[Talk-GB] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[Adam Snape]

Thanks Phil,

Our local place mapping must be quite primitive, because few place
boundaries are mapped. Do you mean that both the boundary and node should
carry the place=tag? Where there isn't a clear boundary to the place,
should the mapper estimate it? Glad to hear I've been putting the nodes in
the right place anyway :)

Thanks,

Adam



Normally places are mapped with both a boundary and node.

A node is certainly needed for navigation and should be somewhere sensible,
normally the centre is where someone who puts the placename into a satnav
would expect to end up, rather than a housing estate in the geographical
centre.

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

[Talk-GB] Traditional/Historic Counties

[Adam Snape]

Hi Colin,

Thanks for the reply and offer of assistance, and also thanks for your
administrative boundary gpx files which have been very useful for mapping
local parishes.

I was aware of the mapping of ceremonial counties but they're actually
based upon the post-1974 administrative counties with the inclusion of the
related unitary authorities ie. you have ceremonial counties such as
Merseyside and Greater Manchester. Yorkshire is split into four such
ceremonial counties and some of the Yorkshire Dales lie in the ceremonial
county of Cumbria.

Regarding time scale, most counties retained their traditional form until
the 1974 local government reforms. You're right that Yorkshire and Sussex
were exceptional in that their large size meant that much of the day to day
administration was devolved into subdivisions much earlier but they still
existed as whole entities until that date and i'd suggest that people still
identified with the 'county' rather than the administrative subdivision.

My view was that - like teh Irish Townlands project - there's still
a cultural relevance to these historical units and I thought it a good
potential use of boundary=historical, but if the consensus is that it's not
a good idea then that's fine.

Thanks again,

Adam








Hi Adam,

OSM does contain "Ceremonial Counties", i.e. Lieutenancy areas (in
England). They are mapped as boundary=ceremonial. Basically they
represent the counties as they existed just before the 1974 LGA. The
boundaries still change occasionally to keep pace with (minor) changes
to administrative boundaries, but that is done by separate legislative
changes which are enacted "in sync" with the admin boundary changes.

They have their own boundary relation in OSM unless they are not
coterminous with the administrative county. In those cases, sometimes
they do, and sometimes they don't have their own relation.

We don't need old OS maps for these boundaries as they are published as
part of the OS Boundary-Line data set.

However, if you mean "historical" in the sense of "really old", that's a
different discussion, about historical data - i.e. things that no longer
exist at all. Most people agree that OSM is not the right place to put
things that really don't exist any more. There have been nasty
discussions in the past about the trackbeds of abandoned railways...

You mentioned "Yorkshire" and "Sussex" - how far do you have to go back
to find these as single entities? We are talking hundreds of years...
But it would be very easy to create a new relation to combine East+West
Sussex and Brighton&Hove and call it "Sussex", but is that what you
mean? Does "Sussex" actually have sharp borders?

I do a lot of work with the UK admin boundaries in OSM - let me know if
I can help further.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Traditional/Historic Counties

[Philip Barnes]

Normally places are mapped with both a boundary and node.

A node is certainly needed for navigation and should be somewhere sensible, 
normally the centre is where someone who puts the placename into a satnav would 
expect to end up, rather than a housing estate in the geographical centre.

Phil (trigpoint)
 

On Thu Feb 9 22:30:03 2017 GMT, Adam Snape wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Apologies for asking two questions in quick succession.
> 
> It has occurred to me that the traditional/historic UK counties aren't
> mapped in OSM and I wondered if it would be acceptable to add relations
> for these with the boundary=historic tag.
> 
> I know that we have Historical OSM  for long vanished historical features,
> and I would have no desire to see osm filled with antiquities,. but I think
> that the traditional counties are still relevant to people. People still
> identify with and talk of themselves as being from "Yorkshire". People
> might well wish to search a map for "Sussex" etc.
> 
> We have good sources for the pre-1974 county boundaries in the form of out
> of copyright OS maps. The boundaries almost entirely follow current
> administrative boundaries, so wouldn't result in lots of extra clutter on
> the map.
> 
> Obviously it would be a big task and not one I'm volunteering to do in its
> entirety (if I get round to it at all),  but does anybody find the
> principle of adding of traditional counties objectionable?
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Adam
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Traditional/Historic Counties

[Colin Smale]

Hi Adam, 

OSM does contain "Ceremonial Counties", i.e. Lieutenancy areas (in
England). They are mapped as boundary=ceremonial. Basically they
represent the counties as they existed just before the 1974 LGA. The
boundaries still change occasionally to keep pace with (minor) changes
to administrative boundaries, but that is done by separate legislative
changes which are enacted "in sync" with the admin boundary changes.

They have their own boundary relation in OSM unless they are not
coterminous with the administrative county. In those cases, sometimes
they do, and sometimes they don't have their own relation. 

We don't need old OS maps for these boundaries as they are published as
part of the OS Boundary-Line data set. 

However, if you mean "historical" in the sense of "really old", that's a
different discussion, about historical data - i.e. things that no longer
exist at all. Most people agree that OSM is not the right place to put
things that really don't exist any more. There have been nasty
discussions in the past about the trackbeds of abandoned railways... 

You mentioned "Yorkshire" and "Sussex" - how far do you have to go back
to find these as single entities? We are talking hundreds of years... 
But it would be very easy to create a new relation to combine East+West
Sussex and Brighton&Hove and call it "Sussex", but is that what you
mean? Does "Sussex" actually have sharp borders? 

I do a lot of work with the UK admin boundaries in OSM - let me know if
I can help further. 

//colin 

On 2017-02-09 23:30, Adam Snape wrote:

> Hello, 
> 
> Apologies for asking two questions in quick succession. 
> 
> It has occurred to me that the traditional/historic UK counties aren't mapped 
> in OSM and I wondered if it would be acceptable to add relations for these 
> with the boundary=historic tag. 
> 
> I know that we have Historical OSM  for long vanished historical features, 
> and I would have no desire to see osm filled with antiquities,. but I think 
> that the traditional counties are still relevant to people. People still 
> identify with and talk of themselves as being from "Yorkshire". People might 
> well wish to search a map for "Sussex" etc. 
> 
> We have good sources for the pre-1974 county boundaries in the form of out of 
> copyright OS maps. The boundaries almost entirely follow current 
> administrative boundaries, so wouldn't result in lots of extra clutter on the 
> map. 
> 
> Obviously it would be a big task and not one I'm volunteering to do in its 
> entirety (if I get round to it at all),  but does anybody find the principle 
> of adding of traditional counties objectionable? 
> 
> Kind regards, 
> 
> Adam 
> ___
> 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] Traditional/Historic Counties

[Adam Snape]

Hello,

Apologies for asking two questions in quick succession.

It has occurred to me that the traditional/historic UK counties aren't
mapped in OSM and I wondered if it would be acceptable to add relations
for these with the boundary=historic tag.

I know that we have Historical OSM  for long vanished historical features,
and I would have no desire to see osm filled with antiquities,. but I think
that the traditional counties are still relevant to people. People still
identify with and talk of themselves as being from "Yorkshire". People
might well wish to search a map for "Sussex" etc.

We have good sources for the pre-1974 county boundaries in the form of out
of copyright OS maps. The boundaries almost entirely follow current
administrative boundaries, so wouldn't result in lots of extra clutter on
the map.

Obviously it would be a big task and not one I'm volunteering to do in its
entirety (if I get round to it at all),  but does anybody find the
principle of adding of traditional counties objectionable?

Kind regards,

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

[Talk-GB] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[Adam Snape]

Hi,

What is the current consensus about whether to use nodes or areas for
places? I've always used nodes, but I have spotted a few mapped as areas. I
can see the advantage of having an area, but often places don't have clear
boundaries. Sometimes parish/ward boundaries do correspond with the edge of
a place but often they don't. Where the mapper knows the area and can make
a reasonable estimate of the extent of the place, is it beneficial to map
it as an area or is it preferable to stick to nodes?

Kind regards,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Propose automated edit to update NAPTAN data in the west mids

[John Aldridge]

On 03-Feb-17 17:52, Brian Prangle wrote:

In line with the automated edits policy there's a wikipage

with full details


I realise that this proposal is only for West Midlands, but if it were 
extended nationwide, I'd have a concern about globally assuming NAPTAN's 
positional accuracy is better than OSM's existing data. I rather doubt 
that's the case for the ones I've re-surveyed round here, for example.


Even where it is true, there's a follow on task needed which will be to 
make sure nearby non-bus-stop geometry is also improved to match. I know 
there are many places where OSM data has been added from poorly 
georeferenced aerial photography, resulting in a map which, although 
perhaps up to 5 or 10 metres out, is nevertheless useful and usable. 
Simply fixing the bus stop coordinates in isolation will produce some 
very odd results like moving them into the middle of people's houses!


All the stuff about fixing route information sounds excellent, though! 
That's certainly in rather poor repair locally.


--
Cheers,
John

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[SK53]

Despite the problems of these edits (incorrect tagging, bad polygons) more
than anything they reflect that OSM as a project lacks good tags for many
of these boreo-temperate upland features, and whilst that is true there
will be always be someone abusing existing tags. I think most mappers
remember the initial thrill of seeing changes come through on the main map
style: for some people it's probably still a primary motivator.

I therefore think Brian's suggestions of working collectively to map these
areas better together with a more in-depth consideration of the relevant
tagging is the way to go: and landuse=unimproved_grassland at the very
least has the advantage of being correct. I have compared several location
in Wales with my own photographs and the former CCW Phase 1 Habitat shape
file, and acidic or neutral unimproved grassland is the classification of
the majority of these locations. (I'm not sure of the status of this latter
data: my copy is for private use only, but if it was released as Open Data
it would be very useful. One word of caution the data was compiled over a
long period and in some places will be out-of-date.)

I'm always reluctant to delete stuff from OSM, unless it can be replaced by
something better. Grassland tagging is a mess in OSM: let's use this as an
opportunity to improve it for OSM in the UK.

One last thing: I'm not very keen on calling people out on a public mailing
list. The nature of OSM is that one knows nothing of many mappers (Frederik
talked about this at SotM-14): there is always a risk of doing more than
hurting their feelings.

Regards,

Jerry



On 8 February 2017 at 21:46, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> I came across glucosamine during the farmyards quarterly projectwhere
> she/he'd tagged place=farm to every group of isolated buildings all over
> Herefordshire. I think he/she means well just misinterprets tagging
> conventions and then rolls on regardless.
>
> Might we tackle this task under the general heading either of "landuse
> fixes" or "uplands" as our next quarterly project? That gives us some time
> to discuss approaches, conventions , progress tools etc so that we can hit
> the ground running so to speak on day 1
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
> On 8 February 2017 at 21:35, Richard Fairhurst 
> wrote:
>
>> Marco Boeringa wrote:
>> > There may be more... All of these "users" are prolific, leave almost
>> > no changeset comments, and seem to be editing all day. It seems
>> > to me these are editors working professionally for some OSM
>> > related company.
>>
>> Thanks for the detective work and for persisting with this.
>>
>> I think it's very unlikely, however, that these users are editing OSM for
>> a
>> company. Probably the majority of edits in the UK are done by what you
>> might
>> call "lone mappers". Generally this works well and people plough their own
>> furrows successfully, happily modifying their practice if particular
>> issues
>> are pointed out to them. But occasionally we have people who (perhaps
>> because of limited social skills) find it difficult to follow established
>> practice and co-operate with other contributors. There have been several
>> examples in the past and I'm sure many regulars here will be aware of a
>> few
>> of them.
>>
>> That's what I think we have here. I have no knowledge as to whether
>> Glucosamine, Dyserth and Sam888 are the same person or not - it wouldn't
>> surprise me either way. But they/he very much fit the "uncommunicative
>> lone
>> mapper" model.
>>
>> cheers
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com
>> /Large-swaths-of-heath-in-Wales-tp5890778p5890908.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
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb