Re: [Talk-GB] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 25/10/2019 12:04, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 25/10/2019 11:43, Jez Nicholson wrote:

+1 for a bot edit


Perhaps Maproulette would be a better option?  Zebra markings would 
often be visible on aerial imagery, and a comparison of newer vs older 
imagery might allow people to identify recent changes*.


crossing=marked as a solo sub-tag should also be verified

* Somewhat offtopic, with almost all of the wood/forest edits I've 
been doing recently I've used surveys to confirm which imagery is 
latest (and around 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/54.2593/-1.2397 it's Maxar 
Premium), but using Bing for extra clarity and better alignment, and 
also using OS OpenData waterway and road centreline data for alignment.


I've found that not only location, but editor can affect the quality of 
aerial imagery. I find it frustrating Bing is displayed at the same high 
zoom levels as others in Potlatch.


General:
I've updated crossing=zebra to crossing=uncontrolled where 
crossing_ref=zebra exists (OP+JOSM, 220 objects). I used uncontrolled as 
it's much more popular than 'marked'


DaveF



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

[Silent Spike]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 1:26 PM Silent Spike 
wrote:

> The crossing=marked/unmarked tagging is inspired from a proposal I
> believe, because there is ambiguity to the controlled/uncontrolled tagging
> whereas there's an explicit obvious answer as to whether a crossing has
> markings or not.
>

For those who can't see the slack archive (don't have an account) in my
last post, the discussion points to these proposals:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Unambiguous_crossings
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dmarked
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing:signals
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

[Silent Spike]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:57 PM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> It would also be really good if we could get the standard UK crossing
> types (zebra, pelican, toucan, pegasus) added to the iD presets to
> help UK editors add that information. Currently typing those names in
> iD doesn't give anything helpful (apart from zebra that returns
> "Marked Crossing") and there are only the marked and unmarked crossing
> options if you type "crossing" in.
>


I have floated this idea out before (
https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CBK3JLUJU/p1561914872093800) as it is now
possible to create region specific iD presets. However, the whole crossing
tagging scheme is a mess currently and iD would like to wait until
proposals are completed to clean it up before messing with crossing presets.

The crossing=marked/unmarked tagging is inspired from a proposal I believe,
because there is ambiguity to the controlled/uncontrolled tagging whereas
there's an explicit obvious answer as to whether a crossing has markings or
not.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 11:45, Jez Nicholson  wrote:
> +1 for a bot edit

My initial instinct was to say this too. But if most of these
crossing=zebra tags were added by iD users who selected "Marked
Crossing" and never saw the zebra tag, then how sure are we that
almost all Marked Crossings in the UK will be zebras?

Perhaps a Maproulett challenge would be a better way, if aerial
imagery is usually good enough to identify zebra crossings.

> are you suggesting to just add crossing_ref=zebra, or to convert 
> crossing=zebra into highway=crossing + crossing=uncontrolled too?

If edits are made, we should convert the crossing=* tag too. But we
should probably decide what value that should take. iD seems to be
suggesting crossing=marked rather than crossing=uncontrolled. However,
the former is not documented in the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing .

It would also be really good if we could get the standard UK crossing
types (zebra, pelican, toucan, pegasus) added to the iD presets to
help UK editors add that information. Currently typing those names in
iD doesn't give anything helpful (apart from zebra that returns
"Marked Crossing") and there are only the marked and unmarked crossing
options if you type "crossing" in.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

[Talk-GB] Parish Councils needs

[Edward Bainton]

A follow-up to my earlier, narrower query (subject line now changed)

Can Overpass measure the length of roads?

Eg, if a parish council wants to know how many miles of roads it has to
sweep. (Assume filtering by road type is possible to exclude driveways,
etc; assume all roads their responsibility.)

What about area of grass to cut? (add together all parks, football pitches,
etc - assume tagged *operator=Footon Parish Council*).

Thanks as ever,

Edward eteb3

-- Forwarded message -
From: Dave F via Talk-GB 
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 17:17
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Reference numbers for UK admin areas?
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 


Try this:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Nor

area(3601608485); // Sutton
//node[amenity=grit_bin]
nwr[building](area);
out meta center;

As you want a specific area, the way I do it is to get the relation
boundary's id (from the link you gave in the forum)   & add it to
36 (which is the start of the databases numbering for relations
so they don't overlap with ways & nodes).

DaveF

On 23/10/2019 16:32, Edward Bainton wrote:
> This is Sutton the parish within the City of Peterborough unitary
authority
> (there is another in Beds and another in Norfolk).
>
> OP here: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67698
>
> The challenge was to get Overpass to return grit bins in *this *Sutton,
and
> not in all places called Sutton.
>
> The context (not in OP) was a query from someone who works with parish
> councils asking whether OSM is a feasible GIS for their asset management -
> because (1) parish councils are third parties to the Public Sector Mapping
> Agreement and (2) they have just had a lot of  assets (or should that be
> liabilities?) devolved to them from higher tiers of government.
>
> Edward
>
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 16:25, Dave F via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Which Sutton?
>>
>> Could you post the OP?
>>
>> DaveF
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23/10/2019 15:49, Edward Bainton wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>> On the forum marczoutendijk gave me an Overpass query to find grit-bins
in
>> Sutton.
>>
>> He added an admin-level to distinguish the parish of Sutton from the
London
>> borough.
>>
>> The only issue is, there are at least three Suttons at admin_level=10 (as
>> it happens, not far from each other).
>>
>> They have ref numbers thus: ref:gss=E04001120 (for example)
>>
>> Does anyone know what these are? There is a webpage in the wiki here,
but I
>> can't make sense of it.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q2647
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Edward
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://
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
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

[Brian Prangle]

I think all 3 tags should be the  standard.

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 11:45, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> +1 for a bot edit
>
> are you suggesting to just add crossing_ref=zebra, or to convert
> crossing=zebra into highway=crossing + crossing=uncontrolled too?
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 8:23 AM Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 24 Oct 2019, 22:48 by rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> *Before I start this message, I would like to say that I am looking for
>> solutions and not wishing to open the flood gates on abuse of the iD
>> editors. On the whole they do a great job and even when we disagree it
>> should be with respect. Right now on to the message itself:*
>>
>>
>> It seems like the iD editor's "upgrade this" feature is replacing
>> crossing=zebra with crossing=marked but NOT adding crossing_ref=zebra to
>> the node. If lots of users make use of this "feature" in the UK then we
>> stand to lose some valuable data. Taginfo UK says there are 4,710
>> crossing=zebra features in the UK.
>>
>> I have added a comment on to the GitHub issue but no reply yet.
>> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6962
>>
>> I would suggest opening a new issue request GB specific - maybe with
>> something like
>> "I checked sample of 100 crossing tagged this way, error rate is low".
>>
>> Comments in a closed issue are likely to be lost/unnoticed.
>>
>> Though with just 5k crossing it seems that bot edit would be preferable if
>> - error rate is considered low
>> - crossing_ref tagging is acceptable
>> - there is no realistic plan to fight with iD over deprecating
>> crossing=zebra
>> - bot edits are considered as acceptable
>>
>> Why bot edit is preferable?
>> - cooperation with iD developers is not necessary
>> - more people can do it (I may do it in case of a clear support)
>> - adding complex region-based handling for 5k objects is making
>> maintenance of editor
>> complex, it is likely to not be done by iD developers
>> ___
>> 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] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

[Andy Townsend]

On 25/10/2019 11:43, Jez Nicholson wrote:

+1 for a bot edit


Perhaps Maproulette would be a better option?  Zebra markings would 
often be visible on aerial imagery, and a comparison of newer vs older 
imagery might allow people to identify recent changes*.


Best Regards,

Andy

* Somewhat offtopic, with almost all of the wood/forest edits I've been 
doing recently I've used surveys to confirm which imagery is latest (and 
around https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/54.2593/-1.2397 it's Maxar 
Premium), but using Bing for extra clarity and better alignment, and 
also using OS OpenData waterway and road centreline data for alignment.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

[Jez Nicholson]

+1 for a bot edit

are you suggesting to just add crossing_ref=zebra, or to convert
crossing=zebra into highway=crossing + crossing=uncontrolled too?

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 8:23 AM Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

>
>
>
> 24 Oct 2019, 22:48 by rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com:
>
> Hi all,
>
> *Before I start this message, I would like to say that I am looking for
> solutions and not wishing to open the flood gates on abuse of the iD
> editors. On the whole they do a great job and even when we disagree it
> should be with respect. Right now on to the message itself:*
>
>
> It seems like the iD editor's "upgrade this" feature is replacing
> crossing=zebra with crossing=marked but NOT adding crossing_ref=zebra to
> the node. If lots of users make use of this "feature" in the UK then we
> stand to lose some valuable data. Taginfo UK says there are 4,710
> crossing=zebra features in the UK.
>
> I have added a comment on to the GitHub issue but no reply yet.
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6962
>
> I would suggest opening a new issue request GB specific - maybe with
> something like
> "I checked sample of 100 crossing tagged this way, error rate is low".
>
> Comments in a closed issue are likely to be lost/unnoticed.
>
> Though with just 5k crossing it seems that bot edit would be preferable if
> - error rate is considered low
> - crossing_ref tagging is acceptable
> - there is no realistic plan to fight with iD over deprecating
> crossing=zebra
> - bot edits are considered as acceptable
>
> Why bot edit is preferable?
> - cooperation with iD developers is not necessary
> - more people can do it (I may do it in case of a clear support)
> - adding complex region-based handling for 5k objects is making
> maintenance of editor
> complex, it is likely to not be done by iD developers
> ___
> 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-westmidlands] Saturday at Houton

[Brian Prangle]

Hi everyone

Let's meet at the Visitors Centre Car Park for 10am to decide what and how
to map. The Tuning Fork(adjacent) do good grub so we could have lunch
there. If there has been insufficient progress on new roads/houses since
our last visit to occupy us, we can discuss where else to map

Regards

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Zebra crossings being lost in iD - how to respond

[Mateusz Konieczny]

24 Oct 2019, 22:48 by rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com:

> Hi all,
>
> Before I start this message, I would like to say that I am looking for 
> solutions and not wishing to open the flood gates on abuse of the iD editors. 
> On the whole they do a great job and even when we disagree it should be with 
> respect. Right now on to the message itself:
>
>
> It seems like the iD editor's "upgrade this" feature is replacing 
> crossing=zebra with crossing=marked but NOT adding crossing_ref=zebra to the 
> node. If lots of users make use of this "feature" in the UK then we stand to 
> lose some valuable data. Taginfo UK says there are 4,710 crossing=zebra 
> features in the UK.
>
> I have added a comment on to the GitHub issue but no reply yet.
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6962 
> 
>
I would suggest opening a new issue request GB specific - maybe with something 
like 
"I checked sample of 100 crossing tagged this way, error rate is low".

Comments in a closed issue are likely to be lost/unnoticed.

Though with just 5k crossing it seems that bot edit would be preferable if
- error rate is considered low
- crossing_ref tagging is acceptable
- there is no realistic plan to fight with iD over deprecating crossing=zebra
- bot edits are considered as acceptable

Why bot edit is preferable?
- cooperation with iD developers is not necessary
- more people can do it (I may do it in case of a clear support)
- adding complex region-based handling for 5k objects is making maintenance of 
editor
 complex, it is likely to not be done by iD developers
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb