Re: [Talk-GB] Laura Ashley - looking for tagging consensus

[Jez Nicholson]

Thanks for consulting. Even if you don't get a huge response (like with The
Range) it is good to get wider opinion. With The Range I simply didn't know
so had no response.

A short poll in my household (myself + my wife) concluded: "Laura Ashley is
a clothing store that happens to also sell furniture"

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, 00:52 Silent Spike,  wrote:

> I'm a UK based maintainer of the name suggestion index
>  and would
> like to get this brand added. Unfortunately it's not so obvious how it
> should be tagged and I'm not comfortable making a tagging judgement call
> alone without consulting the UK community.
>
> My last thread of this nature for The Range didn't attract many responses,
> but some input is always better than none and it allowed me to get that
> brand into the index knowing that if consensus changes then the tagging can
> easily be updated in OSM.
>
> Here's the Laura Ashley website and Wikipedia page for those unaware of
> this chain:
> https://www.lauraashley.com/en-gb
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ashley_plc
>
> It looks like currently there are:
>
>- 44 shop=clothes
>- 20 shop=furniture
>- 15 shop=interior_decoration
>- 4 shop=houseware
>- 1 shop=home_furnishing
>- 1 shop=fabric
>- 1 shop=fashion
>
> This makes sense as it seems that furniture and clothing are the main
> items sold. The tagging alone seems to suggest `shop=clothing` is favoured
> more - does this seem reasonable or do you think another tagging is more
> suitable?
> ___
> 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] Fw: Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

[Warin]

On 20/12/19 00:54, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for their 
encouragement and help.  I will have a go at making the amendments 
using the iD Editor.


I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that 
Christmas is coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time with 
their families, not on the computer.


Before I start, I have one more question:

@Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is 
unambiguous,  i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route 
without unnecessary branches and loops."


However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably to 
link into other infrastructure, such as roads and other cyclepaths).  
There are 2 that are relevant here; one is marked on the ground 
(probably because it was part of the old route), but the other is 
not.  I do not propose to include the unmarked one, but what about the 
one that is marked?  Should I include it, or not?




Some discussion on the tagging list on this... a read of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hiking_trail_relation_roles

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is a Department Store

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Phil,

In my opinion, where you pay for it is irrelevant. It is a store with multiple 
departments, and as such is a department store. You mentioned Debenhams as an 
example of a department store - it still exists, of course, and it is still a 
department store, but you can pay at any till.

On the flip side, no-one would ever describe Foyles as anything other than a 
bookshop. However, back in the day it was very much stuck in the 70s itself. 
You couldn’t pay for books from different departments, instead you had go 
around the shop, choose your books, leave them at their departments, get a set 
of bills, go to the (admittedly single) till, pay, and then go back and pick up 
your books from the departments you’d left them in. It was surreal. But aside 
from that trip down memory lane, you were effectively billed from each 
department and couldn’t get billed out of department, which sort of meets your 
definition of a department store. But it wasn’t one - it was (and still is) a 
bookshop.

Cheers
Stuart


> On 19 Dec 2019, at 19:12, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> A simple question, but probably a complex answer.
> 
> Growing up a department store was divided up into a series of
> departments, each operated almost as separate shops with their own
> staff, own till and you paid for what you bought before you moved on to
> the next department.
> 
> The obvious example is Harrods, but Grace Brothers (1) was a familiar
> example, along with Rackhams, Debenhams.
> 
> The key feature in my mind is that each department is that you paid in
> each shop, you couldn't buy a pair of shoes and pay for them in the
> record department. The big thing that kept me out of such places was
> the perfume department which always seemed to be just inside the main
> door to overpower and drive me back out.
> 
> In OSM we are using department store to describe most commonly for
> example M & S. Whilst it does have departments, you take things to a
> single till. Food is still sort of separate, but as far as I am aware
> you can pay for your socks along with your groceries.
> 
> ASDA Home may fit this, but again you pay at a single till area.
> 
> Was taken to TK Maxx today, had never been in before and had always
> assumed it was a clothes shop and had mapped it as such. It sells much
> more than clothes, actually felt like BHS used to. But again you take
> things to a single till. On checking, iD suggests Department Store.
> 
> What do others think?
> 
> Am I stuck in the 70s?
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTCUuTGNEnI May not be familiar to
> all as it doesn't get the repeats that other series of the era do
> (Dad's Army, On The Buses)
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] What is a Department Store

[Philip Barnes]

A simple question, but probably a complex answer.

Growing up a department store was divided up into a series of
departments, each operated almost as separate shops with their own
staff, own till and you paid for what you bought before you moved on to
the next department.

The obvious example is Harrods, but Grace Brothers (1) was a familiar
example, along with Rackhams, Debenhams.

The key feature in my mind is that each department is that you paid in
each shop, you couldn't buy a pair of shoes and pay for them in the
record department. The big thing that kept me out of such places was
the perfume department which always seemed to be just inside the main
door to overpower and drive me back out.

In OSM we are using department store to describe most commonly for
example M & S. Whilst it does have departments, you take things to a
single till. Food is still sort of separate, but as far as I am aware
you can pay for your socks along with your groceries.

ASDA Home may fit this, but again you pay at a single till area.

Was taken to TK Maxx today, had never been in before and had always
assumed it was a clothes shop and had mapped it as such. It sells much
more than clothes, actually felt like BHS used to. But again you take
things to a single till. On checking, iD suggests Department Store.

What do others think?

Am I stuck in the 70s?

Phil (trigpoint)





1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTCUuTGNEnI May not be familiar to
all as it doesn't get the repeats that other series of the era do
(Dad's Army, On The Buses)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] No Through Road Ahead

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

The advice to tag the tight corner is correct. There's no requirement to 
tag the whole road as any router/sat nav worth their salt should search 
well ahead for any such restrictions.


Are there chevron signs at the corner?

You can always map the actual sign, but personally I don't bother as 
I've yet to see how any routers can make use of it.


Cheers
DaveF


On 19/12/2019 14:06, Martin Wynne wrote:

How to tag this road?

 https://goo.gl/maps/B4kUxoR83ej9JXWQ8

There is no actual barrier, just a very sharp corner.

Thanks.

Martin.

___
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

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Good idea - I've added a pull request to Osmose
https://github.com/osm-fr/osmose-backend/pull/714 - please take a look and
weigh in if you think it could be improved.

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:47 PM Ken Kilfedder 
wrote:

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

Re: [Talk-GB] No Through Road Ahead

[Paul Berry]

I think it's 13 metres, according to:
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/vehicle-markings.html (these markings
replaced the old "LONG VEHICLE" plates that were mandated; I presume they
correspond to mentions of "long vehicles" on road signage too).

I wait to be corrected however.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 14:35, Peter Neale via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> I can see the logic of placing the restriction on the bend, but how long
> is a "long vehicle"?
>
> Is there an official definition?
>
> Peter
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> 
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 14:30, SK53
>  wrote:
> ___
> 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] No Through Road Ahead

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

I can see the logic of placing the restriction on the bend, but how long is a 
"long vehicle"?
Is there an official definition?
Peter

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 14:30, SK53 wrote:   
___
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] No Through Road Ahead

[David Woolley]

On 19/12/2019 14:06, Martin Wynne wrote:

How to tag this road?

https://goo.gl/maps/B4kUxoR83ej9JXWQ8

There is no actual barrier, just a very sharp corner.


You tag the corner, not the road, as the sign is only advisory.

Unfortunately, I suspect the current tagging scheme may have difficulty 
encoding the turning circle restriction, especially in a way that 
routers understand.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] No Through Road Ahead

[SK53]

I would model this with some kind of restriction: presumably maxlength on
the sharp bend.

