Re: [Talk-GB] Proposed Import of UK Shell Filling Stations

[Dave F]

1. Wouldn't it be better to sort out your trees first?

2. What does ref_unused_tags.name refer to?

3. Are there any out of date stations that need removing/changing to 
another operator?


DaveF

On 11/05/2017 21:36, Brian Prangle wrote:

Hi everyone

There is a proposal for this import currently under discussion on the 
talk import mailing list and the OSMUK chapter has asked the proposer 
that it be discussed on the talk GB mailing list


Regards

Brian


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Proposed Import of UK Shell Filling Stations

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 05/11/2017 11:47 PM, David Woolley wrote:
> On 11/05/17 21:36, Brian Prangle wrote:
>> There is a proposal for this import currently under discussion on the
>> talk import mailing list and the OSMUK chapter has asked the proposer
>> that it be discussed on the talk GB mailing list

Link to discussion so far on imports@:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2017-May/004956.html

> My concern would be from where to they get their geocoding.  Most
> businesses, and particularly chain businesses, tend to use postcode
> centroids, which are not accurate enough, probably get them from Google.

I voiced the same general concern, but a random sample I checked of the
(actually rather few) stations that are proposed to be newly added
seemed to be impeccably placed.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

[Talk-GB] Proposed Import of UK Shell Filling Stations

[Brian Prangle]

Hi everyone

There is a proposal for this import currently under discussion on the talk
import mailing list and the OSMUK chapter has asked the proposer that it be
discussed on the talk GB mailing list

Regards

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire

[John Aldridge]

One bit of feedback, from a first try at doing this for real: footpaths 
often cross parish boundaries, and at least in this area change their 
reference when they do so. But your slippy map only displays geometry 
for a single parish at a time, meaning that tracking the prow_ref value 
for the full length of a single path can take a lot of navigation within 
your tool.


Would it be hard to display geometry for all ROWs overlapping the 
current slippy map extent, whichever parish they are from?


--
Cheers,
John

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

[Talk-gb-london] ☀how are you?

[charlesyarnold]

Hello, 

Just writing to ask how  are you doing and to show you  something really  cool, 
just  take a look http://oaks.smartphonerings.mobi

Sincerely, charlesyarnold



From: talk-gb-london [mailto:talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 10:50 AM
To: charlesyarn...@tormentedflame.com
Subject: Krijg de tyfus!

Bought a core set, met some  cool people, invested in the game, got  4th at  an 
Imdaar,  found that Phantoms are pretty hardcore and aligned  with  the empire, 
shot down a CR90 by myself and got  wrecked by a little  girl  at a tournament 
without getting salt  on my clothes.

All in all it was a pretty good year for x-wing,  can't wait for the next.


Sent from Mail for Windows 10___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 11 May 2017 at 08:04, John Aldridge  wrote:
> On 11-May-17 00:20, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>> The presence of prow_ref=*
>> tags to allow matching with official data is almost non-existent.)
>
> So what's the best way to fix this?
>
> If I click on your map, it shows me something like
>
>   Teversham FP 3
>   (MS: 0 | ΔL/L: —)
>
> which is a bit cryptic! Is the first line the prow_ref? Should I just copy
> it from there?

Yes, that's exactly right. If you add "prow_ref=Teversham FP 3" to a
way in the parish, and also ensure it's tagged with
designation=public_footpath, then the next time the data is refreshed
it will be counted in the table at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/cambs/south-cambs/teversham/
. I've tried to add a bit more detail to the parish pages to make this
clearer now.

(For those who are interested, the second line in the popups contain
the "Mapping Status" (a manual number from 0 to 5 describing how
complete the mapping is thought to be) and the % discrepancy in the
mapped length compared to the official length. Things may make more
sense for a parish that's more complete, e.g.
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/norfolk/breckland/little-dunham/
)

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire

[Andy Allan]

On 11 May 2017 at 09:07, Dan S  wrote:
> Congratulations Robert! The long thread of letters is... educational!

To put it mildly! Well done Robert, not only on the outcome but also
in keeping calm and civil during the protracted correspondence.

My highlight of the saga is definitely sections 37 through 40 of the
most recent ICO decision notice:
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013892/fs50619465.pdf

Overall I'm quite impressed with the ICO decision notices - they seem
to cut through the confused attitudes of CCC. If only CCC would learn
from these and stop trying to avoid publishing their data, it would
save everyone a load of time.

Thanks,
Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire

[John Aldridge]

On 11-May-17 00:20, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

The presence of prow_ref=*
tags to allow matching with official data is almost non-existent.)


So what's the best way to fix this?

If I click on your map, it shows me something like

  Teversham FP 3
  (MS: 0 | ΔL/L: —)

which is a bit cryptic! Is the first line the prow_ref? Should I just 
copy it from there?


--
Cheers,
John

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