[Talk-GB] natural=heath
Somehow I have been oblivious to the fact that large numbers of polygons tagged natural=heath have been added over the past few months to OSM. I only noticed these when looking at old traces on the new GPX trace overlay. Specifically I noticed them on the Snowdon range extending beyond Moel Eilio. I have now reviewed my photographs taken in 2010 for the countryside extending N of Moel Eilio to the pass between Foel Goch and Moel Cynghorion. As it was a beautiful day the photos also provide valuable interpretive evidence not only for the rest of the Snowdon range, but for the Northern Glyders, Mynydd Mawr and the Nantlle Ridge. Both in detail and in long view the vast bulk of this countryside is unimproved grassland, which is why it is used for sheep farming and not grouse moors. There appears to be a small patch of heather moorland beyond the forestry to the N of Moel Eiio, and possibly a patch in one of the valleys to the E. In addition to reviewing my own photos I have also checked the same areas against the Phase 1 habitat survey carried out by the Countryside Commission of Wales roughly between 1980-1995. This also shows the vast bulk of the area as being acid grassland, albeit with some small areas of mosaic grassland and heath. Unfortunately I cannot show this analysis because I obtained the data under an distinctly non-open licence and need explicit permission from Natural Resources Wales to publish the data. This is not to say that the use of tag natural=heath is wrong. Many of the areas which have recently been mapped as natural=heath can also be described as moorland or rough grazing depending on context (upland or coastal). The more usual use of heath, certainly within communities of naturalists, conservationists and ecologists, is for habitats dominated by ericaceous (members of the heather family) shrubs & sub-shrubs: i.e., heather, bell heather, heaths, bilberry, crowberry etc. The phase 1 habitat manual (phase 1 is the basic ecological survey technique developed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, JNCC) states: "Heathland includes vegetation dominated by ericoids or dwarf gorse species, as well as 'heaths' dominated by lichens and bryophytes, dwarf forbs, Carex bigelowii or Juncus trifidus." (p. 41, 2010 revision)" Personally, I would prefer that we stick to a definition similar to this one. There is not likely to an entirely straightforward correspondence with Phase 1 as some upland heather moorland may get mapped in Phase 1 onto other habitats, particularly if underlain by large quantities of peat. The reasons for this are: - *Habitats *are different. Habitats as different as these should be tagged differently. Upland and coastal unimproved grasslands are very different habitats to heather moorland and very very different from rare lowland heaths. Just the range of birds one encounters will be different. On the former I expect to see Meadow Pipits, Wheatears and no Red Grouse. Lowland heaths in Southern England are habitats for quite rare birds: Nightjars, Woodlarks, Dartford Warblers. - *Terrain *underfoot is different. There is a massive difference between walking though knee-deep heather in places like the Rhinogs or the Mull of Kintyre, the lovely turf on the ridges N of Snowdon, or tussocky coastal grassland. We should be capturing such things. - *Visual *differences. The image of the country is different. Most apparent when heather is in bloom. - *Landuse *differences. Most obviously sheep grazing versus grouse moor, although sheep may still be encountered on the latter. - *Obscuring *rare natural areas. Genuine lowland heath is a rare phenomenon in Britain and requires great conservation effort. Extension of the natural=heath tag to cover other things means that identifying these special areas using OSM will not be possible. I reviewing the extent of current use of natural=heath I may already be too late in preventing an extension of its meaning to cover more or less all non-intensively farmed areas which aren't wooded. Notwithstanding this I would like to canvas views from other mappers. If the current usage of the tag is deemed to be the suitable one then we need to develop additional tags which allow the recognition of all the features I mention above. Regards, Jerry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:53:51AM +, SK53 wrote: > Somehow I have been oblivious to the fact that large numbers of polygons > tagged natural=heath have been added over the past few months to OSM. I too have encountered at least one armchair mapper who (in my view) incorrectly tagged large areas of Bodmin moor with this nonsense. I changed this rubbish in the areas that I have directly surveyed, but did not think that I should override another mapper who clearly had spent a lot of effort in adjacent areas without consultation. I first noticed this problem several months ago: I cannot remember whether I tried to contact the mapper to ask what was happening. I have had other instances of armchair mappers adding what I regard as very dubious landuse tags to areas that I have extensively surveyed. When I contacted one of the main offenders; I didn't get a very helpful response. Anyway, I suspect that this is a problem over large areas. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath
On 09/01/2017 11:53, SK53 wrote: Somehow I have been oblivious to the fact that large numbers of polygons tagged natural=heath have been added over the past few months to OSM. I think what's happening here is one mapper "colouring in" without any particular knowledge of the area. Whilst adding the results of some mapping in South Wals I came across a number of heath landuse polygons south of Talybont that bore almost no resemblance to on-the-ground features - it didn't align with existing walls, or woodland, or anything to better than 100m in cases. They've been contacted a couple of times about it, and haven't replied, so with a DWG hat on I sent them http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1104 which was intended to improve mapping quality and responsiveness. The former has happened (a bit); the latter not so much. If all the places that were originally added as natural=heath by this mapper were removed I don't think we'd have a significantly worse map, and it'd be easier to map these features properly. There will be occasions where people have fixed up significant portions of this mappers work, and it'd be great to keep that (there's a massive "heath" http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/456253921 between Merthyr and Crickhowell that I've tidied the Talybont side of - but unfortunately that's only 20% of this one object - I'd be surprised if it is Heath at http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/456253921#map=17/51.76532/-3.33642&layers=H for example), but maybe the solution there is to slice away the parts with nodes added by this mapper from the parts with nodes added by others? Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath
On 09/01/2017 12:28, ael wrote: When I contacted one of the main offenders; I didn't get a very helpful response. It's a shame that this happens, but please do keep trying to contact other mappers where there's a problem like this. If for no other reason, it exposes the problem on http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussions?c=United%20Kingdom#4/54.16/-1.98 . Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath
has there ever been discussion about code branching in OSM? In git terms, we are all making changes direct to master. I'm wondering whether small changes could be automatically approved and large changes would require peer review first. I know that this is a huge change to the base infrastructure, so maybe a bot that auto-challenges large/sweeping changes? or is this like in QI when the siren goes off because someone proposes something that has is a commonly held fallacy? or been discussed ad nauseam - Jez On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 at 12:29 ael wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:53:51AM +, SK53 wrote: > > Somehow I have been oblivious to the fact that large numbers of polygons > > tagged natural=heath have been added over the past few months to OSM. > > > I too have encountered at least one armchair mapper who (in my view) > incorrectly tagged large areas of Bodmin moor with this nonsense. > I changed this rubbish in the areas that I have directly surveyed, but > did not think that I should override another mapper who clearly had > spent a lot of effort in adjacent areas without consultation. > > I first noticed this problem several months ago: I cannot remember > whether I tried to contact the mapper to ask what was happening. > > I have had other instances of armchair mappers adding what I regard as > very dubious landuse tags to areas that I have extensively surveyed. > When I contacted one of the main offenders; I didn't get a very helpful > response. > > Anyway, I suspect that this is a problem over large areas. > > ael > > > ___ > 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] natural=heath
On 09/01/2017 12:40, Jez Nicholson wrote: ... so maybe a bot that auto-challenges large/sweeping changes? I can just see it - "Clippy for OSM" - "It looks as if you are crayoning in some landuse? May I suggest you leave your chair and map what is outside your door?" :) More seriously, edits are public, and feeds such as Pascal Neis's, Whodidit and OsmCha allow monitoring of changes in an area, so if you see something that "looks wrong" please do investigate and contact the user about it. Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath
2017-01-09 12:40 GMT+00:00 Jez Nicholson : > has there ever been discussion about code branching in OSM? In git terms, we > are all making changes direct to master. I'm wondering whether small changes > could be automatically approved and large changes would require peer review > first. I know that this is a huge change to the base infrastructure Yes there has been discussion of this, but not on talk-gb because talk-gb isn't really the place for it ;) It's a very difficult idea to convert osm to a "branching" data model, because of some awkward issues such as universal identifiers for objects and versions. But! There has been some work on an interesting project which sort-of enables branching-and-merging, in the HOT world: https://hi.stamen.com/merging-offline-edits-with-the-posm-replay-tool-2f39a4410d2a > so maybe a bot > that auto-challenges large/sweeping changes? I think we pretty much already have this, thanks to various monitoring tools (recently, OSMCHA - very helpful), except that the "bot" is the community. > or is this like in QI when the siren goes off because someone proposes > something that has is a commonly held fallacy? or been discussed ad nauseam Best not to discourage people who are coming "new to old ideas" imho, though talk-gb's not the ideal venue so I'd suggest using a dev forum... Dan > - Jez > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 at 12:29 ael wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:53:51AM +, SK53 wrote: >> > Somehow I have been oblivious to the fact that large numbers of polygons >> > tagged natural=heath have been added over the past few months to OSM. >> >> >> I too have encountered at least one armchair mapper who (in my view) >> incorrectly tagged large areas of Bodmin moor with this nonsense. >> I changed this rubbish in the areas that I have directly surveyed, but >> did not think that I should override another mapper who clearly had >> spent a lot of effort in adjacent areas without consultation. >> >> I first noticed this problem several months ago: I cannot remember >> whether I tried to contact the mapper to ask what was happening. >> >> I have had other instances of armchair mappers adding what I regard as >> very dubious landuse tags to areas that I have extensively surveyed. >> When I contacted one of the main offenders; I didn't get a very helpful >> response. >> >> Anyway, I suspect that this is a problem over large areas. >> >> ael >> >> >> ___ >> 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] natural=heath
No-one has solved conflation in OSM, so there is no mechanism for re-merging branches (I suspect that it's fundamentally very hard for geo data). If there were usable common conflation techniques there would be many fewer problems with imports. A more viable approach is a post-processed version of OSM data. A couple of the firms doing routing apps do various QA routines before pushing out new releases. The problem is that it's quite easy to do decent post-processing clean-up on data for specific domains (roads, boundaries, retail etc), but one gets back to the conflation problem it it's necessary to merge these together again. Jerry On 9 January 2017 at 12:40, Jez Nicholson wrote: > has there ever been discussion about code branching in OSM? In git terms, > we are all making changes direct to master. I'm wondering whether small > changes could be automatically approved and large changes would require > peer review first. > > I know that this is a huge change to the base infrastructure, so maybe a > bot that auto-challenges large/sweeping changes? > > or is this like in QI when the siren goes off because someone proposes > something that has is a commonly held fallacy? or been discussed ad nauseam > > - Jez > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 at 12:29 ael wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:53:51AM +, SK53 wrote: >> > Somehow I have been oblivious to the fact that large numbers of polygons >> > tagged natural=heath have been added over the past few months to OSM. >> >> >> I too have encountered at least one armchair mapper who (in my view) >> incorrectly tagged large areas of Bodmin moor with this nonsense. >> I changed this rubbish in the areas that I have directly surveyed, but >> did not think that I should override another mapper who clearly had >> spent a lot of effort in adjacent areas without consultation. >> >> I first noticed this problem several months ago: I cannot remember >> whether I tried to contact the mapper to ask what was happening. >> >> I have had other instances of armchair mappers adding what I regard as >> very dubious landuse tags to areas that I have extensively surveyed. >> When I contacted one of the main offenders; I didn't get a very helpful >> response. >> >> Anyway, I suspect that this is a problem over large areas. >> >> ael >> >> >> ___ >> 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] Monitoring OSM changes (was Re: natural=heath)
On 09/01/17 12:50, Andy Townsend wrote: More seriously, edits are public, and feeds such as Pascal Neis's, Whodidit and OsmCha allow monitoring of changes in an area, so if you see something that "looks wrong" please do investigate and contact the user about it. Is there a good introduction to those sorts of feeds anywhere? I did set up some changes-in-a-given-area RSS feeds from ITOworld years ago (I'd explain what they are better, but while the feeds still work I've forgotten my login to go and get the tool's name :-D) I'm wondering (and there are often hints, like Andy's comment above, that such tools exist) if there are better/more tools these days to: 1) Keep an eye on all changes for a given geographic area 2) Watch for all changesets that use a given tag (obviously that'd be too much of a firehose for some tags, but for others it'd help people keep an eye on particular sorts of edits) Cheers, Adrian. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Monitoring OSM changes (was Re: natural=heath)
Adrian wrote: > I did set up some changes-in-a-given-area RSS feeds from ITOworld > years > ago (I'd explain what they are better, but while the feeds still work > I've forgotten my login to go and get the tool's name :-D) You might not have forgotten your ITO world login - if you have an RSS feed and follow the url the login from that doesn't work. You have to already have logged in via http://www.itoworld.com in your browser before clicking on the url in the email. Or at least that works for me. Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath
I have came across a similar issue where areas of mainly grass, but with some gorse bushes, on chalk downland had been changed to natural=heath, when I contacted the mapper about it he said something along the lines of, "well I've seen it done like that elsewhere" David -- Original Message -- From: "SK53" To: "Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" Sent: 09/01/2017 11:53:51 Subject: [Talk-GB] natural=heath Somehow I have been oblivious to the fact that large numbers of polygons tagged natural=heath have been added over the past few months to OSM. I only noticed these when looking at old traces on the new GPX trace overlay. Specifically I noticed them on the Snowdon range extending beyond Moel Eilio. I have now reviewed my photographs taken in 2010 for the countryside extending N of Moel Eilio to the pass between Foel Goch and Moel Cynghorion. As it was a beautiful day the photos also provide valuable interpretive evidence not only for the rest of the Snowdon range, but for the Northern Glyders, Mynydd Mawr and the Nantlle Ridge. Both in detail and in long view the vast bulk of this countryside is unimproved grassland, which is why it is used for sheep farming and not grouse moors. There appears to be a small patch of heather moorland beyond the forestry to the N of Moel Eiio, and possibly a patch in one of the valleys to the E. In addition to reviewing my own photos I have also checked the same areas against the Phase 1 habitat survey carried out by the Countryside Commission of Wales roughly between 1980-1995. This also shows the vast bulk of the area as being acid grassland, albeit with some small areas of mosaic grassland and heath. Unfortunately I cannot show this analysis because I obtained the data under an distinctly non-open licence and need explicit permission from Natural Resources Wales to publish the data. This is not to say that the use of tag natural=heath is wrong. Many of the areas which have recently been mapped as natural=heath can also be described as moorland or rough grazing depending on context (upland or coastal). The more usual use of heath, certainly within communities of naturalists, conservationists and ecologists, is for habitats dominated by ericaceous (members of the heather family) shrubs & sub-shrubs: i.e., heather, bell heather, heaths, bilberry, crowberry etc. The phase 1 habitat manual (phase 1 is the basic ecological survey technique developed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, JNCC) states: "Heathland includes vegetation dominated by ericoids or dwarf gorse species, as well as 'heaths' dominated by lichens and bryophytes, dwarf forbs, Carex bigelowii or Juncus trifidus." (p. 41, 2010 revision)" Personally, I would prefer that we stick to a definition similar to this one. There is not likely to an entirely straightforward correspondence with Phase 1 as some upland heather moorland may get mapped in Phase 1 onto other habitats, particularly if underlain by large quantities of peat. The reasons for this are: Habitats are different. Habitats as different as these should be tagged differently. Upland and coastal unimproved grasslands are very different habitats to heather moorland and very very different from rare lowland heaths. Just the range of birds one encounters will be different. On the former I expect to see Meadow Pipits, Wheatears and no Red Grouse. Lowland heaths in Southern England are habitats for quite rare birds: Nightjars, Woodlarks, Dartford Warblers. Terrain underfoot is different. There is a massive difference between walking though knee-deep heather in places like the Rhinogs or the Mull of Kintyre, the lovely turf on the ridges N of Snowdon, or tussocky coastal grassland. We should be capturing such things. Visual differences. The image of the country is different. Most apparent when heather is in bloom.Landuse differences. Most obviously sheep grazing versus grouse moor, although sheep may still be encountered on the latter. Obscuring rare natural areas. Genuine lowland heath is a rare phenomenon in Britain and requires great conservation effort. Extension of the natural=heath tag to cover other things means that identifying these special areas using OSM will not be possible. I reviewing the extent of current use of natural=heath I may already be too late in preventing an extension of its meaning to cover more or less all non-intensively farmed areas which aren't wooded. Notwithstanding this I would like to canvas views from other mappers. If the current usage of the tag is deemed to be the suitable one then we need to develop additional tags which allow the recognition of all the features I mention above. Regards, Jerry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Monitoring OSM changes (was Re: natural=heath)
On 09/01/17 14:44, Ed Loach wrote: Adrian wrote: I did set up some changes-in-a-given-area RSS feeds from ITOworld years ago (I'd explain what they are better, but while the feeds still work I've forgotten my login to go and get the tool's name :-D) You might not have forgotten your ITO world login - if you have an RSS feed and follow the url the login from that doesn't work. You have to already have logged in via http://www.itoworld.com in your browser before clicking on the url in the email. Or at least that works for me. Ed Ah. I probably did fall foul of that. That's good to know for the future. In the meantime I have reset my login, so can now confirm (what everyone else probably already knew :-) that it's OSM Mapper that I've been using for that. Would still be interested to hear about what other tools I could/should be using :-) Cheers, Adrian. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Monitoring OSM changes (was Re: natural=heath)
On 09/01/2017 14:55, Adrian McEwen wrote: Ah. I probably did fall foul of that. That's good to know for the future. In the meantime I have reset my login, so can now confirm (what everyone else probably already knew :-) that it's OSM Mapper that I've been using for that. Would still be interested to hear about what other tools I could/should be using :-) WhoDidIt returns just the changeset boundary & occasionally misses a few edits (unsure why). I use Overpass Turbo http://overpass-turbo.eu/ With this routine: [out:json][timeout:25]; ( ( node(newer:"{{date:1Day}}")({{bbox}}); way(newer:"{{date:1Day}}")({{bbox}}); ) - ( node(newer:"{{date:1Day}}")(user:"DaveF")({{bbox}}); way(newer:"{{date:1Day}}")(user:"DaveF")({{bbox}}); ) ); out meta geom; Change user name & time length to suit: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_turbo/Extended_Overpass_Turbo_Queries DaveF --- 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
[Talk-GB] Tracker: Waterway with npe/NPE
All, I have set up a taginfo script to monitor waterway=* with source=npe or source=NPE features: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G9KXfp4Ho3fVROO9MxotcYTydl9CEXB_fi5ko2pM5Kc/edit#gid=2116033898 Happy mapping *Rob* ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] crop=grass or sod
Hi, There are a number of farms near me (on a flood plain) that are used to produce grass. However when I look it up on wikipedia .. I get sod. And, yes, I will know what you mean if you tell me to 'sod off' :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod I am wondering what is 'best' GB English in this case ... grass? or sod? I am tending towards sod, but this might create language translation problems, I'll raise that on a separate forum if necessary. So, what say you? grass? or sod? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] crop=grass or sod
The farms near me that grow grass as a crop to transplant onto, say, a pitch sell their product as turf. I would say this is crop=turf on landuse=farmland, the turf is grown for many seasons on the same location. -- cheers Chris Hill (chillly) On 09/01/2017 21:28, Warin wrote: Hi, There are a number of farms near me (on a flood plain) that are used to produce grass. However when I look it up on wikipedia .. I get sod. And, yes, I will know what you mean if you tell me to 'sod off' :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod I am wondering what is 'best' GB English in this case ... grass? or sod? I am tending towards sod, but this might create language translation problems, I'll raise that on a separate forum if necessary. So, what say you? grass? or sod? ___ 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] crop=grass or sod
Turf is more suitable gb-en, sod in this usage AFAIK is mainly us-en. In British & Irish usage a sod is more often a lump of earth or peat extracted from the ground rather than the desirable grass on top. Sod off is I believe distinctly gb-en. Turf has the distinct advantage of being less likely to generate sniggers. Jerry On 9 January 2017 at 21:28, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > There are a number of farms near me (on a flood plain) that are used to > produce grass. > > However when I look it up on wikipedia .. I get sod. And, yes, I will know > what you mean if you tell me to 'sod off' :-) > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod > > > I am wondering what is 'best' GB English in this case ... grass? or sod? > > > I am tending towards sod, but this might create language translation > problems, I'll raise that on a separate forum if necessary. > > > So, what say you? grass? or sod? > > > ___ > 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] crop=grass or sod
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, SK53 wrote: > Turf has the distinct advantage of being less likely to generate sniggers. But a risk of turf wars...? -Paul. Ahem. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] crop=grass or sod
