[Talk-GB] TfL Cycling Infrastructure Database - conflation

[Martin Lucas-Smith - CycleStreets]

Dear all,

As you may recall, Transport for London (TfL) released as open data a major 
new cycling infrastructure dataset. Various people within the OSM UK 
community met TfL in the run-up to its release, and it was well-received.


The OSM wiki has a project page here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database

and you can browse the data here:
https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/

I'm pleased to say that TfL, through a project with London Cycling 
Campaign, has allocated resources to enable conversion of the data as well 
as officer time within TfL to help conflate what is a huge dataset. 
CycleStreets is working with Richard Fairhurst (cycle.travel, and of course 
well-known as a long-standing member of the community) to get this 
conversion work done.


Richard will be doing the bulk of the scripting work, and is working on 
converting each of the sections of data. This will naturally be published 
on Github openly, as will the outputted data. This is reasonably complex 
work given the number of attributes and the data extent. We are keen to 
ensure the OSM community is able to scrutinise the conversion easily and 
have input. Richard will post to this list about the work, as it proceeds.


We will be using the previously-discussed conversion table:
https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/
https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion
and the remaining issues will be mopped up during the work.

The aim of the scripting is to get as much of the data conversion automated 
as possible, and matching of assets very reliable, so that the conflation 
(tool yet to be determined) can then be done with a high degree of 
confidence and as easily as possible.


The conflation itself, using the output of the script, will be started by 
TfL personnel, with training from Richard/myself about both process and 
norms and quality expectations of the community. TfL only have a certain 
amount of time resource for this, so it is hoped the OSM community will 
also contribute time as we refine and document the process. As noted above, 
the converted data will be published along the script itself. Every asset 
also has two images (already publicly available) which will be useful for 
verification.


Richard and I hope this news will be well-received within the OSM community 
- this is a great opportunity to enhance OSM data in London. For instance, 
cycle parking coverage and detail can be considerably enhanced as a result 
of this data.


If you have feedback for TfL on the CID outside of this conflation task 
then they can be contacted via c...@tfl.gov.uk.



Martin, **  CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists
Developer, CycleStreets **  https://www.cyclestreets.net/


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Colin Smale]

Having both ref and id in the key seems a bit like overkill to me...
ref:UK:leedscc:bin ?

On 2020-03-26 13:13, Patrick Lake wrote:

> Hi, 
> 
> The ID is only used for bins, so by the sounds of it we may as well go for 
> ref:UK:leedscc:bin:id so hopefully we won't have to change it in the future. 
> Then if we end up adding more of LCC's assets (which we might do in the 
> future, if we can persuade LCC to rely on OSM more) we can use a similar 
> convention. 
> 
> Re the waste_basket:defects tag - you are right that it should be quite 
> transient, but it seemed like a useful thing to include for LCC's sake. The 
> problem is whether they'd bother to edit it after repairs etc. Happy to leave 
> it out if it doesn't really fit. 
> 
> The operator tag makes more sense too, cheers. 
> 
> Patrick
> 
> From: Jez Nicholson 
> Date: Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 11:54
> To: Andy Mabbett 
> Cc: "talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps 
> 
> I've seen requests (from the French) for refs to be country namespaced, e.g. 
> ref:UK:leedscc:id or ref:UK:leedscc:bin:id Seems like overkill to start with, 
> but then it does prevent duplication. 
> 
> Is the LLC id a number used for bins only, or for all types of asset? 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:37 AM Andy Mabbett  
> wrote: 
> 
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 10:10, Patrick Lake  wrote:
>> 
>>> I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
>>> meaningless to anyone not from the council.
>> 
>> To avoid conflicts with Liverpool, or Lima, please consider using
>> leedscc:id etc.
>> 
>>> Here's the rest of the tags we planned to use
>> 
>>> waste_basket:defects=loose
>> 
>> That seems rather transient (or should be).
>> 
>>> lcc:comments="under city centre team management"
>> 
>> operator:"Leeds CC city centre team" ?
>> 
>> -- 
>> Andy Mabbett
>> @pigsonthewing
>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Patrick Lake]

Hi,
The ID is only used for bins, so by the sounds of it we may as well go for 
ref:UK:leedscc:bin:id so hopefully we won’t have to change it in the future. 
Then if we end up adding more of LCC’s assets (which we might do in the future, 
if we can persuade LCC to rely on OSM more) we can use a similar convention.

Re the waste_basket:defects tag – you are right that it should be quite 
transient, but it seemed like a useful thing to include for LCC’s sake. The 
problem is whether they’d bother to edit it after repairs etc. Happy to leave 
it out if it doesn’t really fit.

The operator tag makes more sense too, cheers.

Patrick
From: Jez Nicholson 
Date: Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 11:54
To: Andy Mabbett 
Cc: "talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

I've seen requests (from the French) for refs to be country namespaced, e.g. 
ref:UK:leedscc:id or ref:UK:leedscc:bin:id Seems like overkill to start with, 
but then it does prevent duplication.

Is the LLC id a number used for bins only, or for all types of asset?

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:37 AM Andy Mabbett 
mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 10:10, Patrick Lake 
mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>> wrote:

> I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
> meaningless to anyone not from the council.

To avoid conflicts with Liverpool, or Lima, please consider using
leedscc:id etc.

>Here’s the rest of the tags we planned to use

> waste_basket:defects=loose

That seems rather transient (or should be).

> lcc:comments=”under city centre team management”

operator:"Leeds CC city centre team" ?

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Jez Nicholson]

I've seen requests (from the French) for refs to be country namespaced,
e.g. ref:UK:leedscc:id or ref:UK:leedscc:bin:id Seems like overkill to
start with, but then it does prevent duplication.

Is the LLC id a number used for bins only, or for all types of asset?

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:37 AM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 10:10, Patrick Lake 
> wrote:
>
> > I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be
> meaningless to anyone not from the council.
>
> To avoid conflicts with Liverpool, or Lima, please consider using
> leedscc:id etc.
>
> >Here’s the rest of the tags we planned to use
>
> > waste_basket:defects=loose
>
> That seems rather transient (or should be).
>
> > lcc:comments=”under city centre team management”
>
> operator:"Leeds CC city centre team" ?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Andy Mabbett]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 10:10, Patrick Lake  wrote:

> I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
> meaningless to anyone not from the council.

To avoid conflicts with Liverpool, or Lima, please consider using
leedscc:id etc.

>Here’s the rest of the tags we planned to use

> waste_basket:defects=loose

That seems rather transient (or should be).

> lcc:comments=”under city centre team management”

operator:"Leeds CC city centre team" ?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] FW: Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Colin Smale]

ref:lcc=* would probably be best, or even ref:lcc:bins=*. There is an
activity going on at present to get these external IDs documented to
some extent, in the context of IDs that are used for correlation during
data imports and subsequent maintenance. It would fit nicely in this
list: 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Key_descriptions_with_status_%22import%22

Discussion can be read here: 

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-March/084404.html 

On 2020-03-26 11:48, Patrick Lake wrote:

> Thanks for the suggestion Peter, I think ref is probably more appropriate 
> then. I'm fairly new to this as well, so I'm trying to get as much feedback 
> as possible. 
> 
> Patrick 
> 
> From: Peter Neale 
> Reply to: Peter Neale 
> Date: Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 10:40
> To: Jez Nicholson , "talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" 
> , Patrick Lake 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps 
> 
> I commend your efforts, but can I suggest a small change to your proposal? 
> 
> (I am still a bit of a novice on OSM, so please feel free to tell me I am 
> totally wrong) 
> 
> Rather than "lcc:id=1849" should you not use, "id=lcc1849", or perhaps 
> "ref=lcc1849", or even "ref:lcc=1849". 
> 
> I am not sure which (if any) would be most correct, but I feel that what you 
> are trying to record is a type of reference or identity, not a type of lcc. 
> 
> I also note that Taginfo shows 91,800 uses of "id=*", but over 10.3 million 
> uses of "ref=*", so "ref =nnn"would seem by far the most popular tag for a 
> reference number.  
> 
> Also, I do not see the need to "hide" the comment as "lcc:comments="; why not 
> just use "note=under city centre team management"? 
> 
> As I said, please feel free to tell me I am wrong; I am engaging here as part 
> of my education in OSM. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Peter 
> 
> On Thursday, 26 March 2020, 10:12:56 GMT, Patrick Lake 
>  wrote: 
> 
> Hi Jez, 
> 
> I agree, we are going to encourage them to rely on OSM as their main source 
> of data in the future, but whether they'll use it for essential stuff like 
> planning collection routes I don't know. We (ODI Leeds), however, will be 
> relying on OSM data, as this is all part of a wider project we're doing for 
> LCC involving analysis on how much waste is collected from these bins and 
> where the optimum location for additional litter bins and recycling points 
> would be. So we're keen for it to be accurate. 
> 
> I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
> meaningless to anyone not from the council. Here's the rest of the tags we 
> planned to use with examples from the data we're importing (obviously we can 
> change these): 
> 
> amenity=waste_basket 
> 
> * waste_basket:model="metal square twin"
> * condition=good/fair/poor
> * waste_basket:defects=loose
> * waste_basket:collection_days=mon/fri (or lcc:collection_days ?)
> * lcc:id=1849
> * lcc:comments="under city centre team management"
> 
> What do you think? 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> Patrick 
> 
> o/talk-gb [1] 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
 

Links:
--
[1] 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] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Ken Kilfedder]

I can't see an easy way to do a 'twice per week' collection where the 
particular days aren't known. Messing about in the validator 
(https://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/ ) and looking at their 
examples (bottom of the screen) suggests that complex cases can be expressed as 
a text comment. Making this 'valid' appears to require a comment for both 
normal times and public holdidays, the latter prefixed by a PH. 

So if you know it's tuesdays and thursdays:
 * collection_times=Mo; Fr

If you know it's twice per week, even on public holidays:
 * collection_times="twice per week"; PH "twice per week"

If you know it's twice per week, but not on public holidays:
 * collection_times="twice per week"; PH off

If you know it's twice per week, but have no info on public hols, this might be 
the best compromise:
 * collection_times="twice per week"

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


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


On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, at 10:43 AM, Patrick Lake wrote:
> Hi Ken,

> 

> Yes that seems like a better idea, hadn’t seen that, thanks. Most of the data 
> is in the format mon/tue/fri etc so could be changed into the syntax shown on 
> the wiki, but others just say “twice weekly” – can this just be left as-is or 
> not? As most of this data has been entered by hand it wouldn’t be the easiest 
> task to automate changing all 3000+ into a standard format.

> 

> Patrick

> 

> *From: *Ken Kilfedder 
> *Date: *Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 10:31
> *To: *"talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" 
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

> 

> Hi Patrick,

> 

> For the collection_days tag, it might be possible to use the same tagging 
> syntax as the collection_times for post-boxes and recycling bins. It's on the 
> wiki here-

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:collection_times

> 

> You can add days or days with times.

> 

> 

> ---

> https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain

> spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk

> 

> 

> On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, at 10:10 AM, Patrick Lake wrote:

>> Hi Jez,

>> 

>> I agree, we are going to encourage them to rely on OSM as their main source 
>> of data in the future, but whether they’ll use it for essential stuff like 
>> planning collection routes I don’t know. We (ODI Leeds), however, *will* be 
>> relying on OSM data, as this is all part of a wider project we’re doing for 
>> LCC involving analysis on how much waste is collected from these bins and 
>> where the optimum location for additional litter bins and recycling points 
>> would be. So we’re keen for it to be accurate.

>> 

>> I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
>> meaningless to anyone not from the council. Here’s the rest of the tags we 
>> planned to use with examples from the data we’re importing (obviously we can 
>> change these):

>> amenity=waste_basket

>>  * waste_basket:model=”metal square twin”
>>  * condition=good/fair/poor
>>  * waste_basket:defects=loose
>>  * waste_basket:collection_days=mon/fri (or lcc:collection_days ?)
>>  * lcc:id=1849
>>  * lcc:comments=”under city centre team management”
>> 

>> What do you think?

>> 

>> Cheers,

>> Patrick

>> 

>> *From: *Jez Nicholson 
>> *Date: *Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:04
>> *To: *Patrick Lake 
>> *Cc: *Jake Edmonds , Talk-GB 
>> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

>> 

>> Hi Patrick,

>> 

>> Shame LCC aren't 'dogfooding', ie using their own data, as it does encourage 
>> people to take it seriously. I guess that your regular diffs will spot 
>> discrepancies. I've had problems in the past with benches being removed (in 
>> real life and on OSM) then reappearing because it was just the council 
>> refurbing them.

>> 

>> What do you propose tagging the LCC id as? Or would you like suggestions?

>> 

>> - Jez

>> 

>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, 11:00 Patrick Lake,  wrote:

>>> Hi Jake,

>>> 

>>> No, LCC haven’t told us that they’ll use the data for those sort of 
>>> purposes. It wasn’t part of the specification, and to our knowledge they 
>>> won’t be reliant on it – obviously with it being open data they’re free to 
>>> use it for whatever they would like, but we’ve made them aware that OSM can 
>>> be edited and things can be deleted by users.

>>> 

>>> We currently extract OSM data for different amenities West Yorkshire daily, 
>>> including bins, and  store it in a GitHub repo 
>>> .
>>>  We plan to make a repo specifically for bin data – we’ll extract OSM data 
>>> daily and compare it, updating the repo if necessary. This then means LCC, 
>>> and others, will be able to look at the commit history to see what edits 
>>> have been made across time, and revert them if necessary. We’re looking at 
>>> using the GitHub API to integrate the commit history into the tool we’re 
>>> 

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Patrick Lake]

Thanks Tony – for the dataset I’m working on at the moment (which is all litter 
bins excluding recycling) we don’t have any sort of data on what they’re 
designated for. The only thing I could do really is use waste=trash for all of 
them – is it worth including?

The other dataset, which is recycling points only, is more specific and does 
specify exactly what materials can be disposed of there. We haven’t started on 
this one yet.

