Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits

[Michael Collinson]

If I trace a track or service road in England from aerial imagery, I 
always add access=unknown to explicitly flag the uncertainty until it is 
visited by me or someone else. The only exception is when it is very, 
very clearly a terminus track going directly into a residence or farm.


Mike

On 2019-07-31 18:17, Andy Robinson wrote:

It's almost impossible to see if a service road (especially private driveways) 
has any access rights without being on the ground and even then it might not 
say. Even a gps trace doesn’t confirm that there was permission to travel, just 
that they did. The question is whether it's better to have connectivity implied 
within the OSM database or to leave it out of OSM until you have a better 
understanding on the ground.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to Fix a "Fix-Me"

[Michael Booth]

Looks like the fixme was added to the end node of that road when it was 
first created, and then the person who added the loop probably didn't 
realise it was there so it remained.


If you look at the node history and the changeset where it was created, 
you can see the loop being added and the fixme staying on the node: 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=52127592


In case you're not aware, you can use tools like Keepright to locate 
fixme tags, and then try to fix the problem or even remove the tag if 
you're sure there's no issue: 
https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?zoom=14&lat=52.03865&lon=-0.71392&layers=B0T&ch=0%2C170&show_ign=1&show_tmpign=1


Personally, for things that need a survey I prefer using OSM notes as 
they are accessible on osm.org so you don't need a QA tool to check if 
there's something worth surveying in your area when out and about.


On 31/07/2019 18:42, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
If this is not the correct place / route to seek assistance with this 
issue, please advise me where to go.


I see that, on a new housing estate near me, there are a number of 
"Fix Me" tags on highway=residential, which I would like to fix.


The tags all say, "noexit? turning_circle? stub?"

These are all streets that link to only one other highway, mostly 
highway=tertiary (i.e. they are cul de sacs / dead ends).


Where the highway=residential is mapped as a single line, I can see 
that it would be sensible to mark whether there is a turning circle, 
or turning loop, at the end and, if there is no exit by vehicle, 
bicycle, or on foot, to mark it as "noexit".


However, where there is a turning loop, which is already mapped as a 
looped highway, I don't understand what the "FixMe" is asking for.  
See, for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5111774622


Acording to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dturning_loop,


"Draw a closed highway=* way around the traffic island and connect it 
to the main road, giving it the same name. If traffic is required to 
flow in a particular direction around the traffic island, add 
oneway=yes. This method is preferred for large turning circles, 
because navigation applications decide whether the user is on- or 
off-route based on their distance from the roadway. This method also 
makes it possible to accurately map features inside the loop, such as 
parking spaces, trees, or a flagpole.
If a turning loop has been mapped as a way, do not remap it as a 
simple node, as that would remove detail from the map."


Are these "FixMe"s generated automatically?  Can I just delete the 
"FixMe" in these cases?


I would be grateful for any advice.

Peter




___
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] How to Fix a "Fix-Me"

[SK53]

Hi Peter,

These very much look like fixmes which got forgotten. They do not show up
directly in many editors (and only recently in iD). In this case all the
ones you mention look to have been fully resolved by the existing mapping.
In that case it's safe just to remove the fixmes, which is good because it
stops others thinking this area needs a visit.

Obviously not every case is likely to be so clear cut. I suspect many of us
leave fixme tags if we are not absolutely sure that they have been
resolved: a false positive signal is better than a false negative one.
However, with more in-editor QA we may need to be more pro-active in
checking for fixmes which are no longer relevant.

It's always a good policy if unsure to start a discussion on the changeset
where the fixme tags were created. Often fixme tags are somewhat terse. A
direct question to the original author may elicit which information they
really felt they were lacking at the time. For instance in a case like this
I presume aerial imagery with the new roads was not available, or that it
only showed the area during construction. If someone walked or cycled
through to get GPS tracks they may not have been able to survey many of the
nuances of the site.

Personally I try and add multiple source tags to give an idea of what
information I used. For instance I have recently been adding footpaths
which I have seen leading of country roads in Yorkshire & Denbighshire. I
know where the path starts, what type of PRoW the path is and roughly where
it heads. Additional information I cull from old out-of-copyright maps &
aerial images, so the actual true alignment of the path is always an
approximation. If someone walks the path, GPS traces become available etc,
then the fixme can be removed & the source:geometry tag updated.

Regards,

Jerry

On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 18:43, Peter Neale via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> If this is not the correct place / route to seek assistance with this
> issue, please advise me where to go.
>
> I see that, on a new housing estate near me, there are a number of "Fix
> Me" tags on highway=residential, which I would like to fix.
>
> The tags all say, "noexit? turning_circle? stub?"
>
> These are all streets that link to only one other highway, mostly
> highway=tertiary (i.e. they are cul de sacs / dead ends).
>
> Where the highway=residential is mapped as a single line, I can see that
> it would be sensible to mark whether there is a turning circle, or turning
> loop, at the end and, if there is no exit by vehicle, bicycle, or on foot,
> to mark it as "noexit".
>
> However, where there is a turning loop, which is already mapped as a
> looped highway, I don't understand what the "FixMe" is asking for.  See,
> for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5111774622
>
> Acording to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dturning_loop
> ,
>
> "Draw a closed highway=* way around the traffic island and connect it to
> the main road, giving it the same name. If traffic is required to flow in a
> particular direction around the traffic island, add oneway=yes. This method
> is preferred for large turning circles, because navigation applications
> decide whether the user is on- or off-route based on their distance from
> the roadway. This method also makes it possible to accurately map features
> inside the loop, such as parking spaces, trees, or a flagpole.
> If a turning loop has been mapped as a way, do not remap it as a simple
> node, as that would remove detail from the map."
>
> Are these "FixMe"s generated automatically?  Can I just delete the "FixMe"
> in these cases?
>
> I would be grateful for any advice.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Amazon Logistics edits

[ael]

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 01:12:24PM +0100, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> 
> Trades will occasionally have small items delivered, especially if
> specialized or in an emergency.  A foreman I know had his kid's Christmas
> present sent to site to keep the surprise.
> 
> Please provide an OSM link to the site.

Already given in another reply:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71388804#map=16/51.7817/-1.5188

Having refreshed my memory, they explicitly stated that it was from
Maxar Premium Imagery (Beta).

If you look at that imagery, it is pretty obvious that those roads are
no more than construction tracks as yet. Nearly the whole of that site
was mapped before any imagery was available from multiple visits with
fairly accurate gps.  Those gps tracks are public and can be inspected.
It is overdue for another visit.

ael


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits

[ael]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:20:31PM +0100, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 29/07/2019 11:21, ael wrote:
> > In the case that I mentioned, it was certainly not from their own GPS
> > logs.
> 
> A few examples I came across while looking at these with a DWG hat on were
> also not from GPS logs.  In one case Amazon would have had to have been
> delivering by tractor; in another the actual building they would have been
> delivering to was first mapped in 2013 and was derelict then.
> 
> What I suspect that they were doing was "doing other mapping while they were
> in the area" (which to be fair is pretty much what nearly everyone else does
> too).

Indeed. My case was
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71388804#map=16/51.7817/-1.5188,
and as I said Amazon replied and adjusted.
They said explicitly that it was from "Maxar Premium Imagery (Beta)".

ael


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

[Talk-GB] How to Fix a "Fix-Me"

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

If this is not the correct place / route to seek assistance with this issue, 
please advise me where to go.
I see that, on a new housing estate near me, there are a number of "Fix Me" 
tags on highway=residential, which I would like to fix.  

The tags all say, "noexit? turning_circle? stub?"
These are all streets that link to only one other highway, mostly 
highway=tertiary (i.e. they are cul de sacs / dead ends).
Where the highway=residential is mapped as a single line, I can see that it 
would be sensible to mark whether there is a turning circle, or turning loop, 
at the end and, if there is no exit by vehicle, bicycle, or on foot, to mark it 
as "noexit".  
However, where there is a turning loop, which is already mapped as a looped 
highway, I don't understand what the "FixMe" is asking for.  See, for example 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5111774622
Acording to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dturning_loop, 
"Draw a closed highway=* way around the traffic island and connect it to the 
main road, giving it the same name. If traffic is required to flow in a 
particular direction around the traffic island, add oneway=yes. This method is 
preferred for large turning circles, because navigation applications decide 
whether the user is on- or off-route based on their distance from the roadway. 
This method also makes it possible to accurately map features inside the loop, 
such as parking spaces, trees, or a flagpole.If a turning loop has been mapped 
as a way, do not remap it as a simple node, as that would remove detail from 
the map."
Are these "FixMe"s generated automatically?  Can I just delete the "FixMe" in 
these cases?
I would be grateful for any advice.
Peter


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits

[Andy Robinson]

Thanks Andy, that provides some useful context. As others have also pointed out 
new data is generally good for OSM and we can't expect all users to ever get 
all the tags right on a first pass. I'll be keeping a closer eye in my area and 
will make direct contact with mappers who seem to be routinely missing the 
important point. My biggest concern was your noted "adding connectivity where 
there isn't any public connectivity" point. It's almost impossible to see if a 
service road (especially private driveways) has any access rights without being 
on the ground and even then it might not say. Even a gps trace doesn’t confirm 
that there was permission to travel, just that they did. The question is 
whether it's better to have connectivity implied within the OSM database or to 
leave it out of OSM until you have a better understanding on the ground.

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: ajt1...@gmail.com [mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 31 July 2019 15:53
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits

On 29/07/2019 09:35, Andy Robinson wrote:
> I've just looked at a number of Amazon Logistics in my local area

Just to give everyone a bit of a heads-up about the DWG's involvement 
here - we got a number of messages about Amazon's mapping.  The biggest 
immediate problem was their use of "motor_vehicle=yes" on 
"highway=track" regardless of the actual legal access status.  To cut a 
long story short, they have removed this where they've blanket added it, 
and have since asked exactly how to map sort of thing (at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jguthula/diary/390322 and elsewhere).

The list of Amazon editors is quite long - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amazon_Logistics#Editors - and not 
all are active in the UK.  I used overpass queries like 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Lea to check the edits.  With regard to the 
"motor_vehicle=yes" issue, I contacted each of the Amazon mappers active 
in the UK individually rather than going through a "manager" to try and 
get them talking to the local community.  In order to get from edits 
there to changeset discussion comments, click on an object on that map, 
then on the changeset, then "changeset XML" and copy the "uid=" value 
and use it in a URL such as 
resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=9310279 .

One other issue that people have raised with these edits have been 
"adding connectivity where there isn't any public connectivity" (i.e. 
adding a "highway=service" or "highway=track" that is in reality a 
private farm track, that connects two public roads).  Personally I 
wouldn't assume that either of these had public access in England and 
Wales* (Scotland has a different legal system), and I don't think that 
we can blame Amazon for adding missing geometry but only some missing 
tags.  Local mappers will still be needed to add these.  Amazon editors 
tend to have their own "local area" so a variation of the overpass query 
above can be used to identify newly added objects - I'm sure that some 
people will be able to use local knowledge to say "well obviously way 
XYZ should be access=private" and similar.

While looking at these issues I did notice quite a few other tracks and 
rural service roads (driveways etc.) where the access tags looked a bit 
unlikely - and there are of course many examples were designations 
haven't been added (where that isn't open data, that needs survey).  I 
notice that someone from the National Trust has written a diary entry 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/AJW92/diary/390378 to discuss how to 
tag England and Wales "rights of way" designations.

Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)

* I'd suggest that it's also not correct to tag "access=private" on 
newly traced farm etc. tracks - if the example above 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/120277748 is a "byway open to all 
traffic" then access=yes or motor_vehicle=yes on there will be correct, 
and "private" would be wrong (TROs notwithstanding).




___
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] Amazon Logistics edits

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 29/07/2019 11:21, ael wrote:
In the case that I mentioned, it was certainly not from their own GPS 
logs.


A few examples I came across while looking at these with a DWG hat on 
were also not from GPS logs.  In one case Amazon would have had to have 
been delivering by tractor; in another the actual building they would 
have been delivering to was first mapped in 2013 and was derelict then.


What I suspect that they were doing was "doing other mapping while they 
were in the area" (which to be fair is pretty much what nearly everyone 
else does too).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 29/07/2019 09:35, Andy Robinson wrote:

I've just looked at a number of Amazon Logistics in my local area


Just to give everyone a bit of a heads-up about the DWG's involvement 
here - we got a number of messages about Amazon's mapping.  The biggest 
immediate problem was their use of "motor_vehicle=yes" on 
"highway=track" regardless of the actual legal access status.  To cut a 
long story short, they have removed this where they've blanket added it, 
and have since asked exactly how to map sort of thing (at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jguthula/diary/390322 and elsewhere).


The list of Amazon editors is quite long - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amazon_Logistics#Editors - and not 
all are active in the UK.  I used overpass queries like 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Lea to check the edits.  With regard to the 
"motor_vehicle=yes" issue, I contacted each of the Amazon mappers active 
in the UK individually rather than going through a "manager" to try and 
get them talking to the local community.  In order to get from edits 
there to changeset discussion comments, click on an object on that map, 
then on the changeset, then "changeset XML" and copy the "uid=" value 
and use it in a URL such as 
resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=9310279 .


One other issue that people have raised with these edits have been 
"adding connectivity where there isn't any public connectivity" (i.e. 
adding a "highway=service" or "highway=track" that is in reality a 
private farm track, that connects two public roads).  Personally I 
wouldn't assume that either of these had public access in England and 
Wales* (Scotland has a different legal system), and I don't think that 
we can blame Amazon for adding missing geometry but only some missing 
tags.  Local mappers will still be needed to add these.  Amazon editors 
tend to have their own "local area" so a variation of the overpass query 
above can be used to identify newly added objects - I'm sure that some 
people will be able to use local knowledge to say "well obviously way 
XYZ should be access=private" and similar.


While looking at these issues I did notice quite a few other tracks and 
rural service roads (driveways etc.) where the access tags looked a bit 
unlikely - and there are of course many examples were designations 
haven't been added (where that isn't open data, that needs survey).  I 
notice that someone from the National Trust has written a diary entry 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/AJW92/diary/390378 to discuss how to 
tag England and Wales "rights of way" designations.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)

* I'd suggest that it's also not correct to tag "access=private" on 
newly traced farm etc. tracks - if the example above 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/120277748 is a "byway open to all 
traffic" then access=yes or motor_vehicle=yes on there will be correct, 
and "private" would be wrong (TROs notwithstanding).





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar panels quarterly project progress

[Gregory Williams]

Last night I updated my solar mapping comparison tool to include coverage of 
Scotland. Unfortunately it had only covered England and Wales up until now 
because my comparison with the FiT register data was performed at the LSOA 
level. For Scotland, the comparison is being performed just at the local 
authority level. The tool is here:

http://osm.gregorywilliams.me.uk/solar/index.html
Some other recent additions that I've made to the tool are:

  *
A "Last updated" column -- showing the date of the last addition / change to a 
solar panel object here;
  *
A "FiT" layer, showing the relative number of PV installations that the FiT 
register has for this area, regardless of whether we've mapped them yet in OSM. 
I.e. a way to seek out where installations are situated, such that a survey can 
be planned;
  *
An "OSM objects" layer, that shows the location of each OSM-mapped PV 
installation, to help keep track of progress in systematically surveying for PV 
installations.

I'm hoping to find time to add further functionality over the coming weeks.

Gregory

Sent from 
Mailspring,
 the best free email app for work
On Jul 30 2019, at 9:05 pm, Dan S  wrote:
Hi all,

The current quarterly project is: solar panels. The good news: we've hit 25,000!
(From a baseline of fewer than 5,000 at the start of the year.)
https://twitter.com/mclduk/status/1156274870625472513

Great work folks. It'd be great to find a way to get other people to
help spot solar panels in their own neck of the woods. But we're on
our way!

Dan

___
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