Jerry

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 14:07, Martin Wynne  wrote:

> How to tag this road?
>
>   https://goo.gl/maps/B4kUxoR83ej9JXWQ8
>
> There is no actual barrier, just a very sharp corner.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> 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

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 19/12/2019 02:09, Warin wrote:

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 was referring to Andy's example where both tags are on the same object



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)!


I have done similar, but never felt it an ideal situation. it ends up 
with three detached objects representing one establishment. Where would 
you add the FHRS:ID tag?


I try & do 'the duck test'. I ask 'what is it most known for' If it's a 
pub, which happens to have a few rooms, then amenity=pub, 
accommodation=yes, & alternatively tourism=hotel, bar=yes


Cheers
DaveF

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

[Talk-GB] No Through Road Ahead

[Martin Wynne]

How to tag this road?

 https://goo.gl/maps/B4kUxoR83ej9JXWQ8

There is no actual barrier, just a very sharp corner.

Thanks.

Martin.

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

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

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Many thanks to @Richard Fairhurst, @Warin and @ Paul Berry for their 
encouragement and help.  I will have a go at making the amendments using the iD 
Editor.  
I'm not sure how soon that will happen, though, as I hear that Christmas is 
coming and Grandads like me are meant to spend time with their families, not on 
the computer.
Before I start, I have one more question:
@Richard Fairhurst said, "It's more important that the route is unambiguous,  
i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary 
branches and loops."
However, the Sustrans map shows some dead-end branches (presumably to link into 
other infrastructure, such as roads and other cyclepaths).  There are 2 that 
are relevant here; one is marked on the ground (probably because it was part of 
the old route), but the other is not.  I do not propose to include the unmarked 
one, but what about the one that is marked?  Should I include it, or not?  
Regards,Peter


  ___
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

[James Derrick]

Hi Edward,

On 18/12/2019 16:31, 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/P5YJames


Brilliant - there is a rash of barrier=kerb in North Tyneside 
(Cullercoates and Whitley Bay), which rather explains the original 
routing issues.


Time to fire up JOSM...

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

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

[Paul Berry]

This is all perfectly doable in iD (which I've used to map hundreds of
relations) so be bold.

Give it a go, mark your changeset for review if you want, and—after
publishing—make use of tools like the excellent http://ra.osmsurround.org which
will show any gaps or oddities with your relation.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 10:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/12/19 19:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > Peter Neale wrote:
> >> I would love to amend the Route Relation, but have no idea how to
> >> go about it.
> > Brilliant. Thanks for taking this on!
> >
> > You can do it from iD - no particular need to use JOSM for this.
> Essentially
> > the trick is, for each way that needs to be removed from the relation,
> > select it, scroll down to the bottom of the tags panel, find where it
> says
> > 'NCN 51', and click the rubbish bin. Then, for each way that needs to be
> > added, select it, click '+' at the bottom, and start typing "NCN 51".
> Select
> > it and the route will be added.
> >
> > Don't worry about ordering... the majority of bike routes in the UK
> aren't
> > ordered. If someone desperately wants it to be ordered they can fix it
> > themselves afterwards. It's more important that the route is unambiguous,
> > i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary
> > branches and loops.
>
> It is 'nice' if it is ordered. It does show the elevation profile in
> waymarked trails well when ordered.
>
> Peter .. when your finished I'll order it and go over it for anything that
> I think might be wrong/improved.
> Feel free top disagree with my ideas .. I am not always correct!
> Just leave a message here, I should see it (eventually). Same if you have
> any questions/problems .. ask and you'll have a few answers.
>
> I'm not an iD user so cannot help there.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

[Warin]

On 19/12/19 19:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Peter Neale wrote:

I would love to amend the Route Relation, but have no idea how to
go about it.

Brilliant. Thanks for taking this on!

You can do it from iD - no particular need to use JOSM for this. Essentially
the trick is, for each way that needs to be removed from the relation,
select it, scroll down to the bottom of the tags panel, find where it says
'NCN 51', and click the rubbish bin. Then, for each way that needs to be
added, select it, click '+' at the bottom, and start typing "NCN 51". Select
it and the route will be added.

Don't worry about ordering... the majority of bike routes in the UK aren't
ordered. If someone desperately wants it to be ordered they can fix it
themselves afterwards. It's more important that the route is unambiguous,
i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary
branches and loops.


It is 'nice' if it is ordered. It does show the elevation profile in waymarked 
trails well when ordered.

Peter .. when your finished I'll order it and go over it for anything that I 
think might be wrong/improved.
Feel free top disagree with my ideas .. I am not always correct!
Just leave a message here, I should see it (eventually). Same if you have any 
questions/problems .. ask and you'll have a few answers.

I'm not an iD user so cannot help there.


___
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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

17 Dec 2019, 17:58 by silentspike...@gmail.com:

> The `building` tag actually specifies the original purpose or form of the 
> building - it just happens that this usually aligns with the current use. As 
> such, I think it's fine to leave them tagged as `building=apartments`.
>
I would do exactly this way and add 
disused=yes.

IMHO mapping closed convenience shop where just
sign/visible interior remain as
shop=convenience + disused=yes
is a mistake as it is no longer a shop.
disused:shop=convenience would make more sense
But for example landuse=quarry that is no
longer used but is still 
a clearly visible object is still a quarry
so in this case landuse=quarry + disused=yes is preferable

Buildings seems to fit the second case,
building tag describes building construction,
not building use.

Building constructed as a church,
now used as a warehouse but still
clearly constructed as a church is building=church

Church building that is now unused
is building=church

Apartments building that is now unused
is building=church.
>
> See: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:use> . Interestingly 
> that wiki page points to the lifecycle prefix page for the case of disused 
> buildings, but I'd say feel free to use `building:use=disused` to explicitly 
> tag them for future mappers to see.
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:22 PM Jez Nicholson <> jez.nichol...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>> Change it to building=yes + disused:building=apartments ?...it's still a 
>> building, but the original use is now disused?
>>
>> - Jez
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, 14:51 Gareth L, <>> o...@live.co.uk>> > wrote:
>>
>>> There are some tower blocks near me which have been emptied of residents 
>>> ahead of eventual demolition of the buildings. They’re not coming back into 
>>> use due to issues with their construction. 
>>> http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/lzDlWfY8iYo2cUVmO1FNmQ/photo>>>  They’re 
>>> boarded up to secure them in the interim.
>>>
>>> All the guidance I can find on the abandoned or disused tags are to leave 
>>> the building as defined but to use abandoned/disused prefix on the amenity. 
>>>
>>> These didn’t have an amenity though. They do still exist on the ground, but 
>>> no longer function as apartments.
>>>
>>> I’d like to use construction style tagging, but it doesn’t feel quite right 
>>> looking at all examples I’ve found. e.g.
>>> Building=disused
>>> Disused=apartments
>>>
>>> What have you used for buildings which are awaiting demolition, or are 
>>> undergoing a protracted demolition process but are not amenities?
>>>
>>> Gareth
>>> ___
>>>  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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

It sounds like traffic_calming=table
(not 100% sure).

18 Dec 2019, 17:20 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> 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 <> p...@trigpoint.me.uk> > 
> 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] Appeal for Help - Amending a Route Relation - NCN Route 51

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Neale wrote:
> I would love to amend the Route Relation, but have no idea how to 
> go about it.

Brilliant. Thanks for taking this on!

You can do it from iD - no particular need to use JOSM for this. Essentially
the trick is, for each way that needs to be removed from the relation,
select it, scroll down to the bottom of the tags panel, find where it says
'NCN 51', and click the rubbish bin. Then, for each way that needs to be
added, select it, click '+' at the bottom, and start typing "NCN 51". Select
it and the route will be added.

Don't worry about ordering... the majority of bike routes in the UK aren't
ordered. If someone desperately wants it to be ordered they can fix it
themselves afterwards. It's more important that the route is unambiguous,
i.e. the member ways all join to form a single route without unnecessary
branches and loops.

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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