Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

... Just to follow up on this - if it helps explain what I thought would be 
nice for OSMUK to have - something like https://freemap.sk/, which I was 
introduced to by one of the lead developers several years ago at State of the 
Map Europe in Vienna.

This is an OSM-based map site specific for Slovakia, which comes with many 
features such as information about POIs, route-finding, elevation profiles, and 
so on. I've always thought that of all the local OSM sites, this one is 
particularly nice.

It could eventually use our own rendering but for now could use something like 
Andy Townsend's style combined with contours and hillshading.

On another matter, what's the status of whether OSMUK has its own server? (I've 
lost track of this, I have to admit). Do we have a development server where we 
could begin developing something like this, initially on a small scale (e.g. 
one county)?

Thanks,
Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB 
Sent: 04 December 2020 15:40
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

Hi,

Just floating an idea for a possible OSMUK site, namely an OSMUK 
'semi-official'  web application for walkers and hikers.

This could provide similar functionality to sites such as the Ramblers' 
Pathwatch 
(https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/pathwatch-report-path-features-and-problems.aspx)
 allowing users to report path problems as well as nice views, historical sites 
and so on. It could also provide info such as train or bus times (by clicking 
on a rail station), beers served (for a pub), routing via public transport to a 
given countryside location, and so on.

Reported path problems could be then made available via an API, which could be 
used by councils - and, given we have the council ROW data available to us via 
rowmaps.com  - the right of way reference could be sourced from this if it's 
not in OSM already.

For rendering, we could perhaps use Andy Townsend's SomeoneElse-style, maybe 
tweaked a little, as it appears to be the most actively maintained of all the 
England and Wales renderings. This could be setup on our own server, I seem to 
remember experimenting with this a couple of years ago when the OSMUK idea was 
first floated, on a server which had been loaned to the community (I need to 
re-check my emails, and indeed check if this server is still open for us to 
use!)

I've done similar things to this in the past on a small scale, e.g. Freemap 
(free-map.org.uk) once had the facility to add path problems, but now we have 
the OSMUK organisation in existence, maybe a semi-official OSMUK walkers' map 
with added functionality would have greater traction and it's something that 
could be launched as a project on GitHub?

Thanks,
Nick



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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM UK's first tile layer

[Adrian via Talk-GB]

I have submitted a ticket to the JOSM developers. The ticket contains a fully 
worked-out patch to upgrade the EPSG:27700 projection from the Helmert 
transformation to the look-up table transformation.

I'm afraid this is another somewhat long and technical message. But it does 
contain an explanation of why the Land Registry wms is actually sort-of correct.

With my modified version of JOSM, .mif files are now transformed using the 
look-up table. This is with the hack I described before, where no projection is 
defined in the file, and you choose EPSG:27700 when the opendata plugin asks 
you. But .shp files which declare British National Grid are still transformed 
with the Helmert transformation. This must be down to the opendata plugin, 
because JOSM itself, as modified, does not know about the Helmert 
transformation any more. (I have put in a ticket for that, too, but without a 
patch.)

I now understand better, the information in the EPSG registry. If you go to the 
page for projection 27700, and open the panel for the OSGB36 datum, it is not 
entirely clear, as I described before. But if you look at the page for the 
OSGB36 datum (transformation 7953), it spells out that this transformation uses 
the OSTN15 look-up table. However, transformation 7953 isn't referenced 
anywhere in the page for projection 27700.

The more I look at this projection stuff, the worse it gets.

The Land Registry only covers England and Wales. The Scottish counterpart is 
Registers of Scotland. I've also had a look at their opendata. The URL is a bit 
hard to find so I give it here https://ros.locationcentre.co.uk/inspire/ They 
too have a wms, which is here 
http://ros.datafeed.locationcentre.co.uk/geoserver/wms They offer .shp files in 
British National Grid and ETRS. I've already mentioned the issues raised by 
.shp files. Rob was hoping to compare the BNG and ETRS files, but that's not 
possible because Registers of Scotland have made a mistake in preparing the 
ETRS files. The BNG and ETRS files are identical. In other words, the ETRS file 
contains BNG coordinates in metres. I am a bit surprised that I might be the 
first to spot this and report it. (With shapefiles, the projection is defined 
in an accompanying .prj file. The .prj file uses a version of 'well-known text' 
which does not contain EPSG numbers. This will be part of the explanation for 
the issue with the opendata plugin. If the .prj file is missing, the only 
option with the opendata plugin is EPSG:4326 (WGS84), so removing the .prj file 
does not provide a workaround.)

The Registers of Scotland wms is misaligned, just like the Land Registry one. 
Rob's examples align with the two wms. *But* I always launch JOSM from the 
command line. And I spotted an info message on the command line saying 
'reprojecting from EPSG:27700'. So, a further discovery. Some background - We 
are familiar with online maps from various sources. Most of them use tms 
protocol with Web Mercator projection (EPSG:3857). Wms is different. The server 
offers the client a list of projections which it can deliver, and the client 
chooses which one to have. Suppose JOSM is set to EPSG:3857. The Land Registry 
wms does not offer EPSG:3857 so JOSM chooses the first projection which it 
understands, from the server's list - EPSG:27700. Then JOSM reprojects it, so 
the wms is misaligned because *JOSM* is using Helmert. And the Land Registry 
was right all along! The Registers of Scotland wms does offer EPSG:3857, so 
that is what JOSM chooses. And the wms is misaligned because the *wms server* 
is using Helmert. The wms also offers EPSG:27700. So if you set JOSM to 
EPSG:27700; and delete and re-add the wms layer so it is redownloaded in 
EPSG:27700; then the wms is misaligned because *JOSM* is using Helmert. [I mean 
delete the layer, not delete the entry in the imagery list.]

With my modified version of JOSM, both wms are correctly aligned (provided, in 
the case of Registers of Scotland, that you set JOSM to EPSG:27700 before 
adding the wms layer). The alignment of Rob's examples does not change with my 
modified version of JOSM, so Rob's examples no longer align with the two wms.

I should add that the other projections offered by the two wms servers, in as 
far as I have been able to test them, are all misaligned. In other words, both 
servers are using Helmert. I tested with JOSM and QGIS.

I've had another look at proj6 and proj7 and they do in fact use the look-up 
table for EPSG:27700. One piece I found online suggests they fall back to the 
Helmert transformation if the look-up table file is not available. This 
explains how come QGIS is using the look-up table transformation for EPSG:27700.

I've looked further into the issue of simplification of polygons (dropping of 
nodes). GDAL and ogr2ogr behave the same as QGIS. ogr2ogr has a simplify option 
but that only increases the amount of simplification: it won't reduce it below 
the preset minimum. QGIS uses GDAL, so it 

Re: [Talk-GB] Inland Border Facilities

[Brian Prangle]

Thinking more about this  these new facilities are really  road transport
logistics hubs which are needed for the purposes of checking brexit customs
paperwork and easing bottlenecks at ports so perhaps landuse=commercial
operator=HMRC (and DEFRA where appropriate).It might also be worthwhile to
differentiate between outbound only hubs (like Birmingham Airport) and
inbound/outbound ones and inbound only,

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 14:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Dec 6, 2020, 15:05 by sk53@gmail.com:
>
> I was wondering if there were any equivalents elsewhere.
>
> Closest I can think of is this location
> 
> between Feldkirch & Bludenz, which although described as a goods vehicle
> checkpoint from my personal experience is also operated as in internal
> custom checkpoint (and therefore amenity=police might be wrong too). As a
> group travelling from Zurich to Soelden many of us were stopped for a
> passport/car check. A friend who worked in marketing for BAT was driving a
> company van, and was hugely amused at the idea that smuggling cigarettes
> from Switzerland to Austria might be a way of making money.
>
> Close to the Poland/Belarus borders there are Border Guard
>  stations, such as this
> one . I think these are
> mainly concerned with immigration rather customs. Certainly if travelling
> in a car with non-local numberplates one can be expected to stopped &
> documents checked (first time was stressful as unexpected & about 5:30 in
> the morning).
>
> Looking at description in Polish it seems to be about handling smuggling
> and illegal migration,
> not about handling customs of legally traveling cargo (AFAIK it would
> happen at border crossing,
> such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.47616/23.35744 ).
>
> BTW, it should be probably tagged as police-type force, not as
> military-type force.
>
> On their website they imply that they enforce ban on presence on part of a
> border
> ("od znaku granicznego nr 303 do znaku granicznego nr 317 wprowadzono zakaz
> przebywania na pasie drogi granicznej").
>
> Even traditional land borders with heavy duty border controls don't seem
> to be tagged in an obvious way:
>
> For example see
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700736522#map=16/52.4744/23.3651
> 
> - just fence mapped and some objects inside, no tag for the entire feature
> ___
> 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] Inland Border Facilities

