Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales
Sorry, the link to the changeset is incomplete in my last email, here is the correct one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/50943658 Cheers M -- *Miguel Sevilla-Callejo* Doctor en Geografía On 9 August 2017 at 23:40, Miguel Sevilla-Callejo wrote: > Hello again, > > I started to edit around and within Aberystwyth, Wales. Yesterday I did an > edition to fix the bilingual labelling of some streets as I explained > before in this thread but other user (Mike Baggaley) is asking to me to > remove and change a neutral approach for labelling the streets [1]. > > I understood that this list is the proper place to discuss and to start a > consensus in the way to edit within the UK. > > So I would like to translate here why I'm using a neutral approach for the > bilingual tagging in Wales: mainly because I'm following the wiki. > > I'll invite Mike Baggaley or whoever thinks I'm doing an inappropriate > editions to consider joint this thread here and argue about. > > Just in case, next, I copy and paste my reply to Mike Baggaley in the > changeset discussion where I explained mi position: > > "I disagree with you [to not use "Welsh name / English name" for "name" > tag]. > > If you please read the wiki you will read how to tag in multilingual > situations. > > First, "name" tag could be use as you can see in street sings [1]. You can > check on Mapillary how are labelled [2][3] > > Second, "Welsh name / English name" label for "name" tag is recommended > for a neutral or bilingual version in Wales [4]. > > Moreover, from the legal point of view, in Wales, in general, and in > Ceredigion Council, in particular, Welsh is as important as English [5]. > Even Ordnance Survey has labelled some streets of Aberystwyth in both > languages in their maps! [6] > > In conclusion, it is not necessary to change my editions because are > appropriates." > > Bests > > Miguel > > [0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/ > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name > [2] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/BVAjyV5Yt6hediIk7Lqv4w > [3] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/j1ngoo9wTxbfXfnMdcEGVA > [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#Wales "In the > name field, a neutral or a bilingual version can be entered." > [5] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/mwa/2011/1/contents > [6] http://map.ceredigion.gov.uk/connect/?mapcfg=COMMUNITY_AND_LIVING > > > -- > *Miguel Sevilla-Callejo* > Doctor en Geografía > > On 27 July 2017 at 14:48, Miguel Sevilla-Callejo > wrote: > >> Hi again, >> >> As far as I understand the wiki, my experience in Spanish bilingual >> situations and the common sense (as you can see in street signals) I'm >> going to change name=* to a neutral way as far as I could because is non >> sense to have only English name in name=* tag (and adding name:en=* if do >> not exist). >> >> I see (may be SK53 add them) there are name:cy tag in many streets [1] so >> is as easy to edit name=* adding the Welsh name before as you can see in >> the streets, add name:en=* if necessary. >> >> Cheers >> >> Miguel >> >> [1] e.g. way of the photo http://imgur.com/VkxGasm --> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/152547339 >> >> -- >> *Miguel Sevilla-Callejo* >> Doctor en Geografía >> >> On 27 July 2017 at 14:29, SK53 wrote: >> >>> Hi Miguel, >>> >>> I tend to agree with you. However, we have never had a consensus on >>> which approach to use. Perhaps because we have few mappers in Wales and >>> even fewer who are Welsh speakers by preference. Certainly using an English >>> road name in Welsh-speaking areas of Wales is likely to put off Welsh >>> speakers from contributing, so I tend to regard using both names as a >>> quasi-political compromise. It's not easy to parse but will be intelligible >>> to all, and does not require the elaborate explanation about name:en and >>> name:cy. >>> >>> So be prepared for people querying this approach. >>> >>> From a perspective of entering the data it is important to add name:en >>> and name:cy. >>> >>> Ironically I have been using Aber to test a mapnik overlay of Welsh >>> names, so more data would be very useful. >>> >>> Jerry >>> >>> On 27 July 2017 at 14:15, Miguel Sevilla-Callejo >>> wrote: >>> Hello Phil, Thanks for your reply, great to know someone is editing or/checking editions around. Respect the issue about the street names if you follow wiki indications for multilingual names [1] you could read for Welsh that "It is better to use *name:en* for English names and *name:cy* for the Welsh name. In the *name* field, a neutral or a bilingual version can be entered." [2]. So it's time to proceed in the correct mode. You can see an example of street sing here: http://imgur.com/VkxGasm I guess we should follow the neutral bilingual approach for that rather than to use only Welsh (which in top) or English name. In Spain we have same regions with this issue and we are use to manage. Teleg
Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales
Hello again, I started to edit around and within Aberystwyth, Wales. Yesterday I did an edition to fix the bilingual labelling of some streets as I explained before in this thread but other user (Mike Baggaley) is asking to me to remove and change a neutral approach for labelling the streets [1]. I understood that this list is the proper place to discuss and to start a consensus in the way to edit within the UK. So I would like to translate here why I'm using a neutral approach for the bilingual tagging in Wales: mainly because I'm following the wiki. I'll invite Mike Baggaley or whoever thinks I'm doing an inappropriate editions to consider joint this thread here and argue about. Just in case, next, I copy and paste my reply to Mike Baggaley in the changeset discussion where I explained mi position: "I disagree with you [to not use "Welsh name / English name" for "name" tag]. If you please read the wiki you will read how to tag in multilingual situations. First, "name" tag could be use as you can see in street sings [1]. You can check on Mapillary how are labelled [2][3] Second, "Welsh name / English name" label for "name" tag is recommended for a neutral or bilingual version in Wales [4]. Moreover, from the legal point of view, in Wales, in general, and in Ceredigion Council, in particular, Welsh is as important as English [5]. Even Ordnance Survey has labelled some streets of Aberystwyth in both languages in their maps! [6] In conclusion, it is not necessary to change my editions because are appropriates." Bests Miguel [0] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/ [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name [2] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/BVAjyV5Yt6hediIk7Lqv4w [3] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/j1ngoo9wTxbfXfnMdcEGVA [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#Wales "In the name field, a neutral or a bilingual version can be entered." [5] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/mwa/2011/1/contents [6] http://map.ceredigion.gov.uk/connect/?mapcfg=COMMUNITY_AND_LIVING -- *Miguel Sevilla-Callejo* Doctor en Geografía On 27 July 2017 at 14:48, Miguel Sevilla-Callejo wrote: > Hi again, > > As far as I understand the wiki, my experience in Spanish bilingual > situations and the common sense (as you can see in street signals) I'm > going to change name=* to a neutral way as far as I could because is non > sense to have only English name in name=* tag (and adding name:en=* if do > not exist). > > I see (may be SK53 add them) there are name:cy tag in many streets [1] so > is as easy to edit name=* adding the Welsh name before as you can see in > the streets, add name:en=* if necessary. > > Cheers > > Miguel > > [1] e.g. way of the photo http://imgur.com/VkxGasm --> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/152547339 > > -- > *Miguel Sevilla-Callejo* > Doctor en Geografía > > On 27 July 2017 at 14:29, SK53 wrote: > >> Hi Miguel, >> >> I tend to agree with you. However, we have never had a consensus on which >> approach to use. Perhaps because we have few mappers in Wales and even >> fewer who are Welsh speakers by preference. Certainly using an English road >> name in Welsh-speaking areas of Wales is likely to put off Welsh speakers >> from contributing, so I tend to regard using both names as a >> quasi-political compromise. It's not easy to parse but will be intelligible >> to all, and does not require the elaborate explanation about name:en and >> name:cy. >> >> So be prepared for people querying this approach. >> >> From a perspective of entering the data it is important to add name:en >> and name:cy. >> >> Ironically I have been using Aber to test a mapnik overlay of Welsh >> names, so more data would be very useful. >> >> Jerry >> >> On 27 July 2017 at 14:15, Miguel Sevilla-Callejo >> wrote: >> >>> Hello Phil, >>> >>> Thanks for your reply, great to know someone is editing or/checking >>> editions around. >>> >>> Respect the issue about the street names if you follow wiki indications >>> for multilingual names [1] you could read for Welsh that "It is better to >>> use *name:en* for English names and *name:cy* for the Welsh name. In >>> the *name* field, a neutral or a bilingual version can be entered." >>> [2]. So it's time to proceed in the correct mode. >>> >>> You can see an example of street sing here: http://imgur.com/VkxGasm >>> >>> I guess we should follow the neutral bilingual approach for that rather >>> than to use only Welsh (which in top) or English name. >>> >>> In Spain we have same regions with this issue and we are use to manage. >>> >>> Telegram is like WhatsApp, a Instant Messenger platform, initially focus >>> in mobile [3] and we use in Spain to re-emplace IRC [4] despite we >>> connected both services through Riot.im [4] >>> >>> By the way, I'm one of the administrator of the Non-official, >>> unauthorized OpenStreetMap supergroup on Telegram: @openstreetmaporg [5] >>> >>> We keep in contact >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Miguel >>> >>> [1] http://wiki.openstreetma
Re: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata
On 9 August 2017 at 18:13, Chris Hill wrote: > I have a rather strange explanation as to why Forestry Commission land is > not shown on the OS Open Greenspace dataset. OS Customer Services have > explained that they can't distinguish what woodland is Forestry Commission > from aerial imagery nor can they determine what the access is from such > imagery. This seems ridiculous but that is their answer. I suspect that producing the Green Space map was forced upon OS by politicians, so they've just taken whatever existing datasets they have, and looked for polygon features that map to "Green Space" and exported them. (Hence the odd choice to include Golf Courses, which are mostly private.) Around me, the OS Green Space coverage is particularly poor with a lot of the public green space in my town missing. Much of the missing land in the town is owned by the District Council, but there are also bits that are CRoW Access Land and registered commons, which I'd have thought OS should know about. And then there's the whole of Thetford Forest missing! > I think it still has some value as it stands. Definitively. I've already found a couple of play areas hidden in housing estates that I didn't know existed, that I'll need to go a survey. The killer feature would be doing a comparison with the OSM data and showing discrepancies -- though that's much easier said than done! > Any more feedback will always be welcome. Would you consider adding the CRoW Access Land as an additional layer? (You can get the data under the OGL from http://environment.data.gov.uk/ds/catalogue/#/catalogue under the heading "CRoW Act 2000 - Access Layer". If you're interested in adding even more datasets, the National Trust has OGL data of it's "always open" land at http://uk-nationaltrust.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/202ec400dfe9471aaf257e4b6c956394_0 , and the Forestry Commission make their Public Forest Estate boundaries available under the OGL at http://data-forestry.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/national-forest-estate-legal-boundary-england-2016/ and/or http://data-forestry.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/national-forest-estate-ownership-england-2016 (though there isn't public access to all of it). In both of these datasets there will be overlap with the CRoW Access Land. Robert, -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata
I have a rather strange explanation as to why Forestry Commission land is not shown on the OS Open Greenspace dataset. OS Customer Services have explained that they can't distinguish what woodland is Forestry Commission from aerial imagery nor can they determine what the access is from such imagery. This seems ridiculous but that is their answer. I have updated the overlay [1] to change the colours, though I left the outline red to help them stand out. I've added a layer selector and turned the overlay off for low zoom levels (<12) to make scrolling work better. I fixed a bug and remembered to add the OS attribution this time too. I think it still has some value as it stands. Any more feedback will always be welcome. Cheers, Chris (chillly) [1] https://raggedred.net/greenspace On 09/08/2017 10:16, Andy Robinson wrote: Chris, I guess the bit of interest is the 90% of Public Forest Estate that the Forestry Commission dedicated right of access. https://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-7rufp5#access Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Chris Hill [mailto:o...@raggedred.net] Sent: 08 August 2017 20:08 To: Andy Robinson; 'OSM Talk GB' Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata Thanks Andy, I've asked OS about Forestry Commission land, let's see what they say. Cheers, Chris (chillly) On 08/08/2017 09:37, Andy Robinson wrote: Nice work Chris. As you say it does contain some privately owned space. It also looks somewhat out of date with changes from a couple of years ago not reflected and missing plenty of smaller play areas within our urban sprawls. A very useful tool for checking though. Also as this set doesn’t include Forestry Commission land that is fully accessible it can give a false impression of some of our "open spaces". A good example is Cannock Chase (Staffs), which is mix of open space and Forestry Commission. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Chris Hill [mailto:o...@raggedred.net] Sent: 07 August 2017 22:34 To: OSM Talk GB Subject: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata I've taken a look at the latest OS open data: OS Open Greenspace. I've created a simple overlay made of 1x1 degree overlay tiles, which is probably a bit big for some areas, so scrolling can be a bit unpredictable. https://raggedred.net/greenspace/#13/53.4520/-1.2173 There are ten types of green space in the dataset: "Allotments Or Community Growing Spaces" "Bowling Green" "Cemetery" "Golf Course" "Other Sports Facility" "Play Space" "Playing Field" "Public Park Or Garden" "Religious Grounds" "Tennis Court" Click on an area to show the type and the name if it has one. Often the OS open data is a bit of a crude representation but this looks a pretty good. OS described it as "public open space" but it certainly includes some privately-owned spaces such as private golf courses. I think this is a useful dataset to check an area to see if OSM is missing something. Feedback is welcome. If it's useful, I'll probably sort out the tile sizes and change the colours for each type. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata
On 09/08/2017 12:44, Dave F wrote: Interesting, if only to note it's inaccuracies: a few parks are missing half of their full area in my locale. Is National Trust/CRoW land in a separate database? Actually, looking at NT land near me is pretty interesting - what is included and what is excluded is an odd combination: https://raggedred.net/greenspace/#14/53.1727/-1.3102 (and compare with http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331912832 which is the observable, mostly accessible Hardwick Park). The GreenSpace dataset contains a number of fields that were historically part of Hardwick Park, are still owned by NT but aren't publicly accessible. It also includes some NT-owned fields that have never in my lifetime been part of Hardwick Park (but may have been before), and also a private pub car park, but doesn't include some adjacent NT-owned fields that were historically part of the same estate. It excludes new park access roads, so must have been updated fairly recently, and also excludes a farm access track through the estate, but not the farmyard. It's such an odd mixture that if I were a data consumer of it I'd be very reluctant to use it without combining it with something else to sanity check it. It's great for finding "hidden allotments" though - for example I'd never noticed https://raggedred.net/greenspace/#19/53.16869/-1.43609 before, and will now need to have a look to see what it actually is. Best Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata
Interesting, if only to note it's inaccuracies: a few parks are missing half of their full area in my locale. Is National Trust/CRoW land in a separate database? DaveF On 07/08/2017 22:33, Chris Hill wrote: I've taken a look at the latest OS open data: OS Open Greenspace. I've created a simple overlay made of 1x1 degree overlay tiles, which is probably a bit big for some areas, so scrolling can be a bit unpredictable. https://raggedred.net/greenspace/#13/53.4520/-1.2173 There are ten types of green space in the dataset: "Allotments Or Community Growing Spaces" "Bowling Green" "Cemetery" "Golf Course" "Other Sports Facility" "Play Space" "Playing Field" "Public Park Or Garden" "Religious Grounds" "Tennis Court" Click on an area to show the type and the name if it has one. Often the OS open data is a bit of a crude representation but this looks a pretty good. OS described it as "public open space" but it certainly includes some privately-owned spaces such as private golf courses. I think this is a useful dataset to check an area to see if OSM is missing something. Feedback is welcome. If it's useful, I'll probably sort out the tile sizes and change the colours for each type. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata
Chris, I guess the bit of interest is the 90% of Public Forest Estate that the Forestry Commission dedicated right of access. https://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-7rufp5#access Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Chris Hill [mailto:o...@raggedred.net] Sent: 08 August 2017 20:08 To: Andy Robinson; 'OSM Talk GB' Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata Thanks Andy, I've asked OS about Forestry Commission land, let's see what they say. Cheers, Chris (chillly) On 08/08/2017 09:37, Andy Robinson wrote: > Nice work Chris. As you say it does contain some privately owned space. It > also looks somewhat out of date with changes from a couple of years ago not > reflected and missing plenty of smaller play areas within our urban sprawls. > A very useful tool for checking though. > > Also as this set doesn’t include Forestry Commission land that is fully > accessible it can give a false impression of some of our "open spaces". A > good example is Cannock Chase (Staffs), which is mix of open space and > Forestry Commission. > > Cheers > Andy > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Hill [mailto:o...@raggedred.net] > Sent: 07 August 2017 22:34 > To: OSM Talk GB > Subject: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata > > I've taken a look at the latest OS open data: OS Open Greenspace. I've > created a simple overlay made of 1x1 degree overlay tiles, which is probably > a bit big for some areas, so scrolling can be a bit unpredictable. > > https://raggedred.net/greenspace/#13/53.4520/-1.2173 > > There are ten types of green space in the dataset: > > "Allotments Or Community Growing Spaces" > "Bowling Green" > "Cemetery" > "Golf Course" > "Other Sports Facility" > "Play Space" > "Playing Field" > "Public Park Or Garden" > "Religious Grounds" > "Tennis Court" > > Click on an area to show the type and the name if it has one. > > Often the OS open data is a bit of a crude representation but this looks a > pretty good. OS described it as "public open space" but it certainly includes > some privately-owned spaces such as private golf courses. I think this is a > useful dataset to check an area to see if OSM is missing something. > > Feedback is welcome. If it's useful, I'll probably sort out the tile sizes > and change the colours for each type. > > -- > cheers > Chris Hill (chillly) > > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
