Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

[Robert Norris]

> 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.

IMHO The ref key is for the primary key (so in these cases against the highway).
It keeps it simple for mappers and is verifiably the ground truth - AKA what 
one should see if travelling or being routed along that way.
As a bonus this is then used *now* by standard renderers/routers/data users 
with no extra effort.

So for a 'road' it's road signs, although it may have signs for subsections of 
users such as cyclists.

Then for ways with multiple uses/routes then subsidiary ref keys should  be 
namespaced to avoid conflicts or suggesting the ref is related to the wrong 
key, hence prow_ref and ncn_ref/lcn_ref/rcn_ref (bicycle route refs probably 
best set once on the relation anyway).

And then specialist data users can do more specific things e.g. OSM Cycle Map 
or SomeoneElses's UK Style using data in the additional keys.

I hope that makes sense.

--
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.


From: David Groom 
Sent: 10 January 2017 01:17:24
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: 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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

[Robert Skedgell]

On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 21:46:53 GMT Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 10/01/2017 07:54, Robert Skedgell wrote:
> > ref=legible_london
> 
> I don't understand the rationale for this as a 'ref'. Refs are normally
> unique identifiers for a particular object (unique within a particular
> domain, that is). Thus each sign would have a different ref, if there
> were indeed a system of refs for Legible London signs. The value
> 'legible_london' looks more like a network tag.

ref=* was (as already stated in another reply) an error in my thinking/
recollection - something like brand=legible_london or network=legible_london 
would seem appropriate choices from the suggestions made.

On closer inspection of a few of the miniliths in Stratford, they do have a 
unique ID number which would be an appropriate use for the ref key.

-- 
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

[Steve Doerr]

On 10/01/2017 07:54, Robert Skedgell wrote:

ref=legible_london



I don't understand the rationale for this as a 'ref'. Refs are normally 
unique identifiers for a particular object (unique within a particular 
domain, that is). Thus each sign would have a different ref, if there 
were indeed a system of refs for Legible London signs. The value 
'legible_london' looks more like a network tag.


--
Steve

---
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] tag prow_ref

[Dave F]

With 31 993 occurrences prow_ref appears to be the agreed way to go. To 
check is FootpathX an official authority reference format?


DaveF

On 10/01/2017 16:02, Paul Berry wrote:
So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change *ref* to 
*prow_ref* on this and other footpaths I've tracked recently?


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464500797

Regards,
/Paul/

On 10 January 2017 at 11:05, Dave F > wrote:


This thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html


Specifically this point by Andy R.:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017423.html


As pointed out official_ref=* is a little to vague. It's always
good to be specific as possible.

DaveF


On 10/01/2017 10:39, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote:



FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it
was felt there could be other official or authority tags. It's
always good to be specific.


Where was that discussed/agreed?
The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref.
//colin
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines



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






Avast logo




This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com






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







---
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] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

[Andy Allan]

On 10 January 2017 at 15:55, SK53  wrote:

> I was going to say that usually we have the atco code in ref for bus stops
> with the more visible stop C in local ref, and thus bus stops aren't the
> perfect example. I certainly wouldn't tell someone to wait at bus stop
> 3390V1 rather than V1.

Ah, that's my misremembering of the nuances of bus stop tagging. But I
don't want to drag this too far off-topic, so suffice to ignore
mentions of bus stops in my previous email.

> I then felt obscurely cheated that the latter local_ref shows up on the
> Transport Map in bus stops in high zooms for London and some city centres,
> but apparently not elsewhere. Is this some magical trade secret or me just
> missing some tagging difference.

It's limited to two characters at the moment, perhaps that's the
problem? If not, feel free to get in touch with an example and I'll
investigate.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

[Dan S]

2017-01-10 16:37 GMT+00:00 Andy Mabbett :
> On 10 January 2017 at 07:54, Robert Skedgell  wrote:
>
>> ref=legible_london

Yeah, I agree this isn't the way "ref=" is normally used


> I'd expect to see something like:
>
> operator=legible_london
>
> or, say:
>
> operator=GLA
> scheme=legible_london

Seems to me to have a strong analogy to eg the bike hire scheme so my
guess would have been

network=Legible London


Cheers
Dan

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

[Andy Mabbett]

On 10 January 2017 at 07:54, Robert Skedgell  wrote:

> ref=legible_london

I'd expect to see something like:

operator=legible_london

or, say:

operator=GLA
scheme=legible_london


-- 
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] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

[Robert Skedgell]

Andy
That's a very good point. I suspect that I mis-remembered the use of 
crossing_ref=* (used with highway=crossing + crossing=*) as just "ref".
brand=legible_london seems a much better fit, particularly as it makes it seem 
less of an assertion about the actual legibility of the map (as noted in an 
earlier comment).
Perhaps also operator=* for the borough responsible, or TfL as appropriate? 
-- Robert Skedgell  (rskedgell)

 Original message 
From: Andy Allan  
Date: 10/01/2017  15:10  (GMT+00:00) 
To: Robert Skedgell  
Cc: Talk-GB  
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions 

On 10 January 2017 at 07:54, Robert Skedgell  wrote:

> ref=legible_london

I would only use the ref= tag if there is a reference code for each
installation, e.g. if the totem has a displayed reference like "A01"
designed for users to see. From the pictures I don't think that they
do, and if they did, I would expect it to be a reference for internal
use - i.e. official_ref=

Think of it like bus stops (ref=C) or road numbers (ref=A204). Would
it make sense if I was to render a map with an icon for the
information point, with the reference shown underneath?

I would suggest brand=legible_london as an alternative, but there
might be other options too.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 10 January 2017 at 16:02, Paul Berry  wrote:
> So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change ref to prow_ref on 
> this and other footpaths I've tracked recently?
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464500797

I'd definitely recommend using prow_ref=* to store the reference
names/numbers of Public Rights of Way (Footpaths, Bridleways,
Restricted Byways and BOATs).

Usually, I think, the numbering system is on a per-parish basis. If
so, then it would be useful to include the parish name too for
disambiguation purposes. Unless the County Council uses some other
specific scheme, I'd suggest using a standard format of
prow_ref="[Parish Name] [Type] [Number]" where [Type] is one of FP,
BR, RB, and BY, and [Number] is the assigned path number without any
leading zeros (usually integer, possibly with a letter suffix).

So your example above would presumably become be prow_ref=Ingbirchworth FP 1.

Best wishes,

Robert.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

[Paul Berry]

So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change *ref* to
*prow_ref* on this and other footpaths I've tracked recently?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464500797

Regards,
*Paul*

On 10 January 2017 at 11:05, Dave F  wrote:

> This thread:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html
>
> Specifically this point by Andy R.:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017423.html
>
> As pointed out official_ref=* is a little to vague. It's always good to be
> specific as possible.
>
> DaveF
>
>
> On 10/01/2017 10:39, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote:
>
>
> FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was felt
> there could be other official or authority tags. It's always good to be
> specific.
>
> Where was that discussed/agreed?
>
> The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref.
>
> //colin
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo]
> 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.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] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

[SK53]

On 10 January 2017 at 15:10, Andy Allan  wrote:

>
> Think of it like bus stops (ref=C) or road numbers (ref=A204). Would
> it make sense if I was to render a map with an icon for the
> information point, with the reference shown underneath?
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>
I was going to say that usually we have the atco code in ref for bus stops
with the more visible stop C in local ref, and thus bus stops aren't the
perfect example. I certainly wouldn't tell someone to wait
 at bus stop 3390V1 rather
than V1.

I then felt obscurely cheated that the latter local_ref shows up on the
Transport Map in bus stops in high zooms for London and some city centres,
but apparently not elsewhere. Is this some magical trade secret or me just
missing some tagging difference.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

[Andy Allan]

On 10 January 2017 at 07:54, Robert Skedgell  wrote:

> ref=legible_london

I would only use the ref= tag if there is a reference code for each
installation, e.g. if the totem has a displayed reference like "A01"
designed for users to see. From the pictures I don't think that they
do, and if they did, I would expect it to be a reference for internal
use - i.e. official_ref=

Think of it like bus stops (ref=C) or road numbers (ref=A204). Would
it make sense if I was to render a map with an icon for the
information point, with the reference shown underneath?

I would suggest brand=legible_london as an alternative, but there
might be other options too.

Thanks,
Andy

___
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)

[Derick Rethans]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Andy Townsend wrote:

> On 09/01/2017 14:38, Adrian McEwen wrote:
> > 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? 
> 
> Here's a list of some of the ones that I use:
> 
> New UK mappers:
> http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/newestosm?c=United%20Kingdom#8/52.955/-0.654
> 
> Monitoring changes in a local area:
> http://zverik.osm.rambler.ru/whodidit/?zoom=12=53.15581=-1.36634=BTT
> (actually an RSS feed is available, and there are a couple of "Whodidits"
> around - check the wiki for info)

I tie this in with IFTTT (If This Than That) to send me an email every 
time it triggers.

cheers,
Derick

-- 
https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: https://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug

___
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)

[Andy Townsend]

On 09/01/2017 14:38, Adrian McEwen wrote:

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? 


Here's a list of some of the ones that I use:

New UK mappers:
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/newestosm?c=United%20Kingdom#8/52.955/-0.654

Monitoring changes in a local area:
http://zverik.osm.rambler.ru/whodidit/?zoom=12=53.15581=-1.36634=BTT
(actually an RSS feed is available, and there are a couple of 
"Whodidits" around - check the wiki for info)


There's also https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/Changeset1 which runs 
from the command line and lists bounding box overlaps (and some other 
things, like unfeasibly large buildings).


