Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition

[Robert Skedgell]

On 17/12/2019 20:54, David Woolley wrote:

On 17/12/2019 20:35, Warin wrote:


so
building=apartments
becomes
disused:building=apartments

or
building=yes
becomes
disused:building=yes


I disagree.  It is still a building.  In fact some of the most 
interesting buildings are disused ones.


Rather than change the tagging on the buildings, if they are currently 
enclosed by a landuse=residential polygon*, perhaps change that to 
something else (splitting the polygon if appropriate)?


Unfortunately that creates another headache, as neither 
landuse=construction nor landuse=brownfield really seem to fit the 
original case.


* In the OP's example, this is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/676088956

--
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)


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

[Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[James Derrick]

Hi,

After investigating two reports of OSRM routing failures around North 
Tyneside, the common factor I can see is barrier=kerb tags added to 
highway=crossing nodes intersecting highway=tertiary and 
highway=cycleway/ footway ways.


Here are links to the two map note reports:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2030228
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2030238

To investigate the report, I entered the postcodes given into the 
default routing engine on the OSM map and found VERY odd routes going 
10x the direct distance, and avoiding very obvious direct paths:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=55.0659%2C-1.4624%3B55.0511%2C-1.4530#map=14/55.0590/-1.4747&layers=N

Personally, I'd not noticed the OSM main map had added several routing 
engines as I use separate tools, so have no idea how often the routing 
engines update their database extracts but expect the issue to be 
visible for a few days.



After two examples of bad routing, I checked the paths between the 
geolocated points given and found one common factor - barrier=kerb on a 
road / footway highway=crossing node.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4341572135

My hunch is the router isn't familiar with barrier=kerb, so is assuming 
BOTH ways are blocked and using an alternate path.



It is debatable how a routing engine should interpret highway=kerb tag, 
however my own thought is the kerb is not on the highway=secondary - it 
is on the highway=footway.


If anywhere, there should be two nodes on the footway separate from the 
secondary to give information to wheelchair accessibility routers.



As an experiment, I've removed the barrier=kerb from a highway-crossing 
and added two nodes on the cycleway, with the additional explicit tags of:


  barrier=kerb
  bicycle=yes
  foot=yes
  wheelchair=limited
  kerb=lowered
  tactile_paving=yes
  horse=yes  (ISTR UK law says cycle = horse!)

This is rather cumbersome compared with one barrier=kerb tag on the 
node, but logic suggests this is more consistent with reality and 
current routers.



Has any one used the barrier=kerb tag, or is familiar with the inner 
workings of OSRM or similar engines please?


Thanks,


James
--
James Derrick
li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England
I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick


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

[Talk-GB] East Midlands New Year Footpath Mapping Social 2020

[SK53]

Dear All,

Provisional details for a planned mapping event around the new year are now
on the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Mapping_Meetup/New_Year_2020.

There's masses to be done in the area just to the West of where we visited
last year. Similar type of terrain. Once a date is firmed up then there's
ample scope for some arm-chair mapping which can be refined by the ground
survey.

A Doodle poll to select a date most convenient for as many as possible
(unfortunately New Year Plant Hunt dates rule out 1st-4th Jan for me):
https://doodle.com/poll/2edmmyvi9yeeip3q

I'm anticipating the 11th or 18th Jan are likely to be most convenient.

Hope people might be able to make it,

Best wishes,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[James Derrick]

On 16/12/2019 12:32, Andy Townsend wrote:


  * Firstly, I only tend to add farmland etc. after I've added fences,
walls, ditches, gates, bits of woodland etc. (it's just easier
that way around).
  * If the crop extends right up to the hedge, I'd tend to have the
hedge sharing nodes with both fields.
  * If there's a ditch, track or other separating feature I'd try and
draw the hedges either side (if they exist) and have the farmland
not sharing nodes with the ditch but with the hedge (if it
exists).  Similarly I wouldn't attach farmland to roads.
  * If there's an uncultivated strip around the edge of the field I
wouldn't tend to include that in the "field". Similarly if an area
is left as scrub (perhaps to wet for crops), I'd map as scrub.


+1

After several years mapping Northumberland (about 60% complete!), that's 
almost exactly the same style I've landed on.



Adding boundaries and rivers first helps get a feel for the area, then 
adding individual polygons is easier with the follow tool in JOSM.


Large areas of one polygon are a PITA to maintain later - e.g. if a 
meadow is ploughed up, or a housing estate appears. (I know - I've 
cursed my own previous less detailed mapping several times...)



Also to help with maintenance, I separate roads from landuse UNLESS in 
upland areas where there may be less field boundaries but 
barrier=cattle_grid visible which means the sheep really are in the 
middle of the highway.


And, please don't chop up roads into little segments so one way can be 
used in four area relations (my least favourite maintenance PITA). Your 
future self will be happier if you draw separate lines! :-)



My own practice is to show a pattern of cultivation with different tags 
such as farmland, meadow, scrub, heath. In Northumberland this can give 
additional information at large scales as height limits the types of 
farming which are viable as you rise inland from the coast.


And yes, farmers do indeed plough up grazing land and rotate crops - I 
try to map what is visible from cycle survey, and different imagery 
providers whilst accepting it's not going to be as canonical as a 
housing estate!


TTFN,


James

James
--
James Derrick
li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England
I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick

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

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

I think your new mapping is correct, as it reflects reality - which is what
most matters. You could improve it by curving the cycle path/sidewalk up to
the crossing and aligning the kerb nodes to the aerial photo, but that's
nitpicking.

That said, there's still a problem in that at least one routing
engine (OSRM in bicycle mode) still sees kerbs as impassable to bicycles:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_bike&route=55.0123%2C-1.4837%3B55.0130%2C-1.4810
but
that's something the routing engine devs should fix (if you feel like
contacting them); compare
https://github.com/fossgis-routing-server/cbf-routing-profiles/blob/master/foot.lua#L35

https://github.com/fossgis-routing-server/cbf-routing-profiles/blob/master/bike.lua#L40


Even a non-lowered kerb is an obstacle to cycling, but not an
insurmountable one, at least to able-bodied cyclists who can raise their
bike over the kerb, so it should perhaps have a penalty in routing but not
enough to make a 2km detour preferable. That said, the same goes for cars -
other than the lowest bodied sports cars, pretty much all motor vehicles
are capable of taking a kerb at low speed.

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 12:35 PM James Derrick 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> After investigating two reports of OSRM routing failures around North
> Tyneside, the common factor I can see is barrier=kerb tags added to
> highway=crossing nodes intersecting highway=tertiary and
> highway=cycleway/ footway ways.
>
> Here are links to the two map note reports:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2030228
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2030238
>
> To investigate the report, I entered the postcodes given into the
> default routing engine on the OSM map and found VERY odd routes going
> 10x the direct distance, and avoiding very obvious direct paths:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=55.0659%2C-1.4624%3B55.0511%2C-1.4530#map=14/55.0590/-1.4747&layers=N
>
> Personally, I'd not noticed the OSM main map had added several routing
> engines as I use separate tools, so have no idea how often the routing
> engines update their database extracts but expect the issue to be
> visible for a few days.
>
>
> After two examples of bad routing, I checked the paths between the
> geolocated points given and found one common factor - barrier=kerb on a
> road / footway highway=crossing node.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4341572135
>
> My hunch is the router isn't familiar with barrier=kerb, so is assuming
> BOTH ways are blocked and using an alternate path.
>
>
> It is debatable how a routing engine should interpret highway=kerb tag,
> however my own thought is the kerb is not on the highway=secondary - it
> is on the highway=footway.
>
> If anywhere, there should be two nodes on the footway separate from the
> secondary to give information to wheelchair accessibility routers.
>
>
> As an experiment, I've removed the barrier=kerb from a highway-crossing
> and added two nodes on the cycleway, with the additional explicit tags of:
>
>barrier=kerb
>bicycle=yes
>foot=yes
>wheelchair=limited
>kerb=lowered
>tactile_paving=yes
>horse=yes  (ISTR UK law says cycle = horse!)
>
> This is rather cumbersome compared with one barrier=kerb tag on the
> node, but logic suggests this is more consistent with reality and
> current routers.
>
>
> Has any one used the barrier=kerb tag, or is familiar with the inner
> workings of OSRM or similar engines please?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> James
> --
> James Derrick
>  li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England
>  I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me...
>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick
>
>
> ___
> 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] Disused or empty apartments

[Mike Baggaley]

Perhaps setting both building=yes and disused: building=apartments would 
fulfill all the needs.

Regards,
Mike

On 18 Dec 2019, 12:00, at 12:00, talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
>Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to
>   talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>   talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition
>  (David Woolley)
>   2. Re: Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition
>  (Robert Skedgell)
>
>
>--
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 20:54:24 +
>From: David Woolley 
>To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition
>Message-ID: <14f1fd0d-149b-e3dd-40e4-a1da4c995...@david-woolley.me.uk>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>On 17/12/2019 20:35, Warin wrote:
>>
>> so
>> building=apartments
>> becomes
>> disused:building=apartments
>>
>> or
>> building=yes
>> becomes
>> disused:building=yes
>
>I disagree.  It is still a building.  In fact some of the most
>interesting buildings are disused ones.
>
>
>
>--
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:20:27 +
>From: Robert Skedgell 
>To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition
>Message-ID: <8277e623-b349-1534-08a3-9a085012e...@hubris.org.uk>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
>On 17/12/2019 20:54, David Woolley wrote:
>> On 17/12/2019 20:35, Warin wrote:
>>>
>>> so
>>> building=apartments
>>> becomes
>>> disused:building=apartments
>>>
>>> or
>>> building=yes
>>> becomes
>>> disused:building=yes
>>
>> I disagree.  It is still a building.  In fact some of the most
>> interesting buildings are disused ones.
>
>Rather than change the tagging on the buildings, if they are currently
>enclosed by a landuse=residential polygon*, perhaps change that to
>something else (splitting the polygon if appropriate)?
>
>Unfortunately that creates another headache, as neither
>landuse=construction nor landuse=brownfield really seem to fit the
>original case.
>
>* In the OP's example, this is
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/676088956
>
>--
>Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Subject: Digest Footer
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>--
>
>End of Talk-GB Digest, Vol 159, Issue 14
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 17/12/2019 20:54, David Woolley wrote:



building=yes
becomes
disused:building=yes


I disagree.  It is still a building.  In fact some of the most 
interesting buildings are disused ones.


An unoccupied building (disused:building) is still a building, as you 
intimate in your last sentence.


To those who advocate building=yes + disused:building=apartments - To me 
this is adding two building tags & is 'tagging incorrectly to suit the 
render'

disused:building=* should be rendered on the 'standard' map.

Cheers
DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[David Woolley]

On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied sports 
cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at low 
speed.


Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and the 
resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London.  As 
such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Philip Barnes]

On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote:
> On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied sports 
> > cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at low 
> > speed.
> 
> Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and the 
> resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London.  As 
> such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs.

Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly 
acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles  over lowered kerbs to 
access private property. 

Phil (trigpoint)



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

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Robert Skedgell]

On 18/12/2019 15:36, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote:
>> On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
>>> That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied sports 
>>> cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at low 
>>> speed.
>>
>> Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and the 
>> resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London.  As 
>> such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs.

I believe the simplified version of this is that it's generally illegal
(a criminal offence) to drive a car on a footway, unless there's a
vehicle crossover provided for that purpose. It's parking a car on a
footway which is illegal in London (an offence which is only subject to
civil enforcement), unless explicitly allowed by the local authority.
Trespass isn't likely to be the issue on highways maintainable at public
expense.

> Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly 
> acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles  over lowered kerbs to 
> access private property. 
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)

For access to a private property as a destination, hopefully
kerb=lowered at the intersection of the highway=service and barrier=kerb
ways would be interpreted as allowing it by a router.

-- 
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Returning to the original issue, I think I've worked out what the problem
is. It's that on a crossing node, kerb=* is fine (it describes the
presence/attributes of the kerb on the subsidiary highway) but barrier=kerb
should *not* be used.

Combining kerb=* with highway=crossing is blessed by Wiki:

 If the kerb is identical on both sides of a crossing, it is possible to
> add the kerb=* tag to the highway
> =crossing
>  node, which
> sacrifices accuracy for simplicity, consider using kerb:left and kerb:right
> if the kerbs differ.


but this doesn't say that barrier=kerb should be included on the crossing
node!

I think barrier=kerb + highway=crossing should be regarded as a mistake.
Taginfo shows ~ 1000 of them (0.47 of barrier=kerb nodes; 0.03% of
highway=crossing nodes) which should fixable.

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote:
> > On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> > > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied
> sports
> > > cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at
> low
> > > speed.
> >
> > Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and the
> > resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London.  As
> > such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs.
>
> Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly
> acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles  over lowered kerbs
> to access private property.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
>  ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> ___
> 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] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[David Woolley]

On 18/12/2019 15:59, Robert Skedgell wrote:

It's parking a car on a
footway which is illegal in London (an offence which is only subject to
civil enforcement), unless explicitly allowed by the local authority.


It's potentially a criminal offence anywhere see sub-paragraph 17 of 
.  I think the 
situation in London is just that the default position is reversed, and 
everywhere is assumed to have a notice by default.  The offence is 
crossing the kerb or verge, not parking on the footway, which is a 
separate offence.


I think issue of civil enforcement is just that the police have 
abdicated all this sort of thing to civil enforcement, rather that it 
isn't a crime.  About the only parking offences the police will 
prosecute are dangerous and obstructive parking, but they could 
prosecute any of them.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Further to this - if you want to look for barrier=kerb + highway=crossing
nodes in your area, which may be disrupting routing, the Overpass query
is node["barrier"="kerb"]["highway"="crossing"] :
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/P5Y

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:20 PM Edward Catmur 
wrote:

> Returning to the original issue, I think I've worked out what the problem
> is. It's that on a crossing node, kerb=* is fine (it describes the
> presence/attributes of the kerb on the subsidiary highway) but barrier=kerb
> should *not* be used.
>
> Combining kerb=* with highway=crossing is blessed by Wiki:
>
>  If the kerb is identical on both sides of a crossing, it is possible to
>> add the kerb=* tag to the highway
>> =crossing
>>  node, which
>> sacrifices accuracy for simplicity, consider using kerb:left and kerb:right
>> if the kerbs differ.
>
>
> but this doesn't say that barrier=kerb should be included on the crossing
> node!
>
> I think barrier=kerb + highway=crossing should be regarded as a mistake.
> Taginfo shows ~ 1000 of them (0.47 of barrier=kerb nodes; 0.03% of
> highway=crossing nodes) which should fixable.
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Philip Barnes 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote:
>> > On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
>> > > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied
>> sports
>> > > cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at
>> low
>> > > speed.
>> >
>> > Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and
>> the
>> > resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London.  As
>> > such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs.
>>
>> Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly
>> acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles  over lowered kerbs
>> to access private property.
>>
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>
>>
>>
>>  ___
>> > Talk-GB mailing list
>> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Sailfish device
>> ___
>> 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] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Philip Barnes]

Thank you Edward
Found one in Leicester, maproulette seagull adds barrier=kerb to 
crossing=toucan / kerb=lowered.

Will fix.

Cheers 
Phil (trigpoint)

On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, Edward Catmur wrote:
> Further to this - if you want to look for barrier=kerb + highway=crossing
> nodes in your area, which may be disrupting routing, the Overpass query
> is node["barrier"="kerb"]["highway"="crossing"] :
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/P5Y
> 
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:20 PM Edward Catmur 
> wrote:
> 
> > Returning to the original issue, I think I've worked out what the problem
> > is. It's that on a crossing node, kerb=* is fine (it describes the
> > presence/attributes of the kerb on the subsidiary highway) but barrier=kerb
> > should *not* be used.
> >
> > Combining kerb=* with highway=crossing is blessed by Wiki:
> >
> >  If the kerb is identical on both sides of a crossing, it is possible to
> >> add the kerb=* tag to the highway
> >> =crossing
> >>  node, which
> >> sacrifices accuracy for simplicity, consider using kerb:left and kerb:right
> >> if the kerbs differ.
> >
> >
> > but this doesn't say that barrier=kerb should be included on the crossing
> > node!
> >
> > I think barrier=kerb + highway=crossing should be regarded as a mistake.
> > Taginfo shows ~ 1000 of them (0.47 of barrier=kerb nodes; 0.03% of
> > highway=crossing nodes) which should fixable.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Philip Barnes 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote:
> >> > On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> >> > > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied
> >> sports
> >> > > cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at
> >> low
> >> > > speed.
> >> >
> >> > Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and
> >> the
> >> > resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London.  As
> >> > such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs.
> >>
> >> Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly
> >> acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles  over lowered kerbs
> >> to access private property.
> >>
> >> Phil (trigpoint)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  ___
> >> > Talk-GB mailing list
> >> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sent from my Sailfish device
> >> ___
> >> Talk-GB mailing list
> >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >>
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Ken Kilfedder]

Is it worth adding this to Osmose and the other QA tools?

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk


On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, at 4:31 PM, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> Further to this - if you want to look for barrier=kerb + highway=crossing 
> nodes in your area, which may be disrupting routing, the Overpass query is 
> node["barrier"="kerb"]["highway"="crossing"] : https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/P5Y
> 
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:20 PM Edward Catmur  wrote:
>> Returning to the original issue, I think I've worked out what the problem 
>> is. It's that on a crossing node, kerb=* is fine (it describes the 
>> presence/attributes of the kerb on the subsidiary highway) but barrier=kerb 
>> should *not* be used. 
>> 
>> Combining kerb=* with highway=crossing is blessed by Wiki:
>> 
>>>  If the kerb is identical on both sides of a crossing, it is possible to 
>>> add the kerb=* tag to the highway 
>>> =crossing 
>>>  node, which 
>>> sacrifices accuracy for simplicity, consider using kerb:left and kerb:right 
>>> if the kerbs differ. 
>> 
>> but this doesn't say that barrier=kerb should be included on the crossing 
>> node! 
>> 
>> I think barrier=kerb + highway=crossing should be regarded as a mistake. 
>> Taginfo shows ~ 1000 of them (0.47 of barrier=kerb nodes; 0.03% of 
>> highway=crossing nodes) which should fixable.
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Philip Barnes  wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote:
>>>  > On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
>>>  > > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodied 
>>> sports 
>>>  > > cars, pretty much all motor vehicles are capable of taking a kerb at 
>>> low 
>>>  > > speed.
>>>  > 
>>>  > Although raised kerbs are generally there to stop that happening and the 
>>>  > resultant trespass on the footway can be illegal, e.g. in London. As 
>>>  > such routers should not be routing motor vehicles over kerbs.
>>> 
>>>  Its a level of detail that few of us have mapped, but it is perfectly 
>>> acceptable, and quite common, to route motor vehicles over lowered kerbs to 
>>> access private property. 
>>> 
>>>  Phil (trigpoint)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  ___
>>>  > Talk-GB mailing list
>>>  > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>>  > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>  >
>>> 
>>>  -- 
>>>  Sent from my Sailfish device
>>>  ___
>>>  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] barrier=kerb on highways may be blocking OSRM (Car) routing

[Robert Skedgell]

On 18/12/2019 16:26, David Woolley wrote:
> On 18/12/2019 15:59, Robert Skedgell wrote:
>> It's parking a car on a
>> footway which is illegal in London (an offence which is only subject to
>> civil enforcement), unless explicitly allowed by the local authority.
> 
> It's potentially a criminal offence anywhere see sub-paragraph 17 of
> .  I think the
> situation in London is just that the default position is reversed, and
> everywhere is assumed to have a notice by default.  The offence is
> crossing the kerb or verge, not parking on the footway, which is a
> separate offence.

I believe the general prohibition of driving on footways to be s. 72
Highway Act 1835
.

In London, footway parking is prohibited by s. 15 Greater London Council
(General Powers) Act 1974
, although it's
illegal to park an HGV on a footway or verge anywhere under s. 19 Road
Traffic Act 1988
. Both of these
are enforced only as civil parking contraventions, using codes 62 and 61
respectively.

> 
> I think issue of civil enforcement is just that the police have
> abdicated all this sort of thing to civil enforcement, rather that it
> isn't a crime.  About the only parking offences the police will
> prosecute are dangerous and obstructive parking, but they could
> prosecute any of them.

In civil enforcement areas in England (most places now), the police
cannot enforce a parking offence as a criminal matter other than for a
pedestrian crossing contravention, see regulation 7 of The Civil
Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007
.
Complying with legislation isn't really an abdication of their powers.

The police can act on a vehicle parked in a dangerous position under s.
22 Road Traffic Act 1988
, but this isn't
a parking offence per se. This may be fortunate as a CEO who may have an
(officially denied) quota to fill shouldn't be serving PCNs based on
their subjective judgement.

-- 
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)

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

[Talk-GB] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

NCN Route 51  has been changed in Central Milton Keynes.  It no longer goes 
through the intu Shopping Centre!
I would love to amend the Route Relation, but have no idea how to go about it.  
From following the Tagging Discussions, I think that elements should be added 
in the order that they are traversed, but I would not know where to start.  Do 
I need to use the JOSM Editor?  I have only used the iD Editor so far
Would some kind person either:
a.  Teach me how to amend the Route Relation (and be prepared to hold my hand 
from time to time)or, b.  Take on the task of amending the Route Relation for 
me? I have surveyed the new route on my bike and generated a GPS trace, which I 
am happy to make available (I have already uploaded it to OSM, but can also 
email a copy).I have written a 3-page brief, with maps, which I can, of course, 
provide.  
Regards,Peter
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

[Warin]

On 19/12/19 00:41, Mike Baggaley wrote:
Perhaps setting both building=yes and disused: building=apartments 
would fulfill all the needs.


Err no. Having both tags on the one object is contradictory.

How is it determined which tag to render?


A building=* is rendered one way.
A disused:building=* is rendered another.

So .. is it a "building" or a "disused building"???



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

[Andy Townsend]

On 18/12/2019 23:47, Warin wrote:

On 19/12/19 00:41, Mike Baggaley wrote:
Perhaps setting both building=yes and disused: building=apartments 
would fulfill all the needs.


Err no. Having both tags on the one object is contradictory.

How is it determined which tag to render?

Aside from this particular question, that's actually a problem that 
happens all the time with things like "amenity=pub; tourism=hotel" - the 
answer is that the renderer decides which one should take precedence.  
This might just be "render layer X before layer Y", or it might be an 
active if/then/else rule to determine exactly what gets rendered for 
that tag combination.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 19/12/2019 01:41, Andy Townsend wrote:
Aside from this particular question, that's actually a problem that 
happens all the time with things like "amenity=pub; tourism=hotel" -


Not really. pub & hotel are synonymous but building=yes (which indicates 
it's operational) is antonymous to disused:building


Cheers
DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments

[Warin]

On 19/12/19 13:01, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

On 19/12/2019 01:41, Andy Townsend wrote:
Aside from this particular question, that's actually a problem that 
happens all the time with things like "amenity=pub; tourism=hotel" -


I'd rather the mapper make a clear choice as they know what is there, 
the render makes a 'best guess'.




Not really. pub & hotel are synonymous but building=yes (which 
indicates it's operational) is antonymous to disused:building



Some pubs are not hotels - no accommodation.

I have taken to mapping the building as a close way with building=* and 
then adding separate nodes for pub and another for the hotel if it has 
that.

Note I am not consistent in this (but I should be)!

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