On 10-Jan-17 08:48 AM, Paul Sladen wrote: On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, SK53 wrote: Turf has the distinct advantage of being less likely to generate sniggers. But a risk of turf wars...? Ok.. add turf to the mix My dictionary for sources says turf - Middle English (1100-1500) from Old English (before 1100) sod - Middle English (1100-1500) from Middle Dutch or Middle Low German Maybe with Brexit sod is off. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] tag prow_ref
Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the prow_ref on rendering / routing I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag. He's now amended his entries to prow_ref but is a little disappointed it doesn't show up on the main map, OsmAnd, or Maps.me. I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not maps, so not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be nice if I could point him in the direction of where it is being used, other than my own web site and custom OsmAnd file. Thanks David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] beetroot or beet
Hi again, another UK English question. I use beetroot .. but beet has been used on the wiki. I think beet comes from American English. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref
If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the reference is taken from the Council ROW information documents that are compatible with OSM. 'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground. Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to use the 'ref' field since I believe most if not all ROW on the IOW have the reference on the sign posts. Whereas for most of the rest of England and Wales, only rarely are the ROW references put on sign posts (I don't know of anywhere else that does it consistently compared to the IOW). The only times I normally see ROW references are on permissive notices or temporary route diversion notices. Thus similar to the recommendation for 'C' road references vs A/B Roads. Visibly signed things go into 'ref' so used for A/B roads. 'official_ref' or similar should be used for C roads. -- Be Seeing You - Rob. If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you. From: David Groom Sent: 09 January 2017 23:56:51 To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the prow_ref on rendering / routing I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag. He's now amended his entries to prow_ref but is a little disappointed it doesn't show up on the main map, OsmAnd, or Maps.me. I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not maps, so not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be nice if I could point him in the direction of where it is being used, other than my own web site and custom OsmAnd file. Thanks David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref
The prow:ref tag emerged from a discussion I started on this list about the problem of using the ref tag to refer to PROW references. The specific problem was that some highways were also designated footpaths / bridleways, and so if the ref tag was used to tag a rights of way reference it was given the same rendering priority on these ways as a road reference. There was also no way to distinguish between a ref tag which was for a road reference, and a ref tag which was for a prow reference on that road. Thus the prow:ref tag was suggested. At a later stage I noted the prow_ref tag started to be used. I did not follow the discussion / reasoning behind that, but I find it hard to believe that we need both a prow_ref tag and a prow:ref tag. So I assume the prow_ref tag supoerceeded the prow:ref tag, but for the reasoning outlined in the first paragraph I would not think it helpful to simple use the plain "ref" tag on the Isle of Wight. I cant follow the logic of "Visibly signed things go into 'ref'", since that would seem to mean we don't need lcn_ref tags as these are visible signed. David -- Original Message -- From: "Robert Norris" To: "Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" ; "David Groom" Sent: 10/01/2017 00:36:41 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the reference is taken from the Council ROW information documents that are compatible with OSM. 'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground. Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to use the 'ref' field since I believe most if not all ROW on the IOW have the reference on the sign posts. Whereas for most of the rest of England and Wales, only rarely are the ROW references put on sign posts (I don't know of anywhere else that does it consistently compared to the IOW). The only times I normally see ROW references are on permissive notices or temporary route diversion notices. Thus similar to the recommendation for 'C' road references vs A/B Roads. Visibly signed things go into 'ref' so used for A/B roads. 'official_ref' or similar should be used for C roads. -- Be Seeing You - Rob. If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you. From: David Groom Sent: 09 January 2017 23:56:51 To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the prow_ref on rendering / routing I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the plain "ref" tag. He's now amended his entries to prow_ref but is a little disappointed it doesn't show up on the main map, OsmAnd, or Maps.me. I have pointed out to him that OSM is mainly a provider of data, not maps, so not everything is rendered on the man map, but it would be nice if I could point him in the direction of where it is being used, other than my own web site and custom OsmAnd file. Thanks David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet
Although "beet" could also refer to "sugar beet" I think the wiki pages may be confused The wiki page for crop in Japanese http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Key:crop does seem to have crop = beet translating as sugar beet Whereas the Polish page I think has crop = beet translating a beetroot There probably needs to be an addition to the English crop page to have crop = beet and make this clear it is sugar beet. Tag info shows 579 ways tagged with crop = beet, of these 572 are in northern Italy added by 3 users, so its probably quite easy to ask what exactly they meant by "beet" , and retag these existing ways if they actually should be beetroot. David -- Original Message -- From: "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: 10/01/2017 00:01:24 Subject: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet Hi again, another UK English question. I use beetroot .. but beet has been used on the wiki. I think beet comes from American English. ___ 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] tag prow_ref
On 09/01/17 23:56, David Groom wrote: Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the prow_ref on rendering / routing A map style rather than a "provider of OSM data", but it seemed like a good idea so I added basic support at: https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1957 You'll need to render your own tiles though. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet
On 10/01/17 01:20, David Groom wrote: ... Tag info shows 579 ways tagged with crop = beet, of these 572 are in northern Italy added by 3 users, so its probably quite easy to ask what exactly they meant by "beet" , and retag these existing ways if they actually should be beetroot. In the UK I could hazard a guess as to whether sugarbeet or something else based on the proximity to one of British Sugar's plants such as Newark or Peterborough, but in Northern Italy asking the mapper definitely seems like a good idea. Another caveat in the UK - crops are often rotated (and planted based on price expectation) so what is beet one year is barley the next, and perhaps oil-seed rape after that. Essentially, where this variation happens it'd be difficult to trust any "crop" tag over a year old. Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet
On 2017-01-10 01:20, David Groom wrote: Although "beet" could also refer to "sugar beet" Or "fodder beet" (aka mangelwurzel). I think it is rather similar to sugar beet, not sure if you could tell the difference in the field. It seems they are all the same species (Beta vulgaris), but different cultivars. Also Swiss chard is the same species, but using the leaves. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet
On 10-Jan-17 12:44 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: On 10/01/17 01:20, David Groom wrote: ... Tag info shows 579 ways tagged with crop = beet, of these 572 are in northern Italy added by 3 users, so its probably quite easy to ask what exactly they meant by "beet" , and retag these existing ways if they actually should be beetroot. In the UK I could hazard a guess as to whether sugarbeet or something else based on the proximity to one of British Sugar's plants such as Newark or Peterborough, but in Northern Italy asking the mapper definitely seems like a good idea. There are lots of 'beets' ... different kinds of plants that is. http://www.webcitation.org/6Fu9TOBWl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plantnames.unimelb.edu.au%2FSorting%2FBeta.html Having viewed that ... I think the value can be left as beet... it maybe viewed as 'generic' for all the different kinds. I am only familiar with beetroot ... but I have changed the wiki description to "Beet field, many different kinds, beetroot and sugarbeet being two. " It was ""Beet field" If necessary to identify a particular beet then a further tag could be added beet=beetroot, sugarbeet, sea_beat etc... Another caveat in the UK - crops are often rotated (and planted based on price expectation) so what is beet one year is barley the next, and perhaps oil-seed rape after that. Essentially, where this variation happens it'd be difficult to trust any "crop" tag over a year old. There is at least one instance of multiple values separated by ; I'd think that would be one way of mapping crop rotation values? Rendering is another problem. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions
Does anyone have any suggestions for tagging nodes for the Legible London signs/maps (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legible_London and https:// tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs/maps-and-signs )? Perhaps: tourism=information information=map map_type=street map_size=site name=* ref=legible_london -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb