[Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

Since version 4.22 of the Carto map style (which was deployed a few
days ago), the generic shop=yes tag is no longer rendered on the
default OSM-Carto map at https://www.openstreetmap.org/ . For details
of the decision see
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3697 .

In Great Britain,
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/shop#values shows we
currently have 7,772 objects tagged with shop=yes, which represents
4.18% of our total shop=* objects. These objects will no longer appear
on the default map (unless they have other renderable tags). To have
the objects display again, we need to give them more specific shop=*
tags. Often, an appropriate shop value can be deduced from the shop
name, its website, or other existing tagging on OSM, without needing a
ground survey.

Any mappers with a few minutes to spare might like to have a look at
their local area, and see if there are any shop=yes objects they could
re-tag with a more specific value. Some resources to help:

* Overpass Turbo query to find shop=yes objects:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/M0w (Pan/zoom to the area of interest, then
click on run. Try a smaller area if the query times out.)

* OSM WIki Key:Shop page, with values for common shop types:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop

* Taginfo GB shop values:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/shop#values (Use the search
box at the top right of the *table* to get suggestions for the common
tag for a particular shop type.)

Best wishes,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker
https://osm.mathmos.net/

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map

[Jez Nicholson]

Thanks for the heads up.

I specifically use it when I know that a shop exists, and am due to survey
it to say what it is. So I guess it doesn't hurt if those aren't
rendered..but please, people in general, don't just delete them.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:43 PM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since version 4.22 of the Carto map style (which was deployed a few
> days ago), the generic shop=yes tag is no longer rendered on the
> default OSM-Carto map at https://www.openstreetmap.org/ . For details
> of the decision see
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3697 .
>
> In Great Britain,
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/shop#values shows we
> currently have 7,772 objects tagged with shop=yes, which represents
> 4.18% of our total shop=* objects. These objects will no longer appear
> on the default map (unless they have other renderable tags). To have
> the objects display again, we need to give them more specific shop=*
> tags. Often, an appropriate shop value can be deduced from the shop
> name, its website, or other existing tagging on OSM, without needing a
> ground survey.
>
> Any mappers with a few minutes to spare might like to have a look at
> their local area, and see if there are any shop=yes objects they could
> re-tag with a more specific value. Some resources to help:
>
> * Overpass Turbo query to find shop=yes objects:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/M0w (Pan/zoom to the area of interest, then
> click on run. Try a smaller area if the query times out.)
>
> * OSM WIki Key:Shop page, with values for common shop types:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop
>
> * Taginfo GB shop values:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/shop#values (Use the search
> box at the top right of the *table* to get suggestions for the common
> tag for a particular shop type.)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
> https://osm.mathmos.net/
>
> ___
> 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] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map

[Jez Nicholson]

Whilst we are on the subject of shops (I hope this isn't dragging the
discussion too far off topic) people may be interested how editors like iD
and Vespucci get lists of UK shop names to suggest in drop-downs. The Name
Suggestion Index contains json encoded descriptions of retail brands and
can be browsed using https://osmlab.github.io/name-suggestion-index/  this
page lets you enter 'gb' as a county code to show only UK shops.

I don't know (yet) how iD generates its list of shop types. This may be
hard-coded and/or pre-generated from the NSI.

The excellent
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Retail_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom OSM
Wiki page is a good driver for getting content into the NSI as we include
evidence of the name with an image.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:59 PM Jez Nicholson 
wrote:

> Thanks for the heads up.
>
> I specifically use it when I know that a shop exists, and am due to survey
> it to say what it is. So I guess it doesn't hurt if those aren't
> rendered..but please, people in general, don't just delete them.
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:43 PM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
> robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Since version 4.22 of the Carto map style (which was deployed a few
>> days ago), the generic shop=yes tag is no longer rendered on the
>> default OSM-Carto map at https://www.openstreetmap.org/ . For details
>> of the decision see
>> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3697 .
>>
>> In Great Britain,
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/shop#values shows we
>> currently have 7,772 objects tagged with shop=yes, which represents
>> 4.18% of our total shop=* objects. These objects will no longer appear
>> on the default map (unless they have other renderable tags). To have
>> the objects display again, we need to give them more specific shop=*
>> tags. Often, an appropriate shop value can be deduced from the shop
>> name, its website, or other existing tagging on OSM, without needing a
>> ground survey.
>>
>> Any mappers with a few minutes to spare might like to have a look at
>> their local area, and see if there are any shop=yes objects they could
>> re-tag with a more specific value. Some resources to help:
>>
>> * Overpass Turbo query to find shop=yes objects:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/M0w (Pan/zoom to the area of interest, then
>> click on run. Try a smaller area if the query times out.)
>>
>> * OSM WIki Key:Shop page, with values for common shop types:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop
>>
>> * Taginfo GB shop values:
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/shop#values (Use the search
>> box at the top right of the *table* to get suggestions for the common
>> tag for a particular shop type.)
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Robert.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Whittaker
>> https://osm.mathmos.net/
>>
>> ___
>> 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] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Jez Nicholson]

Following on from their talk at the OSMUK AGM, the National Trust have now
created an official 'organised edit' page for their footpath project
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map

[Stuart Reynolds]

And this is the problem. One of the shop=yes entries in Southend on sea is The 
Range. I wasn’t sure how to tag it (I was using iD for speed, and it’s list of 
defined shop tags is fairly minimal) so I tried an overpass query on Name=The 
Range.

I have found, variously (aside from those without a shop tag at all) 
“houseware”, “household”, “doityourself”, “department_store”.

I would suggest that “houseware” or “household” (is this a recognised tag?) 
comes closest, or maybe even (from the Wiki - I haven’t found live examples 
yet) “variety_store"

But how to tell! There isn’t a standardised approach, by any stretch of the 
imagination.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east and anglia

On 2 Sep 2019, at 14:20, Jez Nicholson 
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Whilst we are on the subject of shops (I hope this isn't dragging the 
discussion too far off topic) people may be interested how editors like iD and 
Vespucci get lists of UK shop names to suggest in drop-downs. The Name 
Suggestion Index contains json encoded descriptions of retail brands and can be 
browsed using https://osmlab.github.io/name-suggestion-index/  this page lets 
you enter 'gb' as a county code to show only UK shops.

I don't know (yet) how iD generates its list of shop types. This may be 
hard-coded and/or pre-generated from the NSI.

The excellent 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Retail_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom OSM 
Wiki page is a good driver for getting content into the NSI as we include 
evidence of the name with an image.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:59 PM Jez Nicholson 
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the heads up.

I specifically use it when I know that a shop exists, and am due to survey it 
to say what it is. So I guess it doesn't hurt if those aren't rendered..but 
please, people in general, don't just delete them.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:43 PM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
mailto:robert.whittaker%2b...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Since version 4.22 of the Carto map style (which was deployed a few
days ago), the generic shop=yes tag is no longer rendered on the
default OSM-Carto map at https://www.openstreetmap.org/ . For details
of the decision see
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3697 .

In Great Britain,
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/shop#values shows we
currently have 7,772 objects tagged with shop=yes, which represents
4.18% of our total shop=* objects. These objects will no longer appear
on the default map (unless they have other renderable tags). To have
the objects display again, we need to give them more specific shop=*
tags. Often, an appropriate shop value can be deduced from the shop
name, its website, or other existing tagging on OSM, without needing a
ground survey.

Any mappers with a few minutes to spare might like to have a look at
their local area, and see if there are any shop=yes objects they could
re-tag with a more specific value. Some resources to help:

* Overpass Turbo query to find shop=yes objects:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/M0w (Pan/zoom to the area of interest, then
click on run. Try a smaller area if the query times out.)

* OSM WIki Key:Shop page, with values for common shop types:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop

* Taginfo GB shop values:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/shop#values (Use the search
box at the top right of the *table* to get suggestions for the common
tag for a particular shop type.)

Best wishes,

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker
https://osm.mathmos.net/

___
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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 02.09.19 15:30, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Following on from their talk at the OSMUK AGM, the National Trust have
> now created an official 'organised edit' page for their footpath
> project 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

It sounds like a well thought out plan.

From a DWG perspective there's one small warning light that I have in my
head, triggered by terms like "standard" and "validated": It must be
clear to everyone involved that ultimate authority over what gets mapped
and how does not lie with the National Trust, and neither does OSMUK
have a mandate to enter into agreements on behalf of the OSM community
that would determine exactly which ways may be mapped, and what tags to use.

As long as everyone in this project is clear that it is ultimately local
mappers who get to say what goes in, and that they don't need agreement
from the National Trust or from OSMUK, then I guess all is well.

At DWG, we frequently have issues where organisations like the NT (or
smaller, local woodland trusts and the like) would like OSM to delete
outright a track that clearly exists in reality, because they say it
"leads to misunderstandings" or "is not official" or "is dangerous" or
something. To which of course the usual reply is "let us tag the correct
situation in OSM, but a track that clearly exists cannot be deleted".
Sometimes they want us to add a "vehicle=no" to a track that has
absolutely no signposts whatsoever locally, meaning that nobody can
verify that vehicles are forbidden and no local motorist would be turned
away - this is also a case where we'd usually say "put up a sign, or put
up with cars".

Sometimes the goals of these conservation organisations are opposed to
those we have in OSM - they often want to direct human activity in a
certain desired way, whereas we want to depict reality as good as we can
and let humans make their choice based on that.

A cooperation like the one described here can be beneficial to all sides
if one is aware of exactly where the parties have the same goals, and
where the goals might differ, and establish clear rules for these cases.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[David Woolley]

On 02/09/2019 14:48, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Sometimes they want us to add a "vehicle=no" to a track that has
absolutely no signposts whatsoever locally, meaning that nobody can
verify that vehicles are forbidden and no local motorist would be turned
away


This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at least 
for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it distracts 
drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide the information 
instead.


Whilst this probably doesn't currently apply to prohibitions, a logical 
extension, at some time in the near future, might be to make the 
electronic map definitive in all cases.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Jez Nicholson]

Indeed, Frederik speaks wise words.

The role of OSMUK has been to handhold, that is 'support or guide (someone)
during a learning process or a period of change'. We've been there to
encourage them to work with the community to identify how they might tag,
and for them to publish their plans.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:48 PM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 02.09.19 15:30, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> > Following on from their talk at the OSMUK AGM, the National Trust have
> > now created an official 'organised edit' page for their footpath
> > project
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths
>
> It sounds like a well thought out plan.
>
> From a DWG perspective there's one small warning light that I have in my
> head, triggered by terms like "standard" and "validated": It must be
> clear to everyone involved that ultimate authority over what gets mapped
> and how does not lie with the National Trust, and neither does OSMUK
> have a mandate to enter into agreements on behalf of the OSM community
> that would determine exactly which ways may be mapped, and what tags to
> use.
>
> As long as everyone in this project is clear that it is ultimately local
> mappers who get to say what goes in, and that they don't need agreement
> from the National Trust or from OSMUK, then I guess all is well.
>
> At DWG, we frequently have issues where organisations like the NT (or
> smaller, local woodland trusts and the like) would like OSM to delete
> outright a track that clearly exists in reality, because they say it
> "leads to misunderstandings" or "is not official" or "is dangerous" or
> something. To which of course the usual reply is "let us tag the correct
> situation in OSM, but a track that clearly exists cannot be deleted".
> Sometimes they want us to add a "vehicle=no" to a track that has
> absolutely no signposts whatsoever locally, meaning that nobody can
> verify that vehicles are forbidden and no local motorist would be turned
> away - this is also a case where we'd usually say "put up a sign, or put
> up with cars".
>
> Sometimes the goals of these conservation organisations are opposed to
> those we have in OSM - they often want to direct human activity in a
> certain desired way, whereas we want to depict reality as good as we can
> and let humans make their choice based on that.
>
> A cooperation like the one described here can be beneficial to all sides
> if one is aware of exactly where the parties have the same goals, and
> where the goals might differ, and establish clear rules for these cases.
>
> 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Mark Goodge]

On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:

On 02/09/2019 14:48, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Sometimes they want us to add a "vehicle=no" to a track that has
absolutely no signposts whatsoever locally, meaning that nobody can
verify that vehicles are forbidden and no local motorist would be turned
away


This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at least 
for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it distracts 
drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide the information 
instead.


That's certainly not a trend in the UK. At the moment, the problem is 
the opposite: how to ensure that people obey the signs rather than 
following sat-nav. For example:


https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/lorry-driver-sat-nav-nightmare-683052

One of the issues with relying on sat-nav is that the device data often 
isn't updated very often. Unless the government can impose some kind of 
legally binding SLA on the device manufacturers to ensure that all data 
updates are performed within a specified period of time, then you can't 
rely on people having current information. If a road is closed, then 
people need to know it's closed from the moment it's closed - waiting 
for their navigation software to update isn't good enough!


Whilst this probably doesn't currently apply to prohibitions, a logical 
extension, at some time in the near future, might be to make the 
electronic map definitive in all cases.


If we ever do get a situation where the electronic map is the definitive 
record of prohibitions and other relevant mapping data, then it will 
need to be available via an open licence (presumably OGL, here in the 
UK). So presumably we'd be able to import that directly into OSM via an 
API call or data dump. But it would probably need a set of specific tags 
that don't conflict with those used by people mapping from observation.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Mark Goodge]

On 02/09/2019 14:30, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Following on from their talk at the OSMUK AGM, the National Trust have 
now created an official 'organised edit' page for their footpath project 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths


I'm a little puzzled by one of the lines on the permissions grid on that 
page. There's a line for "Legal RoW but access discouraged", with a 
suggested tagging of "discouraged/private" for pedestrians (and similar 
tags for other users).


Quite apart from the fact that "private" is simply wrong for any public 
right of way, the use of "discouraged" for pedestrian users seems to me 
to also conflict with the wiki, which suggests that this is a functional 
tag (the wiki example is HGV traffic on narrow roads). But public rights 
of way come in all shapes and sizes, from broad, well-maintained paths 
to barely visible routes across difficult terrain. If we want to tag 
their relative ease of use, then surely a more appropriate tag than 
"discouraged" should be used. If a right of way on foot exists, then it 
is, ultimately, up to the user whether they use it or not.


The reason why I'm uneasy with this here, is that it relates to similar 
concerns already expressed by Frederik Ramm. There's quite a lot of NT 
property which is crossed by public rights of way, but that the NT would 
prefer people not to use as they provide a route onto the property that 
bypasses the "official" entrance. I can understand why they'd want to do 
that, but I don't think it's appropriate to reflect that in how the 
paths are mapped in OSM.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/09/2019 16:57, Mark Goodge wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by one of the lines on the permissions grid on 
that page. There's a line for "Legal RoW but access discouraged", with 
a suggested tagging of "discouraged/private" for pedestrians (and 
similar tags for other users).


Quite apart from the fact that "private" is simply wrong for any 
public right of way, the use of "discouraged" for pedestrian users 
seems to me to also conflict with the wiki, which suggests that this 
is a functional tag (the wiki example is HGV traffic on narrow roads). 


I suspect that the issues that they're trying to deal with here are:

 * Rights of way such as byways open to all traffic that have traffic
   regulation orders on them because they are currently not navigable.
   I've certainly seen example where a PRoW was closed to foot, horse
   and vehicle traffic even though it likely wasn't the walkers doing
   the damage.

 * Paths in moorland (where here it _is_ the walkers doing the damage),
   perhaps in CROW act areas, that need to be closed temporarily to
   allow heather etc. to regrow.

But public rights of way come in all shapes and sizes, from broad, 
well-maintained paths to barely visible routes across difficult 
terrain. If we want to tag their relative ease of use, then surely a 
more appropriate tag than "discouraged" should be used. If a right of 
way on foot exists, then it is, ultimately, up to the user whether 
they use it or not.


Indeed - but from reading what the NT have said I don't think they're 
opposed to tagging of surface, trail_visibility etc. to enable people to 
make their own mind up.


(as an aside https://map.atownsend.org.uk/ does look at various subtags 
on non-PRoWs and won't show some paths on that basis)




The reason why I'm uneasy with this here, is that it relates to 
similar concerns already expressed by Frederik Ramm. There's quite a 
lot of NT property which is crossed by public rights of way, but that 
the NT would prefer people not to use as they provide a route onto the 
property that bypasses the "official" entrance. I can understand why 
they'd want to do that, but I don't think it's appropriate to reflect 
that in how the paths are mapped in OSM.


Indeed, but I think we'd need an example where that was happening?  I've 
often found myself inside an NT property "by accident" via a PRoW that 
doesn't go through a main entrance, but can't remember ever remember 
being prevented from using it or even "persuaded not to".  The exception 
is where big for-pay events are held and PRoWs are temporarily closed - 
a non-NT example of that I can think of is Chatsworth Country Fair.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

[Talk-GB] Canoeing infrastructure/river features

[Edward Bainton]

Hi again Jez & others,

Just a quick question: what sort of role should overpass turbo play in my
researches on this topic (and on canoe portages especially)?

Is it an inductive browse for 'the feel of the map'? Do people like stats
when discussing new/changed tags, and if so what sort?

Answers to any other questions that I don't know to ask would be great too.
Thanks,

Edward/eteb3
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:
This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at 
least for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it distracts 
drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide the 
information instead.


What evidence have you of this "trend"?
If anything, I believe resistance to sat-navs is on the increase, given 
the number of news stories of juggernauts stuck down country lanes.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Canoeing infrastructure/river features

[Andy Townsend]

On 02/09/2019 17:50, Edward Bainton wrote:
Just a quick question: what sort of role should overpass turbo play in 
my researches on this topic (and on canoe portages especially)?


I use it all the time when looking for things that people might have 
mapped using tags that I wasn't aware of.  In your case I'd definitely 
try searching values for words like "canoe" or others that you think 
people might have used (see e.g. 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=canoe#values ).  If 
nothing else that'll identify areas to look where people have added 
other things.


Using that method you can find e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1739117028 (which is tagged as a 
tourism=theme_park?) and if you query the map or turn the data layer on 
you'll also see https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6764328677 .


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi

Bullet point replies:

 * Under the PROW section why are the 'yes' values not 'designated'?
 * byway_open_to_all_traffic - Why is motor vehicle 'private/no'?
 * Clarify which tags are optional (ie horse for Footpaths)
 * Designated ways aren't limited to
   footway/bridleway/cycleway/track/path/service/steps. Many are on
   residential roads & above
 * Access rights unknown - Can NT inform OSM of the rights?
 * The use of 'discouraged' should be discouraged. It's far too subjective.

Plus Frederik's first two paragraphs.

What data is NT providing to aid the additions of these paths? Boundary 
& water features would be useful.


I note on this page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Byways

The legalese 'vehicle' tag is incorrectly suggested to indicate the 
subjective ability:


"some byways may deteriorate and become no longer passable by any 
vehicle. If this is the case consider using vehicle=no"


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping new housing developments in midlothian for Spokes cycle map

[Jez Nicholson]

Hi Donald,

We would of course love to help, that's 'we' as in 'OSMUK', but of course
it isn't something that can be done remotely. We will tweet about it on our
account to publicise.please suggest if there's anything else we could
do.

Regards,
 Jez

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 3:22 PM Donald Noble  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The Lothian cycle charity Spokes are planning to update their paper maps
> [1] based partially on OSM data. They have asked for new developments in
> Midlothian to be updated before the end of October if possible. The main
> items requiring mapping are roads and road names, but other details are
> helpful.
>
> I have created a page [2] on the OSM wiki to list areas of new development
> that I am aware of, or are partially mapped on OSM. This can be used to
> track when they were last surveyed. It can also be used to track other
> areas that need mapping.
>
> Any input on this task is gratefully received, even if it is just an email
> to tell me of a development site I have missed.
>
> Cheers, Donald
>
> [1] http://www.spokes.org.uk/spokes-maps/
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Midlothian_New_Development
> --
> Donald Noble
> http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble
> ___
> 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] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Warin]

On 3/9/19 2:53 am, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:
This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at 
least for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it 
distracts drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide the 
information instead.


What evidence have you of this "trend"?



I too, would like to hear of evidence of this 'trend'.






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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[David Woolley]

On 02/09/2019 23:13, Warin wrote:


On 3/9/19 2:53 am, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:
This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at 
least for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it 
distracts drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide the 
information instead.


What evidence have you of this "trend"?



I too, would like to hear of evidence of this 'trend'.



Google "reducing sign clutter" for the general principle.  Use of sat 
nav as an alternative I might have heard on the radio, or in a local 
paper.  However 
 
is the only reference I can find to that, online, in a quick search.


I think, in practice, it why local councils often don't bother to fix 
AWOL and broken street name signs, even when told about them.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Warin]

On 3/9/19 8:22 am, David Woolley wrote:

On 02/09/2019 23:13, Warin wrote:


On 3/9/19 2:53 am, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:
This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at 
least for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it 
distracts drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide 
the information instead.


What evidence have you of this "trend"?



I too, would like to hear of evidence of this 'trend'.



Google "reducing sign clutter" for the general principle.  Use of sat 
nav as an alternative I might have heard on the radio, or in a local 
paper.  However 
 
is the only reference I can find to that, online, in a quick search. \



That is a personal opinion...

v.s. government link to a 3.1Mb pdf below..

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reducing-sign-clutter



I think, in practice, it why local councils often don't bother to fix 
AWOL and broken street name signs, even when told about them.


None of these are for the total removal of signs .. but for the removal 
of unnecessary signs.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Trust Paths organised edit page

[Jez Nicholson]

Community input to the plan is important. Any points you would like to
discuss can be added to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019, 07:02 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 3/9/19 8:22 am, David Woolley wrote:
> > On 02/09/2019 23:13, Warin wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3/9/19 2:53 am, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> >>> On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:
>  This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at
>  least for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it
>  distracts drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide
>  the information instead.
> >>>
> >>> What evidence have you of this "trend"?
> >>
> >>
> >> I too, would like to hear of evidence of this 'trend'.
> >>
> >
> > Google "reducing sign clutter" for the general principle.  Use of sat
> > nav as an alternative I might have heard on the radio, or in a local
> > paper.  However
> > <
> https://www.driverknowledgetests.com/resources/what-is-signage-clutter-and-how-do-we-reduce-it/>
>
> > is the only reference I can find to that, online, in a quick search. \
>
>
> That is a personal opinion...
>
> v.s. government link to a 3.1Mb pdf below..
>
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reducing-sign-clutter
>
> >
> > I think, in practice, it why local councils often don't bother to fix
> > AWOL and broken street name signs, even when told about them.
> >
> None of these are for the total removal of signs .. but for the removal
> of unnecessary signs.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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