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 6, 2020, 15:05 by sk53@gmail.com:

> I was wondering if there were any equivalents elsewhere. 
>
> Closest I can think of is > this location 
> >  between 
> Feldkirch & Bludenz, which although described as a goods vehicle checkpoint 
> from my personal experience is also operated as in internal custom checkpoint 
> (and therefore amenity=police might be wrong too). As a group travelling from 
> Zurich to Soelden many of us were stopped for a passport/car check. A friend 
> who worked in marketing for BAT was driving a company van, and was hugely 
> amused at the idea that smuggling cigarettes from Switzerland to Austria 
> might be a way of making money.
>
> Close to the Poland/Belarus borders there are > Border Guard 
> >  stations, such as > 
> this one > . I think these are 
> mainly concerned with immigration rather customs. Certainly if travelling in 
> a car with non-local numberplates one can be expected to stopped & documents 
> checked (first time was stressful as unexpected & about 5:30 in the morning).
>
Looking at description in Polish it seems to be about handling smuggling and 
illegal migration,
not about handling customs of legally traveling cargo (AFAIK it would happen at 
border crossing,
such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.47616/23.35744 ).

BTW, it should be probably tagged as police-type force, not as military-type 
force.

On their website they imply that they enforce ban on presence on part of a 
border
("od znaku granicznego nr 303 do znaku granicznego nr 317 wprowadzono zakaz
przebywania na pasie drogi granicznej").


> Even traditional land borders with heavy duty border controls don't seem to 
> be tagged in an obvious way:
>
For example see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700736522#map=16/52.4744/23.3651 

- just fence mapped and some objects inside, no tag for the entire feature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Inland Border Facilities

[SK53]

I was wondering if there were any equivalents elsewhere.

Closest I can think of is this location
 between
Feldkirch & Bludenz, which although described as a goods vehicle checkpoint
from my personal experience is also operated as in internal custom
checkpoint (and therefore amenity=police might be wrong too). As a group
travelling from Zurich to Soelden many of us were stopped for a
passport/car check. A friend who worked in marketing for BAT was driving a
company van, and was hugely amused at the idea that smuggling cigarettes
from Switzerland to Austria might be a way of making money.

Close to the Poland/Belarus borders there are Border Guard
 stations, such as this
one . I think these are mainly
concerned with immigration rather customs. Certainly if travelling in a car
with non-local numberplates one can be expected to stopped & documents
checked (first time was stressful as unexpected & about 5:30 in the
morning).

In Argentinian Patagonia, and probably elsewhere in the country, police
checkpoints exist as one exits more populated areas. These seem to mainly
involve checking of identity documents, but may involve other things. These
seem to be mapped as police stations, e.g., on the edge of Ushuaia
.

Only the first may bear any resemblance to the UK Inland Border sites, and
the existing mapping is little help. Even traditional land borders with
heavy duty border controls don't seem to be tagged in an obvious way:
Poland/Belarus

outside Brest Litovsk; San Sebastian
 (AR side), San
Sebastian  (CL
side). The tag barrier=border_control may be fine for light weight ones
such as the skilifts in Ischgl
 or the US/Canadian
border  at
Aldergrove, but I suspect we could do with a tag for the whole area
(amenity=customs is potentially only part of it).

Jerry

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 11:36, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> I've just mapped the one at Birmingham Airport- construction site only so
> far. There are several on the go . Is
> anyone up to date on mapping the others? What should they be tagged as when
> they are operational?
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
> ___
> 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] Inland Border Facilities

[Brian Prangle]

I've just mapped the one at Birmingham Airport- construction site only so
far. There are several on the go . Is
anyone up to date on mapping the others? What should they be tagged as when
they are operational?

Regards

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

[Talk-GB] weeklyOSM #541 2020-11-24-2020-11-30

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 541,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of a lot of 
things happening in the openstreetmap world:

 https://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/14021/

Enjoy! 

Did you know that you can also submit messages for the weeklyOSM? Just log in 
to https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de/login with your OSM account. Read more about 
how to write a post here: 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm 

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb