Re: [Talk-GB] Relation: Street

[Marc Gemis]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
> Brian was referring to "street" relations, not "associatedStreet" which
> is something very different.

So I failed to make my point. I was hoping to explain that while there
is some support for associatedStreets and there is no support for
street-relations.

I disagree somewhat that they are *very* different, as I have seen
several people trying to express "everything belonging/associated to a
street" with both relations.
I see them more as 2 implementations of the same concept.

regards
m

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Relation: Street

[Simon Poole]

Brian was referring to "street" relations, not "associatedStreet" which
is something very different.

In any case, I believe the support for street relations approaches
roughly zero, and that really the repeated street names is something the
renderer needs to fix (and it can be done).

Simon


Am 21.11.2016 um 21:02 schrieb Marc Gemis:
> An associatedStreet has no impact at all on the renderer.
> Nominated uses it to a certain degree to match houses with streets (in
> case the addr:street does not match the name of a street in the
> proximity).
> There are some tools from the French community that uses this relation
> as well. The French typically place some reference information into
> the relation.
>
> I think the street relation is used / supported even less.
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Brian Prangle  wrote:
>> Hi everyone
>>
>> Road ways are becoming increasingly chopped up into smaller pieces as more
>> data is added ( speedlimits, bus routes, cycle routes, lane counts,  lane
>> types and  lane turns; restrictions etc.) and the name becomes similarly
>> repeated.
>>
>> I'm hesitant to use the relation street and shift the name  to the relation
>> as the wiki says this relation is not supported and I'm also not sure how it
>> will render, but it does seem as it would cure the problem. (Does anyone
>> else actually see it as a problem?)
>>
>> Has anyone used this relation successfully?
>>
>> 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




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS and businesses run from home

[SK53]

A bit late, but according to the FHRS manual businesses run from private
addresses should be obscured (usually at the postcode district level).

Not all authorities follow these rules; I have in the past had to point out
to one authority that showing the private addresses of childminders raises
safeguarding issues. It may be worthwhile raising the issue with the
relevant local authority.

Jerry



On 19 November 2016 at 17:48, Andrew Hain 
wrote:

> Some FHRS entries refer to people’s names, or to business names, with the
> address of a private house. These may be people who cook from home or
> itinerantly. Is it however appropriate for OSM to map these addresses as
> anything more than houses, for example by adding fhrs:id or the name in the
> FHRS data set?
>
>
> --
>
> Andrew
>
> ___
> 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] Derby Pub Meeting tomorrow night (Tues 22nd)

[SK53]

A quick reminder that the Derby pub meeting will be at the Old Silk Mill
from 19:30 tomorrow evening.

Details on the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Relation: Street

[Marc Gemis]

An associatedStreet has no impact at all on the renderer.
Nominated uses it to a certain degree to match houses with streets (in
case the addr:street does not match the name of a street in the
proximity).
There are some tools from the French community that uses this relation
as well. The French typically place some reference information into
the relation.

I think the street relation is used / supported even less.

regards

m

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Brian Prangle  wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> Road ways are becoming increasingly chopped up into smaller pieces as more
> data is added ( speedlimits, bus routes, cycle routes, lane counts,  lane
> types and  lane turns; restrictions etc.) and the name becomes similarly
> repeated.
>
> I'm hesitant to use the relation street and shift the name  to the relation
> as the wiki says this relation is not supported and I'm also not sure how it
> will render, but it does seem as it would cure the problem. (Does anyone
> else actually see it as a problem?)
>
> Has anyone used this relation successfully?
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

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

[Talk-GB] Relation: Street

[Brian Prangle]

Hi everyone

Road ways are becoming increasingly chopped up into smaller pieces as more
data is added ( speedlimits, bus routes, cycle routes, lane counts,  lane
types and  lane turns; restrictions etc.) and the name becomes similarly
repeated.

I'm hesitant to use the relation street and shift the name  to the relation
as the wiki says this relation is not supported and I'm also not sure how
it will render, but it does seem as it would cure the problem. (Does anyone
else actually see it as a problem?)

Has anyone used this relation successfully?

Regards

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

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS and businesses run from home

[Brian Prangle]

Nicely put! I agree that we're should be using a database as a check-list
for surveying the existence of things.

Brian

On 21 November 2016 at 13:38, Harry Wood  wrote:

> "Apart from size, I fail to see the difference"
> Well the difference is whether you can go there and see the business.
> The effect of this verifiability rule might be a size thing, which might
> mean that the cottage industry baking cupcakes doesn't get added but...
>
> More importantly from a process point of view this ultimately makes the
> difference between copying a database versus using a database as a
> check-list for surveying the existence of things.
>
> Worth clarifying which of the two we think we're doing. If we're going to
> add in things which we can't see when we go there, then we are just copying
> a database in.
>
> Harry
> 
> From: Dave F 
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016, 12:58
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS and businesses run from home
>
>
>
> OSM became a company list as soon as the third business was added. Lists
> of things is what the database is all about, it's just that the most common
> way of representing them is geographically spaced out on a map, instead of
> an Excel spreadsheet.
>
> Apart from size, I fail to see the difference between a cottage
>industry baking cupcakes in the kitchen & Mr Kipling churning
>out battenbergs by the mile in huge factories. The FHRS database
>listing a business at a domestic address is verification IMO.
>
> Some see FHRS as a means to an end, by adding address data, which is
>fine, but I see it as an end in itself, referencing a well
>maintained external database providing information that's too
>ephemeral for OSM.
>
> Dave F.
>
>
> On 19/11/2016 16:48, Andrew Hain wrote:
>
> Some FHRS entries refer to people’s names, or to business names, with the
> address of a private house. These may be people who cook from home or
> itinerantly. Is it however appropriate for OSM to map these addresses as
> anything more than houses, for example by adding fhrs:id or the name in the
> FHRS data set?
>
> --
> Andrew
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Bus Lanes

[Brian Prangle]

Hi everyone

Anyone editing in Birmingham might see some unrendered ways tagged with
MPLength=0.0. These are bus lanes I mistakenly imported from BCC. I'm
gradually removing them and replacing with correct lanes:psv=x tags on the
adjacent highways. Please don't delete and please feel free to join in
adding the psv:lanes taggs. The data is not particularly accurate as to the
start and finish of the lanes, but it's good for indicating the existence
of a lane

Regards

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

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS and businesses run from home

[Harry Wood]

"Apart from size, I fail to see the difference"
Well the difference is whether you can go there and see the business.
The effect of this verifiability rule might be a size thing, which might mean 
that the cottage industry baking cupcakes doesn't get added but...

More importantly from a process point of view this ultimately makes the 
difference between copying a database versus using a database as a check-list 
for surveying the existence of things.

Worth clarifying which of the two we think we're doing. If we're going to add 
in things which we can't see when we go there, then we are just copying a 
database in.

Harry

From: Dave F 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Sent: Monday, 21 November 2016, 12:58
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS and businesses run from home



OSM became a company list as soon as the third business was added. Lists of 
things is what the database is all about, it's just that the most common way of 
representing them is geographically spaced out on a map, instead of an Excel 
spreadsheet.

Apart from size, I fail to see the difference between a cottage
   industry baking cupcakes in the kitchen & Mr Kipling churning
   out battenbergs by the mile in huge factories. The FHRS database
   listing a business at a domestic address is verification IMO.

Some see FHRS as a means to an end, by adding address data, which is
   fine, but I see it as an end in itself, referencing a well
   maintained external database providing information that's too
   ephemeral for OSM.

Dave F.


On 19/11/2016 16:48, Andrew Hain wrote:

Some FHRS entries refer to people’s names, or to business names, with the 
address of a private house. These may be people who cook from home or 
itinerantly. Is it however appropriate for OSM to map these addresses as 
anything more than houses, for example by adding fhrs:id or the name in the 
FHRS data set?

--
Andrew



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


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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS and businesses run from home

[David Woolley]

On 21/11/16 12:58, Dave F wrote:

The FHRS database listing a business at a domestic address is
verification IMO.


It's also personal data.  I actually thought that FHRS itself suppressed 
some of this, but if you include it, it becomes subject to the Data 
Protection Act, which put legal constraints on the owners of OSM to 
manage it properly.


Whilst a lot of home office businesses want to be on OSM, because it is 
a way of advertising, I think some of the FHRS registrations would not 
want that sort of publicity.


Incidentally, Google has the concept of a service area business with no 
public access, so if a plumber tries to register their house, and they 
are caught out, they will be removed, because Google take the position 
that people will not actually visit the business at that location.


(Although I've no reason to believe that the data in question has a 
compatible licence, my council released a list of HMO addresses under 
FoI,  but withheld the owners' names under DPA.)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS and businesses run from home

[Dave F]

OSM became a company list as soon as the third business was added. Lists 
of things is what the database is all about, it's just that the most 
common way of representing them is geographically spaced out on a map, 
instead of an Excel spreadsheet.


Apart from size, I fail to see the difference between a cottage industry 
baking cupcakes in the kitchen & Mr Kipling churning out battenbergs by 
the mile in huge factories. The FHRS database listing a business at a 
domestic address is verification IMO.


Some see FHRS as a means to an end, by adding address data, which is 
fine, but I see it as an end in itself, referencing a well maintained 
external database providing information that's too ephemeral for OSM.


Dave F.

On 19/11/2016 16:48, Andrew Hain wrote:


Some FHRS entries refer to people’s names, or to business names, with 
the address of a private house. These may be people who cook from home 
or itinerantly. Is it however appropriate for OSM to map these 
addresses as anything more than houses, for example by adding fhrs:id 
or the name in the FHRS data set?



--

Andrew



___
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