Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire

[SK53]

I still do this on an ad hoc basis, but have never automated the process.
For those who might be interested here's what I currently do:

1. Download a pbf file from Geofabrik (usually gb but could be smaller area)
2. Convert it to .o5m format with osmconvert
3. Run a filter to find only highways with osmfilter
4. Return the data to .pbf format with osmconvert

== These stages could be automated to keep a current gb_highways.pbf file

5. Import the data to PostGIs using osm2pgsql with a custom style (so
designation for instance is a column). It may be that the custom style
makes the filtering for highways unnecessary. I normally import using the
default projection, but using 27700 would be sensible.

6. Download Shape/MapInfo/GeoJSON files from rowmaps.
7. Load them into image tables (ones where each column 1:1 with source data)
8. Normalise all the PROW data into a single table

== These steps only need to be done once, and repeated occasionally when
there is an update on rowmaps.

I do all the analysis/processing in QGIS. I've tried apparently the same
operations in PostGIS but get different results. I have a suspisciion why
but have never tried to resolve it.


9. Load OSM Highways & Rowmap-sourced Prow data in QGIS
10. Buffer all the OSM highways in 27700 projection by a suitable amount. I
currently use 20 or 25 metres which is broad enough to avoid highlighting
minor differences.
11. Copy the QGIS layer & filter for designation tag (it's probably best to
filter for explicit values).
12. Do the difference between the OSM Highways & the PROW layer. This
should give you all PROWS which are completely missing.
13. Do the intersection of the same two layers, which provides the
complement (all PROWS which are mapped in some way).
14. Repeat 12 using the output of 13 and the layer of highways with
designation. This should return all mapped paths missing a designation tag.
15. Repeat 13, using the same two layers in 14. This gives PRoWs mapped on
OSM as such.

The three result layers can be saved as Geojson, Shape files or loaded back
to PostGIS.

I find that 4-5 counties worth of Prow data can be done quite quickly.
Using QGIS and PostGIS layers is however slower than simply saving them as
Shape files (PostGIS data gets re-queried, and insn't indexed for use in
QGIS).

I've just started today experimenting with the Graphical Modeller in QGIS.
It looks as though the core of steps 10-15 could be built as a model: which
would certainly help me when I forget which layer comes first in difference
operations.

On a smaller scale (county level, or 10 km around somewhere) this all works
well with rowmaps geojson & overpass turbo queries for the highways (the
geojson still needs to be converted to 27700).

Obviously this process does not, except in a crude way, tell one how much
of a path is present in OSM. The outputs are entirely based on the original
PROW data too. (The process can be reversed and the prow data buffered not
the osm data).

Jerry




On 27 June 2017 at 20:30, Robert Norris  wrote:

>
> I agree with SK53 that identifying missing RoW is the primary importance.
>
> Robert: Is your code open / available anywhere such that one can help
> improve it / take inspiration from / run it locally ?
>
> I would like to use something better than flipping on/off a display of the
> ways in a Hampshire KML file over an OSM view and visually trying to spot
> ways in OSM that are missing!
>
> SK53 has previously generated something along these lines - see
> http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/looking-for-
> footpaths-in-hickling-notts.html
>
> I'd like to be able generate & keep these up to date myself, but never
> found out (or took the time to learn) the exact process and commands to do
> so.
>
> Personally I don't really have much motivation for putting in prow_ref
> tags (IMHO I think they could be either be imported or have a tool to
> convert from lat/lon (or OSM way Id) to a prow_ref) - since they aren't
> often signed on the ground unless on  diversion notice or planning
> application or similar.
>
> --
> Be Seeing You - Rob.
> If at first you don't succeed,
> then skydiving isn't for you.
>
> 
> From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
> Sent: 27 June 2017 15:05:55
> To: talk-gb
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire
>
> On 27 June 2017 at 13:30, SK53  wrote:
> > It appears that the tool only accepts as mapped rights of way mapped with
> > some local identifier, rather than those with a designation tag.
> Hampshire
> > is one of the better mapped places in England and Wales.  have no problem
> > with us eventually adding identifiers for PRoW, but surely at this stage
> we
> > really should be focussing on finding and mapping paths which are not on
> OSM
> > at all, and/or getting designation tags on those already mapped but
> without
> > them.
> >
> > I 

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire

[Robert Norris]

I agree with SK53 that identifying missing RoW is the primary importance.

Robert: Is your code open / available anywhere such that one can help improve 
it / take inspiration from / run it locally ?

I would like to use something better than flipping on/off a display of the ways 
in a Hampshire KML file over an OSM view and visually trying to spot ways in 
OSM that are missing!

SK53 has previously generated something along these lines - see 
http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/looking-for-footpaths-in-hickling-notts.html

I'd like to be able generate & keep these up to date myself, but never found 
out (or took the time to learn) the exact process and commands to do so.

Personally I don't really have much motivation for putting in prow_ref tags 
(IMHO I think they could be either be imported or have a tool to convert from 
lat/lon (or OSM way Id) to a prow_ref) - since they aren't often signed on the 
ground unless on  diversion notice or planning application or similar.

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


From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
Sent: 27 June 2017 15:05:55
To: talk-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire

On 27 June 2017 at 13:30, SK53  wrote:
> It appears that the tool only accepts as mapped rights of way mapped with
> some local identifier, rather than those with a designation tag. Hampshire
> is one of the better mapped places in England and Wales.  have no problem
> with us eventually adding identifiers for PRoW, but surely at this stage we
> really should be focussing on finding and mapping paths which are not on OSM
> at all, and/or getting designation tags on those already mapped but without
> them.
>
> I personally do not find a tool which focuses on identifiers useful for this
> task.

Fair enough. In an ideal world I agree that you might want to do the
comparison / matching without needing identifiers. But I decided that
would be too difficult (for me) to programme, and possibly too
computationally expensive to do well. So I see adding the identifiers
as a useful tool to allow the matching to be cone more conveniently,
and hence allow gaps / missing paths to be more apparent. YMMV :)

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

___
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] Uploading pictures to OSM

[Marc Gemis]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:57 PM, SK53  wrote:
> A single tag of the form flickr:id=  would work to provide a single
> reference photo. People have at various times tried to identify with tags
> the photos which they used as part of surveys to edit a particular element.
> Probably most used these days is mapillary:id= . In the main these are to
> help mappers check details of a thing mapped.

I think the correct key is mapillary (without the ":id"), see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mapillary

I also think it would be better to upload "useful" pictures to
wikimedia commons, which is more suited for media with an open
license. In that case you can use image and wikimedia_commons tags.
Look e.g. at this church: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/59396138

regards
m.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Uploading pictures to OSM

[SK53]

In the dim & distant past you could do the exact opposite: place osm
identifiers on Flickr: here's a photo of mine with such tags
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sk53_osm/4032609321/.

Unfortunately I dont believe Flickr supports this at all any more. However,
resolving the flickr tags to OSM element IDs is not complex. The advantage
is that you are likely to have multiple photos of the same OSM object, and
placing tags in OSM is unlikely to resolve it.

A single tag of the form flickr:id=  would work to provide a single
reference photo. People have at various times tried to identify with tags
the photos which they used as part of surveys to edit a particular element.
Probably most used these days is mapillary:id= . In the main these are to
help mappers check details of a thing mapped.

Jerry

On 27 June 2017 at 16:42, amunizp  wrote:

> Hi,
> I am helping a community group make a survey of a small wood area. This
> will be tagging trees, badger habitats, and even sewers.
>
> They use a Garmin  GPS with a camera to take pictures and then we use JOSM
> to extract the location to later add information like species and such and
> we upload it to OSM.
>
> I've looked all round, but I have not found a way to upload pictures. Is
> there a way?
>
> I would use the website key:value to just put links to flicker or what
> ever but we much rather have links to the community group.
>
> Any suggestions otherwise?
> -- --
> Andres (he/him/his)
> Ham United Group
> Richmond Makerlabs
>
> ___
> 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] Uploading pictures to OSM

[Dan S]

Hi

No, the "main" OSM database has no way to store images. But there are
third-party projects that integrate with OSM, and your group can use
those!

Mapillary: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapillary

OpenStreetCam: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetCam

They have JOSM plugins too it seems, though I don't use them.