Checking for notes with certain content:
http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/notes/search?q=test=0

Notes country feed:
http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-notes-country-feed?c=United%20Kingdom=opened

Searching for a particular editor, among other things:
http://osmcha-django-staging.tilestream.net/?editor__icontains=osmapi%2F0.8.1_suspect=False_whitelisted=All=False=All

Looking at MAPS.ME activity:
http://mmwatch.osmz.ru/?country=United+Kingdom

Relation history:
http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=50288
(you can check nodes and ways too)
See also:
http://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/

Changeset visualisation:
http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=45015316
For very large changesets, zoom in to where you are interested in, turn 
the "pistemap" layer on (which fails to display) then zoom out to show 
the nearest change to you, then turn the "pistemap" layer off to see 
where it is.


Username changes over time:
http://whosthat.osmz.ru/

Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

[Robert Skedgell]

The wiki lists map_type and map_size as "useful combinations" for the tag 
combination tourism=information + information=map ( 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dmap ).
Using map_type=street probably makes sense as it is already in use and seems a 
reasonable match for the feature.
I am rather more dubious about map_size, partly because nothing currently in 
use really seems to fit and partly because "size" seems potentially ambiguous 
to convey information about the area covered.
I was aware of the different types of sign listed in TfL's product range PDF, 
but was not really convinced that the distinction between monolith and totem 
(or variants of minilith) would really be useful. Something other than 
tourism=information + information=map would be needed for the waymarker bollard 
and fingerposts in any case as these do not have maps.

 Original message 
From: David Groom  
Date: 10/01/2017  10:59  (GMT+00:00) 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions 


Not quite sure what you had in mind by the tags map_type and map_size, 
but maybe need a tag something along the likes of "sign_type" withn 
values of "bollard | monolith | finger_post | totem" ( see 
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/legible-london-product-range.pdf)

David


-- Original Message --
From: "Robert Skedgell" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 10/01/2017 07:54:41
Subject: [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



___
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-westmidlands] Wolverhampton Railway Station

[Andy Mabbett]

On 9 January 2017 at 22:21, Wolves on Wheels Cycle Campaign
 wrote:

> Just to introduce myself, I'm Steve Young from Wolverhampton ( First
> message, very very recently joined this mailing list )

Welcome!

> I've not made an edit yet, though hoping to make the next meeting in
> Birmingham.
> If I could bring my laptop and arrive a little earlier with someone to "hold
> my hand" and answer some newbie questions, I'd find it useful.

Do, but be careful - that's how I got started, and its addictive!

> I know roads in Brum which are on OSM but not Google M :-)

Which ones?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

[Dave F]

This thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html

Specifically this point by Andy R.:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017423.html

As pointed out official_ref=* is a little to vague. It's always good to 
be specific as possible.


DaveF

On 10/01/2017 10:39, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote:



FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was 
felt there could be other official or authority tags. It's always 
good to be specific.



Where was that discussed/agreed?
The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref.
//colin
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines


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




---
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] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

[David Groom]

Not quite sure what you had in mind by the tags map_type and map_size, 
but maybe need a tag something along the likes of "sign_type" withn 
values of "bollard | monolith | finger_post | totem" ( see 
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/legible-london-product-range.pdf)


David


-- Original Message --
From: "Robert Skedgell" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 10/01/2017 07:54:41
Subject: [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




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

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

[Colin Smale]

On 2017-01-10 10:04, Dave F wrote:

> FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was felt 
> there could be other official or authority tags. It's always good to be 
> specific.

Where was that discussed/agreed? 

The wiki[1] says to use official_ref or admin_ref. 

//colin 

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet

[Dave F]

I'm surprised contributors are spending their time with the ephemeral 
'crop' tag in the UK. As pointed out by Andy we have crop rotation 
systems. Previously to ensure the land wasn't stripped of nutrients, but 
now primarily based on what is the highest EU CAP subsidy.


DaveF

On 10/01/2017 01:44, 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.


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



---
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] beetroot or beet

[Andy Robinson]

I can see a whole new wiki excursion into the underground world of root crops 
;-)

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Craig Wallace [mailto:craig...@fastmail.fm] 
Sent: 10 January 2017 01:52
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: 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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

[Dave F]

On 10/01/2017 00:36, Robert Norris wrote:

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.


I'm unsure why you feel there should be a difference in tagging when 
it's signed on the ground. They refer to the same objects as would be 
listed in the Isle of White Council ROW information documents, so should 
be tagged prow_ref.


FYI The agreed tag for 'C' roads was highway_authority_ref as it was 
felt there could be other official or authority tags. It's always good 
to be specific.


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