Cheers,
Patrick

From: Tony OSM 
Date: Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 10:45
To: "talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps


Hi Patrick

There is also a key:waste for the kind of waste - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waste

Values used are  - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/waste#values

Regards

TonyS999
On 26/03/2020 10:10, Patrick Lake wrote:
Hi Jez,

I agree, we are going to encourage them to rely on OSM as their main source of 
data in the future, but whether they’ll use it for essential stuff like 
planning collection routes I don’t know. We (ODI Leeds), however, will be 
relying on OSM data, as this is all part of a wider project we’re doing for LCC 
involving analysis on how much waste is collected from these bins and where the 
optimum location for additional litter bins and recycling points would be. So 
we’re keen for it to be accurate.

I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
meaningless to anyone not from the council. Here’s the rest of the tags we 
planned to use with examples from the data we’re importing (obviously we can 
change these):

amenity=waste_basket

  *   waste_basket:model=”metal square twin”
  *   condition=good/fair/poor
  *   waste_basket:defects=loose
  *   waste_basket:collection_days=mon/fri (or lcc:collection_days ?)
  *   lcc:id=1849
  *   lcc:comments=”under city centre team management”

What do you think?

Cheers,
Patrick

From: Jez Nicholson 
Date: Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:04
To: Patrick Lake 
Cc: Jake Edmonds , Talk-GB 

Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

Hi Patrick,

Shame LCC aren't 'dogfooding', ie using their own data, as it does encourage 
people to take it seriously. I guess that your regular diffs will spot 
discrepancies. I've had problems in the past with benches being removed (in 
real life and on OSM) then reappearing because it was just the council 
refurbing them.

What do you propose tagging the LCC id as? Or would you like suggestions?

- Jez

On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, 11:00 Patrick Lake, 
mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>> wrote:
Hi Jake,

No, LCC haven’t told us that they’ll use the data for those sort of purposes. 
It wasn’t part of the specification, and to our knowledge they won’t be reliant 
on it – obviously with it being open data they’re free to use it for whatever 
they would like, but we’ve made them aware that OSM can be edited and things 
can be deleted by users.

We currently extract OSM data for different amenities West Yorkshire daily, 
including bins, and store it in a GitHub 
repo.
 We plan to make a repo specifically for bin data – we’ll extract OSM data 
daily and compare it, updating the repo if necessary. This then means LCC, and 
others, will be able to look at the commit history to see what edits have been 
made across time, and revert them if necessary. We’re looking at using the 
GitHub API to integrate the commit history into the tool we’re building for LCC.

To differentiate between council and business’ bins, we’ll just use a tag – 
we’ll confirm what this will be before uploading. Also, the existing data we’re 
bulk importing has a LCC ID which will be included as a tag.

Cheers,
Patrick
From: Jake Edmonds mailto:jake_edmo...@me.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 24 March 2020 at 12:47
To: Patrick Lake mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

Hi Patrick
Are LCC staff planning to use the final dataset for various tasks, such as 
planning collection routes?

I’m sure you have good answers for my questions but I’m just interested in a 
practical sense.

What happens if a bin is accidentally/maliciously removed from OSM/moved?
How are you planning to differentiate between LCC bins and bins provided by 
businesses?

Thanks
Jake


On 24 Mar 2020, at 13:40, Patrick Lake 
mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback, that’s what we were hoping to hear.

Silent Spike, in answer to your questions – we’ve been told by the council that 
it is quite accurate, although with a dataset of 3000+ bins there is likely to 
be minor mistakes. Visually, the locations look sensible, which is reassuring.

Here’s the method we planned to use:

  *   There is definitely some bins which are already on 

[Talk-GB] FW: Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Patrick Lake]

Thanks for the suggestion Peter, I think ref is probably more appropriate then. 
I’m fairly new to this as well, so I’m trying to get as much feedback as 
possible.
Patrick

From: Peter Neale 
Reply to: Peter Neale 
Date: Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 10:40
To: Jez Nicholson , "talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" 
, Patrick Lake 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

I commend your efforts, but can I suggest a small change to your proposal?

(I am still a bit of a novice on OSM, so please feel free to tell me I am 
totally wrong)

Rather than "lcc:id=1849" should you not use, "id=lcc1849", or perhaps 
"ref=lcc1849", or even "ref:lcc=1849".

I am not sure which (if any) would be most correct, but I feel that what you 
are trying to record is a type of reference or identity, not a type of lcc.

I also note that Taginfo shows 91,800 uses of "id=*", but over 10.3 million 
uses of "ref=*", so "ref =nnn"would seem by far the most popular tag for a 
reference number.

Also, I do not see the need to "hide" the comment as "lcc:comments="; why not 
just use "note=under city centre team management"?

As I said, please feel free to tell me I am wrong; I am engaging here as part 
of my education in OSM.

Regards,
Peter

On Thursday, 26 March 2020, 10:12:56 GMT, Patrick Lake 
 wrote:



Hi Jez,



I agree, we are going to encourage them to rely on OSM as their main source of 
data in the future, but whether they’ll use it for essential stuff like 
planning collection routes I don’t know. We (ODI Leeds), however, will be 
relying on OSM data, as this is all part of a wider project we’re doing for LCC 
involving analysis on how much waste is collected from these bins and where the 
optimum location for additional litter bins and recycling points would be. So 
we’re keen for it to be accurate.



I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
meaningless to anyone not from the council. Here’s the rest of the tags we 
planned to use with examples from the data we’re importing (obviously we can 
change these):

amenity=waste_basket

  *   waste_basket:model=”metal square twin”
  *   condition=good/fair/poor
  *   waste_basket:defects=loose
  *   waste_basket:collection_days=mon/fri (or lcc:collection_days ?)
  *   lcc:id=1849
  *   lcc:comments=”under city centre team management”



What do you think?



Cheers,

Patrick



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Tony OSM]

Hi Patrick

There is also a key:waste for the kind of waste - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waste


Values used are  - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/waste#values

Regards

TonyS999

On 26/03/2020 10:10, Patrick Lake wrote:


Hi Jez,

I agree, we are going to encourage them to rely on OSM as their main 
source of data in the future, but whether they’ll use it for essential 
stuff like planning collection routes I don’t know. We (ODI Leeds), 
however, *will* be relying on OSM data, as this is all part of a wider 
project we’re doing for LCC involving analysis on how much waste is 
collected from these bins and where the optimum location for 
additional litter bins and recycling points would be. So we’re keen 
for it to be accurate.


I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
meaningless to anyone not from the council. Here’s the rest of the 
tags we planned to use with examples from the data we’re importing 
(obviously we can change these):


amenity=waste_basket

  * waste_basket:model=”metal square twin”
  * condition=good/fair/poor
  * waste_basket:defects=loose
  * waste_basket:collection_days=mon/fri (or lcc:collection_days ?)
  * lcc:id=1849
  * lcc:comments=”under city centre team management”

What do you think?

Cheers,

Patrick

*From: *Jez Nicholson 
*Date: *Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:04
*To: *Patrick Lake 
*Cc: *Jake Edmonds , Talk-GB 


*Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

Hi Patrick,

Shame LCC aren't 'dogfooding', ie using their own data, as it does 
encourage people to take it seriously. I guess that your regular diffs 
will spot discrepancies. I've had problems in the past with benches 
being removed (in real life and on OSM) then reappearing because it 
was just the council refurbing them.


What do you propose tagging the LCC id as? Or would you like suggestions?

- Jez

On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, 11:00 Patrick Lake, > wrote:


Hi Jake,

No, LCC haven’t told us that they’ll use the data for those sort
of purposes. It wasn’t part of the specification, and to our
knowledge they won’t be reliant on it – obviously with it being
open data they’re free to use it for whatever they would like, but
we’ve made them aware that OSM can be edited and things can be
deleted by users.

We currently extract OSM data for different amenities West
Yorkshire daily, including bins, and store it in a GitHub repo

.
We plan to make a repo specifically for bin data – we’ll extract
OSM data daily and compare it, updating the repo if necessary.
This then means LCC, and others, will be able to look at the
commit history to see what edits have been made across time, and
revert them if necessary. We’re looking at using the GitHub API to
integrate the commit history into the tool we’re building for LCC.

To differentiate between council and business’ bins, we’ll just
use a tag – we’ll confirm what this will be before uploading.
Also, the existing data we’re bulk importing has a LCC ID which
will be included as a tag.

Cheers,

Patrick

*From: *Jake Edmonds mailto:jake_edmo...@me.com>>
*Date: *Tuesday, 24 March 2020 at 12:47
*To: *Patrick Lake mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>>
*Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

Hi Patrick

Are LCC staff planning to use the final dataset for various tasks,
such as planning collection routes?

I’m sure you have good answers for my questions but I’m just
interested in a practical sense.

What happens if a bin is accidentally/maliciously removed from
OSM/moved?

How are you planning to differentiate between LCC bins and bins
provided by businesses?

Thanks

Jake

On 24 Mar 2020, at 13:40, Patrick Lake
mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>>
wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback, that’s what we were hoping to hear.

Silent Spike, in answer to your questions – we’ve been told by
the council that it is quite accurate, although with a dataset
of 3000+ bins there is likely to be minor mistakes. Visually,
the locations look sensible, which is reassuring.

Here’s the method we planned to use:

  * There is definitely some bins which are already on OSM, so
to avoid adding duplicates I took the locations of
existing bins on OSM and the dataset from Leeds council,
and created a distance matrix. My thought was, I would
separate any bins in the LCC dataset which are less than
15 metres away from the nearest bin already on OSM, as
they’re potential duplicates. I could then inspect these
manually in JOSM and decide which ones to add (if any)
  * 

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Patrick Lake]

Hi Ken,

Yes that seems like a better idea, hadn’t seen that, thanks. Most of the data 
is in the format mon/tue/fri etc so could be changed into the syntax shown on 
the wiki, but others just say “twice weekly” – can this just be left as-is or 
not? As most of this data has been entered by hand it wouldn’t be the easiest 
task to automate changing all 3000+ into a standard format.

Patrick

From: Ken Kilfedder 
Date: Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 10:31
To: "talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

Hi Patrick,

For the collection_days tag, it might be possible to use the same tagging 
syntax as the collection_times for post-boxes and recycling bins.   It's on the 
wiki here-
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:collection_times

You can add days or days with times.


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


On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, at 10:10 AM, Patrick Lake wrote:

Hi Jez,



I agree, we are going to encourage them to rely on OSM as their main source of 
data in the future, but whether they’ll use it for essential stuff like 
planning collection routes I don’t know. We (ODI Leeds), however, will be 
relying on OSM data, as this is all part of a wider project we’re doing for LCC 
involving analysis on how much waste is collected from these bins and where the 
optimum location for additional litter bins and recycling points would be. So 
we’re keen for it to be accurate.



I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
meaningless to anyone not from the council. Here’s the rest of the tags we 
planned to use with examples from the data we’re importing (obviously we can 
change these):

amenity=waste_basket

  *   waste_basket:model=”metal square twin”
  *   condition=good/fair/poor
  *   waste_basket:defects=loose
  *   waste_basket:collection_days=mon/fri (or lcc:collection_days ?)
  *   lcc:id=1849
  *   lcc:comments=”under city centre team management”



What do you think?



Cheers,

Patrick



From: Jez Nicholson 
Date: Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:04
To: Patrick Lake 
Cc: Jake Edmonds , Talk-GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps



Hi Patrick,



Shame LCC aren't 'dogfooding', ie using their own data, as it does encourage 
people to take it seriously. I guess that your regular diffs will spot 
discrepancies. I've had problems in the past with benches being removed (in 
real life and on OSM) then reappearing because it was just the council 
refurbing them.



What do you propose tagging the LCC id as? Or would you like suggestions?



- Jez



On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, 11:00 Patrick Lake, 
mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>> wrote:

Hi Jake,



No, LCC haven’t told us that they’ll use the data for those sort of purposes. 
It wasn’t part of the specification, and to our knowledge they won’t be reliant 
on it – obviously with it being open data they’re free to use it for whatever 
they would like, but we’ve made them aware that OSM can be edited and things 
can be deleted by users.



We currently extract OSM data for different amenities West Yorkshire daily, 
including bins, and store it in a GitHub 
repo.
 We plan to make a repo specifically for bin data – we’ll extract OSM data 
daily and compare it, updating the repo if necessary. This then means LCC, and 
others, will be able to look at the commit history to see what edits have been 
made across time, and revert them if necessary. We’re looking at using the 
GitHub API to integrate the commit history into the tool we’re building for LCC.



To differentiate between council and business’ bins, we’ll just use a tag – 
we’ll confirm what this will be before uploading. Also, the existing data we’re 
bulk importing has a LCC ID which will be included as a tag.



Cheers,

Patrick

From: Jake Edmonds mailto:jake_edmo...@me.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 24 March 2020 at 12:47
To: Patrick Lake mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps



Hi Patrick

Are LCC staff planning to use the final dataset for various tasks, such as 
planning collection routes?



I’m sure you have good answers for my questions but I’m just interested in a 
practical sense.



What happens if a bin is accidentally/maliciously removed from OSM/moved?

How are you planning to differentiate between LCC bins and bins provided by 
businesses?



Thanks

Jake





On 24 Mar 2020, at 13:40, Patrick Lake 
mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>> wrote:



Hi,



Thanks for the feedback, that’s what we were hoping to hear.



Silent Spike, in answer to your questions – we’ve been told by the council that 
it is quite accurate, although with a dataset of 3000+ bins there is likely to 
be minor mistakes. Visually, the locations look sensible, which is reassuring.



Here’s the method we planned 

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

I commend your efforts, but can I suggest a small change to your proposal?
(I am still a bit of a novice on OSM, so please feel free to tell me I am 
totally wrong)
Rather than "lcc:id=1849" should you not use, "id=lcc1849", or perhaps 
"ref=lcc1849", or even "ref:lcc=1849".
I am not sure which (if any) would be most correct, but I feel that what you 
are trying to record is a type of reference or identity, not a type of lcc.
I also note that Taginfo shows 91,800 uses of "id=*", but over 10.3 million 
uses of "ref=*", so "ref =nnn"would seem by far the most popular tag for a 
reference number. 
Also, I do not see the need to "hide" the comment as "lcc:comments="; why not 
just use "note=under city centre team management"?
As I said, please feel free to tell me I am wrong; I am engaging here as part 
of my education in OSM.
Regards,Peter
On Thursday, 26 March 2020, 10:12:56 GMT, Patrick Lake 
 wrote:
 
 
 
Hi Jez,
 
  
 
I agree, we are going to encourage them to rely on OSM as their main source of 
data in the future, but whether they’ll use it for essential stuff like 
planning collection routes I don’t know. We (ODI Leeds), however, will be 
relying on OSM data, as this is all part of a wider project we’re doing for LCC 
involving analysis on how much waste is collected from these bins and where the 
optimum location for additional litter bins and recycling points would be. So 
we’re keen for it to be accurate.
 
  
 
I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
meaningless to anyone not from the council. Here’s the rest of the tags we 
planned to use with examples from the data we’re importing (obviously we can 
change these):
 
amenity=waste_basket

   - waste_basket:model=”metal square twin”
   - condition=good/fair/poor
   - waste_basket:defects=loose
   - waste_basket:collection_days=mon/fri (or lcc:collection_days ?)
   - lcc:id=1849
   - lcc:comments=”under city centre team management”
 
  
 
What do you think?
 
  
 
Cheers,
 
Patrick
 
  
 
o/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Ken Kilfedder]

Hi Patrick,

For the collection_days tag, it might be possible to use the same tagging 
syntax as the collection_times for post-boxes and recycling bins. It's on the 
wiki here-
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:collection_times

You can add days or days with times.


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


On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, at 10:10 AM, Patrick Lake wrote:
> Hi Jez,

> 

> I agree, we are going to encourage them to rely on OSM as their main source 
> of data in the future, but whether they’ll use it for essential stuff like 
> planning collection routes I don’t know. We (ODI Leeds), however, *will* be 
> relying on OSM data, as this is all part of a wider project we’re doing for 
> LCC involving analysis on how much waste is collected from these bins and 
> where the optimum location for additional litter bins and recycling points 
> would be. So we’re keen for it to be accurate.

> 

> I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
> meaningless to anyone not from the council. Here’s the rest of the tags we 
> planned to use with examples from the data we’re importing (obviously we can 
> change these):

> amenity=waste_basket

>  * waste_basket:model=”metal square twin”
>  * condition=good/fair/poor
>  * waste_basket:defects=loose
>  * waste_basket:collection_days=mon/fri (or lcc:collection_days ?)
>  * lcc:id=1849
>  * lcc:comments=”under city centre team management”
> 

> What do you think?

> 

> Cheers,

> Patrick

> 

> *From: *Jez Nicholson 
> *Date: *Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:04
> *To: *Patrick Lake 
> *Cc: *Jake Edmonds , Talk-GB 
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

> 

> Hi Patrick,

> 

> Shame LCC aren't 'dogfooding', ie using their own data, as it does encourage 
> people to take it seriously. I guess that your regular diffs will spot 
> discrepancies. I've had problems in the past with benches being removed (in 
> real life and on OSM) then reappearing because it was just the council 
> refurbing them.

> 

> What do you propose tagging the LCC id as? Or would you like suggestions?

> 

> - Jez

> 

> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, 11:00 Patrick Lake,  wrote:

>> Hi Jake,

>> 

>> No, LCC haven’t told us that they’ll use the data for those sort of 
>> purposes. It wasn’t part of the specification, and to our knowledge they 
>> won’t be reliant on it – obviously with it being open data they’re free to 
>> use it for whatever they would like, but we’ve made them aware that OSM can 
>> be edited and things can be deleted by users.

>> 

>> We currently extract OSM data for different amenities West Yorkshire daily, 
>> including bins, and  store it in a GitHub repo 
>> .
>>  We plan to make a repo specifically for bin data – we’ll extract OSM data 
>> daily and compare it, updating the repo if necessary. This then means LCC, 
>> and others, will be able to look at the commit history to see what edits 
>> have been made across time, and revert them if necessary. We’re looking at 
>> using the GitHub API to integrate the commit history into the tool we’re 
>> building for LCC.

>> 

>> To differentiate between council and business’ bins, we’ll just use a tag – 
>> we’ll confirm what this will be before uploading. Also, the existing data 
>> we’re bulk importing has a LCC ID which will be included as a tag.

>> 

>> Cheers,

>> Patrick

>> *From: *Jake Edmonds 
>> *Date: *Tuesday, 24 March 2020 at 12:47
>> *To: *Patrick Lake 
>> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

>> 

>> Hi Patrick

>> Are LCC staff planning to use the final dataset for various tasks, such as 
>> planning collection routes? 

>> 

>> I’m sure you have good answers for my questions but I’m just interested in a 
>> practical sense. 

>> 

>> What happens if a bin is accidentally/maliciously removed from OSM/moved?

>> How are you planning to differentiate between LCC bins and bins provided by 
>> businesses?

>> 

>> Thanks

>> Jake

>> 

>> 

>>> On 24 Mar 2020, at 13:40, Patrick Lake  wrote:

>>> 

>>> Hi,

>>> 

>>> Thanks for the feedback, that’s what we were hoping to hear.

>>> 

>>> Silent Spike, in answer to your questions – we’ve been told by the council 
>>> that it is quite accurate, although with a dataset of 3000+ bins there is 
>>> likely to be minor mistakes. Visually, the locations look sensible, which 
>>> is reassuring. 

>>> 

>>> Here’s the method we planned to use:

>>>  * There is definitely some bins which are already on OSM, so to avoid 
>>> adding duplicates I took the locations of existing bins on OSM and the 
>>> dataset from Leeds council, and created a distance matrix. My thought was, 
>>> I would separate any bins in the LCC dataset which are less than 15 metres 
>>> away from the nearest bin already on OSM, as they’re potential duplicates. 
>>> I could then inspect these 

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

[Patrick Lake]

Hi Jez,

I agree, we are going to encourage them to rely on OSM as their main source of 
data in the future, but whether they’ll use it for essential stuff like 
planning collection routes I don’t know. We (ODI Leeds), however, will be 
relying on OSM data, as this is all part of a wider project we’re doing for LCC 
involving analysis on how much waste is collected from these bins and where the 
optimum location for additional litter bins and recycling points would be. So 
we’re keen for it to be accurate.

I thought of just tagging the LCC ID as lcc:id as I assume it will be 
meaningless to anyone not from the council. Here’s the rest of the tags we 
planned to use with examples from the data we’re importing (obviously we can 
change these):

amenity=waste_basket

  *   waste_basket:model=”metal square twin”
  *   condition=good/fair/poor
  *   waste_basket:defects=loose
  *   waste_basket:collection_days=mon/fri (or lcc:collection_days ?)
  *   lcc:id=1849
  *   lcc:comments=”under city centre team management”

What do you think?

Cheers,
Patrick

From: Jez Nicholson 
Date: Wednesday, 25 March 2020 at 14:04
To: Patrick Lake 
Cc: Jake Edmonds , Talk-GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

Hi Patrick,

Shame LCC aren't 'dogfooding', ie using their own data, as it does encourage 
people to take it seriously. I guess that your regular diffs will spot 
discrepancies. I've had problems in the past with benches being removed (in 
real life and on OSM) then reappearing because it was just the council 
refurbing them.

What do you propose tagging the LCC id as? Or would you like suggestions?

- Jez

On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, 11:00 Patrick Lake, 
mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>> wrote:
Hi Jake,

No, LCC haven’t told us that they’ll use the data for those sort of purposes. 
It wasn’t part of the specification, and to our knowledge they won’t be reliant 
on it – obviously with it being open data they’re free to use it for whatever 
they would like, but we’ve made them aware that OSM can be edited and things 
can be deleted by users.

We currently extract OSM data for different amenities West Yorkshire daily, 
including bins, and store it in a GitHub 
repo.
 We plan to make a repo specifically for bin data – we’ll extract OSM data 
daily and compare it, updating the repo if necessary. This then means LCC, and 
others, will be able to look at the commit history to see what edits have been 
made across time, and revert them if necessary. We’re looking at using the 
GitHub API to integrate the commit history into the tool we’re building for LCC.

To differentiate between council and business’ bins, we’ll just use a tag – 
we’ll confirm what this will be before uploading. Also, the existing data we’re 
bulk importing has a LCC ID which will be included as a tag.

Cheers,
Patrick
From: Jake Edmonds mailto:jake_edmo...@me.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 24 March 2020 at 12:47
To: Patrick Lake mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding Leeds Bins to OpenStreetMaps

Hi Patrick
Are LCC staff planning to use the final dataset for various tasks, such as 
planning collection routes?

I’m sure you have good answers for my questions but I’m just interested in a 
practical sense.

What happens if a bin is accidentally/maliciously removed from OSM/moved?
How are you planning to differentiate between LCC bins and bins provided by 
businesses?

Thanks
Jake


On 24 Mar 2020, at 13:40, Patrick Lake 
mailto:patrick.l...@odileeds.org>> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback, that’s what we were hoping to hear.

Silent Spike, in answer to your questions – we’ve been told by the council that 
it is quite accurate, although with a dataset of 3000+ bins there is likely to 
be minor mistakes. Visually, the locations look sensible, which is reassuring.

Here’s the method we planned to use:

  *   There is definitely some bins which are already on OSM, so to avoid 
adding duplicates I took the locations of existing bins on OSM and the dataset 
from Leeds council, and created a distance matrix. My thought was, I would 
separate any bins in the LCC dataset which are less than 15 metres away from 
the nearest bin already on OSM, as they’re potential duplicates. I could then 
inspect these manually in JOSM and decide which ones to add (if any)
  *   For the rest of the bins, we’ll convert the GeoJson to OSM format using 
one of the tools listed 
here 
(probably osm-and-geojson as 
I’ve tested this). My colleague Stuart has a good knowledge of OSM so he’s 
identified which tags we’ll use – I will post a list of these to get feedback 
before we upload anything.
  *   I will use the bulk_upload.py 
tool to upload the osm 
file. This seemed