HTH
Dan

P.S. (By the way, you shouldn't use the "website" tag to link to
flickr - that's not what people expect to find in that tag - it's
where you put the website that it associated with the object, e.g. a
business or organisation)

2017-06-27 16:42 GMT+01:00 amunizp :
> Hi,
> I am helping a community group make a survey of a small wood area. This will 
> be tagging trees, badger habitats, and even sewers.
>
> They use a Garmin  GPS with a camera to take pictures and then we use JOSM to 
> extract the location to later add information like species and such and we 
> upload it to OSM.
>
> I've looked all round, but I have not found a way to upload pictures. Is 
> there a way?
>
> I would use the website key:value to just put links to flicker or what ever 
> but we much rather have links to the community group.
>
> Any suggestions otherwise?
> -- --
> Andres (he/him/his)
> Ham United Group
> Richmond Makerlabs
>
> ___
> 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] Uploading pictures to OSM

[amunizp]

Hi,
I am helping a community group make a survey of a small wood area. This will be 
tagging trees, badger habitats, and even sewers.

They use a Garmin  GPS with a camera to take pictures and then we use JOSM to 
extract the location to later add information like species and such and we 
upload it to OSM.

I've looked all round, but I have not found a way to upload pictures. Is there 
a way?

I would use the website key:value to just put links to flicker or what ever but 
we much rather have links to the community group.

Any suggestions otherwise?
-- --
Andres (he/him/his)
Ham United Group
Richmond Makerlabs

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 27 June 2017 at 11:56, Pierre Riteau  wrote:
> However it reports much lower mapping coverage than I expected. It
> appears to be due to a mismatch of prow_ref format. I know that at least
> in and around Oxford, most paths have been mapped with a prow_ref based
> on the definitive statement in the style of "ParishNumber/PathNumber".
> See this bridleway as an example using prow_ref 320/14:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31871564
>
> The prow_ref Wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref)
> suggests using "ParishName PathType PathNumber", such as "Oxford BR 14".
> Is that the latest recommendation from the community? You seem to be an
> expert on the topic!

My personal preference is for the "Oxford BR 14" format, but I'm not
sure there's really been a proper discussion about it. That format is
certainly it's well-used, particularly in counties where there is no
other obvious format. The complication arises where a county has a
different scheme, e.g. by giving each parish a reference number.

In the cases I've looked at, the parish id number system seems to be
more of an internal convenience in the Authority's data systems,
rather than being an attempt to renumber the rights of way in the
official Definitive Map and Statement.e.g. for Oxfordshire, while the
Definitive Statements do include the parish number, the left-hand
heading is the parish name, and the path number and type code appear
in the first two columns. The final number (usually 10, 20, 30) in the
RoW codes in Oxfordshire is a segment number, and this doesn't appear
at all in the Definitive Statements.

Whatever format is used, I think it should be consistent within each
Authority (county or unitary authority), even if different authorities
use different formats. though there are obvious advantages from using
the same format for all authorities -- hence my preference. Absent a
national decision, I think it's basically up to mappers in each county
what format they want to use, and without a discussion there will
probably be convergence towards a critical mass in most cases. In
Oxfordshire, both formats seem to be in use, though "Oxford BR 14"
seems to be more popular: there's 259km tagged like that
(http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/oxon/) and only about
38km tagged the other way (see
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/oxon/tagging-errors). If
local mappers do decide on a different format for a given authority
I'd be happy to adjust my tool to pick that up. (Though I wouldn't
want too many different formats to have to cope with!)

It's not an answer I'm afraid, but hopefully at least some useful
background information.

> I would be happy to move to this format for Oxfordshire if it is also
> adopted elsewhere. How long would it take for your comparison tool to
> include updated data?

The parishes are updated on a rolling basis, and usually new data is
fetch about once a week. You can view the last refresh data at the
bottom of each parish page. If you want a faster update, click on the
button. This puts the parish to the front of the queue next time I run
the update script. So you should get an update within a 6-12 hours if
you do this.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

[Talk-GB] Completeness of mapping PRoWs

[SK53]

I have some figures from last year for the counties in the N. Midlands:

Highway Authority ProW No. Prow Len (km) OSM Prow Len (km) OSM Highway Len
(km) Pct designation Pct total
Derbyshire 16185 5202.9 2927.4 1374.4 56.26 82.68
Leicestershire 6149 2603.0 718.0 1089.1 27.58 69.42
Lincolnshire 8000 4020.1 658.2 1128.7 16.37 44.45
North Lincolnshire 645 588.2 66.5 320.4 11.30 65.77
Nottingham 750 73.2



Nottinghamshire 7027 2827.8 1024.7 734.5 36.24 62.21
Rutland 589 331.8 116.6 148.1 35.13 79.75
Staffordshire 11478 4510.0 1127.5 1652.9 25.00 61.65
Total 50823 20157.1 6638.9 6448.2 32.94% 64.93%
I've actually run similar analyses for South Central England (Oxon, Bucks,
Hants, bits of Berks, Surrey, W. Sussex) and W England (Glocs, Somerset,
Wilts, Herefs, Wilts IIRC) and the picture is overall rather similar.
Roughly a third of PRoWs mapped as such, another third mapped but not noted
as a PRoW, and a third missing entirely for one reason or another.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire

[SK53]

Quick response.

It appears that the tool only accepts as mapped rights of way mapped with
some local identifier, rather than those with a designation tag. Hampshire
is one of the better mapped places in England and Wales.  have no problem
with us eventually adding identifiers for PRoW, but surely at this stage we
really should be focussing on finding and mapping paths which are not on
OSM at all, and/or getting designation tags on those already mapped but
without them.

I personally do not find a tool which focuses on identifiers useful for
this task.

Jerry



On 27 June 2017 at 11:30, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Some of you have have already come across my Public Rights of Way
> comparison tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ which
> aims to help mappers trying to complete the mapping of Rights of Way
> in their area.
>
> I've recently added data for two additional counties: Oxfordshire and
> Hampshire to the tool. The other counties already there are
> Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.
>
> Hopefully the tool and how to use it should be fairly
> self-explanatory. The basic idea is that it compares official council
> data to what's currently in OSM and flags up possible errors and
> omissions for manual checking.
>
> I'd like to add data for additional authorities. The constraints here
> are my time to actually do the adding, and having the data available
> in a suitable format and under a suitable licence. If anyone has any
> requests for new counties / unitary authorities, then please let me
> know. If you can get the authority to make its PRoW data available
> online under the Open Government Licence, then that will save me some
> time too.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> 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] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire

[Pierre Riteau]

Hi Robert,

Thanks a lot for adding Oxfordshire to your comparison tool!

However it reports much lower mapping coverage than I expected. It
appears to be due to a mismatch of prow_ref format. I know that at least
in and around Oxford, most paths have been mapped with a prow_ref based
on the definitive statement in the style of "ParishNumber/PathNumber".
See this bridleway as an example using prow_ref 320/14:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31871564

The prow_ref Wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref)
suggests using "ParishName PathType PathNumber", such as "Oxford BR 14".
Is that the latest recommendation from the community? You seem to be an
expert on the topic!

I would be happy to move to this format for Oxfordshire if it is also
adopted elsewhere. How long would it take for your comparison tool to
include updated data?

Pierre

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017, at 11:30, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> Some of you have have already come across my Public Rights of Way
> comparison tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ which
> aims to help mappers trying to complete the mapping of Rights of Way
> in their area.
> 
> I've recently added data for two additional counties: Oxfordshire and
> Hampshire to the tool. The other counties already there are
> Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.
> 
> Hopefully the tool and how to use it should be fairly
> self-explanatory. The basic idea is that it compares official council
> data to what's currently in OSM and flags up possible errors and
> omissions for manual checking.
> 
> I'd like to add data for additional authorities. The constraints here
> are my time to actually do the adding, and having the data available
> in a suitable format and under a suitable licence. If anyone has any
> requests for new counties / unitary authorities, then please let me
> know. If you can get the authority to make its PRoW data available
> online under the Open Government Licence, then that will save me some
> time too.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Robert.
> 
> -- 
> Robert Whittaker
> 
> ___
> 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] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

Some of you have have already come across my Public Rights of Way
comparison tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ which
aims to help mappers trying to complete the mapping of Rights of Way
in their area.

I've recently added data for two additional counties: Oxfordshire and
Hampshire to the tool. The other counties already there are
Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.

Hopefully the tool and how to use it should be fairly
self-explanatory. The basic idea is that it compares official council
data to what's currently in OSM and flags up possible errors and
omissions for manual checking.

I'd like to add data for additional authorities. The constraints here
are my time to actually do the adding, and having the data available
in a suitable format and under a suitable licence. If anyone has any
requests for new counties / unitary authorities, then please let me
know. If you can get the authority to make its PRoW data available
online under the Open Government Licence, then that will save me some
time too.

Best wishes,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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