perhaps just one count for all
amenity=cafe|restaurant|fast_food|pub|bar). Maybe also the
number/proportion of such places that have a name tag. Possibly you
could do other measures postcode progress, such as number of unique
correctly-formatted postcodes in addr:postcode tags and/or number of
postcode sectors ("AB12 X..") with at least one addr:postcode tagged.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Autumn Quarterly Project

[SK53]

My personal rules on this have always been two independent sources of
information OR a survey. This is easy for schools, and harder for pubs just
using aerial imagery & data from FHRS and/or Edubase. Groups of shops can
often be identified from aerial imagery, and correctly associated with FHRS
data through postcode centroids. In this circumstance I would add the
retail area with the postcode, but not any of the retail units unless
additional info is available.

A useful dataset is the full Naptan bus stops: this will often have useful
corroborating information on (particularly) the locations of pubs & post
offices. Once one or two FHRS addresses have been accurately located it is
possible to use this information to derive more info about the immediate
area, which in turn may allow better interpretation of aerial imagery.

For me the key aspect of FHRS data is that it allows a lot of information
to be added from the briefest of surveys. Ideally it should be survey led.
At present of course we have a very large amount of data which can be
enriched from FHRS, which in turn enhances our ability to improve overall
address data.

FHRS data should contain full address details most of the time, so there
should be no need to add anything from the website other than the url. It
is not unknown for details on websites to be incorrect & FHRS data is as
prone to data entry slipups as any other.

Jerry

On 2 October 2016 at 10:56, John Aldridge  wrote:

> On 02-Oct-16 10:32, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
>> I have added the page
>> to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Project
>>
>
> I'm not quite clear what the concrete goals are here: is it just to add
> fhrs:id and addr:postcode tags to relevant establishments (and perhaps to
> map those establishments if they're not already there in OSM?)
>
> What degree of verification is expected on the part of the mapper? Is the
> existence of a (probably fuzzy) name match between an OSM feature and a
> nearby FHRS record adequate justification for adding the relevant tags, or
> is some local knowledge or survey expected?
>
> (On a related topic, suppose an establishment has a web site which
> includes useful information like address & postcode details. Would one be
> breaking rules to copy that information to OSM? After all, the text on the
> web site will be, AIUI, copyright.)
>
> --
> Cheers,
> John
>
> ___
> 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] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

[Dave F]

On 02/10/2016 14:21, David Woolley wrote:
So I would say that highway=path was equivalent to highway=path; 
foot=yes; bicycle=yes; horse=yes; motor_vehicle=no (spellings may be 
wrong). highway=footway would imply yes to just foot.  Renderers and 
routers will, I think follow this policy.




I certainly didn't map highway=path with those assumptions. Could you 
please list some data users who do?


(I don't use path at all now as it's irrelevant & confusing. I use 
footway with all other attributes described in sub-tags).


Dave F.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

[Richard Fairhurst]

David Woolley wrote:
> So I would say that highway=path was equivalent to highway=path; 
> foot=yes; bicycle=yes; horse=yes; motor_vehicle=no (spellings may 
> be wrong). highway=footway would imply yes to just foot.  Renderers 
> and routers will, I think follow this policy.

I can't speak for anyone else, but certainly cycle.travel presumes that a
bare highway=path (no access tags, not a member of a bicycle route relation)
does not have bicycle access.

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Upper-Booth-camp-site-Pennine-Way-near-Edale-tp5883692p5883735.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

[David Woolley]

On 02/10/16 15:06, Andy Townsend wrote:

No - in England and Wales an unspecified access tag surely means just "don't 
know" especially as if (as seems to be the case for one of the ways here) it's 
mapped from aerial imagery.


So HGV's may be permitted on the typical footway, without an access tag?

 
shows an implied yes, for path, but with a footnote that the UK 
guidelines are that paths should always have explicit access.  footway 
is given as unequivocally implying yes.


In most/all other countries, path defaults to an unqualified yes for 
foot, horse and cycles.


Generally default accesses are implied to avoid the normal case being 
cluttered with lots of attributes.  Of course, as more private paths get 
mapped, it may be that private is the real normal case!


The UK rules would seem to suggest that path without access is a mapping 
error.


I suspect that people following these private paths are doing so from 
rendered maps, and rendered maps generally look only at access= to 
determine whether to mark a way as private.  As such the ramblers in 
question would probably behave in the same way for highway=path; foot=no 
as they would for just highway=path on its own.  To get some hope of end 
users obeying the access rules, you would need highway=path; access=private.


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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] October meeting on Wednesday

[Ian Caldwell]

I hope to be there.

Ian

On 2 Oct 2016 3:37 p.m., "Rob Nickerson"  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Don't forget that we are meeting on Wednesday back in Birmingham for the
> winter. Who's joining me?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mappa_Mercia#Next_meeting
>
> Best,
> *Rob*
>
> ___
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
>
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] October meeting on Wednesday

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi all,

Don't forget that we are meeting on Wednesday back in Birmingham for the
winter. Who's joining me?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mappa_Mercia#Next_meeting

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

[David Woolley]

On 02/10/16 13:06, Nick Whitelegg wrote:


Indeed - unless they have foot=yes, foot=permissive, access=permissive
(etc) or designation=public_footpath, we are in no way telling them that
they are public access.


Whether or not there is a formal statement of this anywhere an 
unspecified access is normally understood to be access=yes for the 
normal users of an element type in the country.


So I would say that highway=path was equivalent to highway=path; 
foot=yes; bicycle=yes; horse=yes; motor_vehicle=no (spellings may be 
wrong). highway=footway would imply yes to just foot.  Renderers and 
routers will, I think follow this policy.




It is completely unreasonable for landowners to have a go at us just for
showing a path on the map. Just because it's on the map, it doesn't
implicitly mean it's public.


I would say if it is mapped as footway or path and doesn't have an 
explicit access, it does implicitly allow foot use by the general 
public.  I think the landowner could reasonably expect an explicit 
access tag with restricted rights.  That is best done by giving access= 
for the most permissive and cancelling other rights using detailed 
categories, even though there is an element of mapping for the renderer 
in that.


This needs resolving fairly quickly, otherwise the landowner will take 
matters into their own hands, register to edit, and fix the problem in a 
way that suits them, which will probably not involve the subtleties of 
coding, but simply a deletion of all the paths he thinks the public 
should not use.





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

[Nick Whitelegg]

Indeed - unless they have foot=yes, foot=permissive, access=permissive (etc) or 
designation=public_footpath, we are in no way telling them that they are public 
access.


It is completely unreasonable for landowners to have a go at us just for 
showing a path on the map. Just because it's on the map, it doesn't implicitly 
mean it's public.


From: Richard Fairhurst 
Sent: 02 October 2016 11:33:37
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

Frederik Ramm quoted Mr Angry:
> "NONE of the paths indicated on the map that proceed north through
> Upper Booth Farm are public footpaths"

And indeed they're not tagged as such: they are tagged as the perennially
useless highway=path, some of them with highway=permissive, while the
Pennine Way PRoW is tagged (correctly) as highway=footway, foot=yes. I
suspect this is as least as much an osm-carto rendering issue as it is a
mapping issue.

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Upper-Booth-camp-site-Pennine-Way-near-Edale-tp5883692p5883715.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Autumn Quarterly Project

[Dan S]

2016-10-02 11:54 GMT+01:00 David Woolley :
> On 02/10/16 10:56, John Aldridge wrote:
>>
>> Would one be breaking rules to copy that information to OSM? After all,
>> the text on the web site will be, AIUI, copyright.)
>
>
> The question would be whether or not there is a database copyright involved.
> The actual facts that you are likely to want will not be copyrightable, but
> their aggregation into a database will be.
>
> My take on this is that:
>
> - if you have to use a search engine to find the site, you could infringe on
> the database copyright of the search engine operator;
>
> - if the feature is part of a large chain, and they have a "store locator",
> you will be infringing the database copyright on the the locator (although
> some chains may be happy for you to do this);
>
> - if you use a business directory, that is basically just another search
> engine.
>
> However, if you have a direct link to a web page or even web site that only
> relates to that one location, and that site is maintained by the company
> itself, there will be no database copyright issue and the facts you would
> normally extract would not be copyrightable.
>
> Slightly more problematic would be if the business published a link to a
> business directory page about itself.  I would play safe and assume that the
> directory owners may consider it an infringement on their database rights,
> even though the business supplied everything on the page.
>
> Narrative descriptions may be copyright and will need to be paraphrased, if
> free from database copyrights.

For what it's worth I concur with David on this except his first
point. I don't think using a search engine to find a business's
website has any copyright implications for information you then
retrieve from the business's website! The remainder is good though:
"mere facts" like an address are usually not a copyright infringement,
but if in practice you're taking them from some database or
database-driven website then you need to be wary of database rights.
inal.

Dan

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Autumn Quarterly Project

[David Woolley]

On 02/10/16 10:56, John Aldridge wrote:

Would one be breaking rules to copy that information to OSM? After all,
the text on the web site will be, AIUI, copyright.)


The question would be whether or not there is a database copyright 
involved.  The actual facts that you are likely to want will not be 
copyrightable, but their aggregation into a database will be.


My take on this is that:

- if you have to use a search engine to find the site, you could 
infringe on the database copyright of the search engine operator;


- if the feature is part of a large chain, and they have a "store 
locator", you will be infringing the database copyright on the the 
locator (although some chains may be happy for you to do this);


- if you use a business directory, that is basically just another search 
engine.


However, if you have a direct link to a web page or even web site that 
only relates to that one location, and that site is maintained by the 
company itself, there will be no database copyright issue and the facts 
you would normally extract would not be copyrightable.


Slightly more problematic would be if the business published a link to a 
business directory page about itself.  I would play safe and assume that 
the directory owners may consider it an infringement on their database 
rights, even though the business supplied everything on the page.


Narrative descriptions may be copyright and will need to be paraphrased, 
if free from database copyrights.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

[Richard Fairhurst]

Frederik Ramm quoted Mr Angry:
> "NONE of the paths indicated on the map that proceed north through 
> Upper Booth Farm are public footpaths"

And indeed they're not tagged as such: they are tagged as the perennially
useless highway=path, some of them with highway=permissive, while the
Pennine Way PRoW is tagged (correctly) as highway=footway, foot=yes. I
suspect this is as least as much an osm-carto rendering issue as it is a
mapping issue.

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Upper-Booth-camp-site-Pennine-Way-near-Edale-tp5883692p5883715.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Autumn Quarterly Project

[John Aldridge]

On 02-Oct-16 10:32, Jez Nicholson wrote:

I have added the page
to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Project


I'm not quite clear what the concrete goals are here: is it just to add 
fhrs:id and addr:postcode tags to relevant establishments (and perhaps 
to map those establishments if they're not already there in OSM?)


What degree of verification is expected on the part of the mapper? Is 
the existence of a (probably fuzzy) name match between an OSM feature 
and a nearby FHRS record adequate justification for adding the relevant 
tags, or is some local knowledge or survey expected?


(On a related topic, suppose an establishment has a web site which 
includes useful information like address & postcode details. Would one 
be breaking rules to copy that information to OSM? After all, the text 
on the web site will be, AIUI, copyright.)


--
Cheers,
John

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Autumn Quarterly Project

[Jez Nicholson]

I have added the page to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Project

- Jez

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 at 17:13 Brian Prangle  wrote:

> Hi everyone
>
> It seems that the idea that got most traction from discussions  is to use Food
> Hygiene Rating data  from the Food Standards
> Agency to improve the density of POIs, addresses and postcodes in town
> centres.(Town centres are not exclusive - it's just they'll provide the
> most impact for users)
>
> 1.We have a great tool developed
> some time ago by gregrs, whose work we should really recognise by making
> use of it.
> 2. We could semi-automate  the process if someone wants to build on the
> code developed by Christian Ledermann for schools.
> 
> (We might even be very daring and completely automate it! That would
> certainly accelerate our completion of UK postcode data which according to
> Jerry's current estimate of completion will take 2-3 decades)
> 3. There are indications that the FSA might want to assist us.
> 4. This quarter might we try  a couple of new approaches?
> a)collaborate on an area that needs some attention
> b)in addition to improving the map and the community, improve our reach by
> contacting potentially interested organisations/mappers outside the reach
> of this talk group?
>
> 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] Upper Booth camp site, Pennine Way near Edale

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

Although not the type of feedback we want, it is actually good to hear that 
people are using the map.  I have walked through here and may have some 
pictures for reference so will see what I can do without a survey.  It is a 
well used walking area so the owners are unlikely to dispute public rights of 
way.  I don't recollect putting in these features.  It looks like it has been 
done by someone that must have stayed on their campsite.   It will have to wait 
until this evening.

Regards

Dudley

Sent from my iPad

> On 1 Oct 2016, at 22:35, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>   OSMF board has received a complaint by the operator of the Upper
> Booth campsite, namely that they're seeing an increase of people
> trespassing due to OpenStreetMap featuring the campsite toilet as a
> public toilet.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.36523/-1.84623
> 
> I fixed that for them, but they have only replied with more (quote):
> 
>> I have looked at the map and there are numerous other inaccuracies.
>> The ONLY footpath is the Pennine way from Edale to Upper Booth. NONE of the 
>> paths indicated on the map that proceed north through Upper Booth Farm are 
>> public footpaths, similarly the P marked is the private parking for campsite 
>> users.
>> To the west of the farm is a stream running north /south there is only 1 
>> public footpath that runs alongside the stream NONE of the others indicated 
>> are correct.
> 
> I don't want to edit things based solely on what they're saying - I know
> that property owners sometimes have different ideas about which paths
> are private than the law.
> 
> Maybe if someone passes that farm on a weekend out they can survey the
> situation and mark things as private where necessary.
> 
> I'll place a note there linking to this message.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> 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