Re: [Talk-GB] Municipal boundaries
This is certainly worth pursuing. Unfortunately, the real problem comes in
rural areas where, for example, boundaries are defined to be the paths of
things like hedges that aren't there any more, previous courses of rivers,
etc. There are some boundaries where the 'master definition' is defined by
law with reference to an OS-derived map, without a textual description...
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Mike Collinson wrote:
> I don't know whether this has been explored before, but a tit-bit from Bob
> Barr who gave a SOTM key note last year and enjoyed himself so he came
> again.
>
> Bob is councillor in ?Warrington and once asked all the councils in the
> greater Manchester area for boundary data. All supplied him OS-derived data
> except Stockport which gave him a copy of original definition which is text
> based ("The boundary goes down the centre of WhatNot Street and then turns
> left along Kirk Lane ...") and therefore free of OS copyright issues. Each
> area in the country should have one of these document BEFORE the information
> is transcribed into coordinates. He suggests asking the Boundary Commission
> under the Freedom of Information Act for the whole set.
>
> As far as I can tell
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Commissions_%28United_Kingdom%29,
> there is one Commission for England
> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/default.asp, one for Scotland etc.
>
> Anyone tried this? Anyone game?
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Authorities, boundaries and admin-levels
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Peter Miller wrote: > > *UK > *England/Wales/Scotland > *English regions (North East, East of England etc) > *Ceremonial counties/unitaries > *Districts > *Parishes/Wards etc (but lets deal with the big ones first) > Ceremonial counties are not part of the administrative hierarchy, they form a separate hierarchy - the border between ceremonial Durham and ceremonial North Yorkshire goes through the Stockton-on-Tees unitary authority along the river. Do you mean "metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties?" The mention of NUTS worries me. In England it doesn't encode the actual administrative hierarchy anyway and classifies this area as UKC... North East England UKC1... Tees Valley and Durham UKC11... Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees I trust we aren't going to see agglomerations like 'Hartlepool and Stockton' appear in the database instead of the actual administrative regions. -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] "Unsurfaced road" and "Byway"?
On Dec 16, 2007 2:38 PM, Mike Collinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for pointing that out. I thought I knew that page by heart so I > checked and found it was added by user Steve8 on 30th September. It has not > gone through the consultative and voting process so I'd like to remove it > unless anyone has any objections? I can see that it has limited value > inside in parts of Europe were such things are not common, but confusing for > anyone else. No harm in using it, but it should not be on Map Features. > > Are you going to re-tag every way in the database that uses this?. -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] "Unsurfaced road" and "Byway"?
On Dec 16, 2007 9:37 AM, Mike Collinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An unsurfaced road should simply be a road with the surface tag set: > > highway=secondary > surface=unpaved > > That's not to say some non-Map Features tags are being supported. If so, > I've never heard of either of them and suggest not using them. "Byway" is > probably for UK as it has a specific legal meaning there. > Whether it be a good decision or bad, highway=unsurfaced *is* on map_features. -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] disputed territories
On Dec 14, 2007 11:40 PM, Tony Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Her Majesty in Council". (Without claiming that the judgment is in any > way flawed, it should be pointed out, of course, that this is just a > judicial review, and in no way binding or precedent setting) > As a side-note, when we looked into this for Wikipedia, it became apparent that the Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament was worded very carefully to prohibit Londonderry District Council from being able to change the name of the City of Londonderry; yet allowing boroughs an automatic name-change of the chartered borough name! This doesn't generalise to the rest of the UK, where there are no city charters in effect issued before 1974 (aside from the City of London). -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Primary Route Network
Right, after explaining that I didn't intend to republish their spreadsheet as-is, I have confirmation that it is acceptable for me to use the official Primary Route Network list to find errors in OSM. In due course I will make some kind of tool to do this. In the meantime, if you are unsure whether a section of road is part of the Primary Route Network (and thus highway=trunk) or not (and thus highway=primary), I can do spot-checks. Email me/Ask me on IRC. -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK administrative subdivisions
On Dec 3, 2007 12:19 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there really a difference between an "Administrative County" and a > > mere "County" (as Berkshire is listed) and the three "Metropolitan > > Counties" in the list, or is this some kind of data processing > > artifact? > > Berkshire shouldn't be on the list. It's a historical county that > doesn't exist any more, like Middlesex. > I think there is a difference between "Administrative County" and > "Metropolitan County", but it doesn't matter. > Ok, the real situation is *the United Kingdom is divided into four parts, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland **Scotland is divided up into a number of subdivisions with no formal name. they are known as 'council areas' or 'unitary authorities' ***Three of these subdivisions (the Western Isles, Shetland and Orkney) are known as 'island councils' because they pre-date the present structure ***each council area is divided up into a number of 'communities', which have very little to no functions and most people would not even be aware of their existence ***some of the unitary authorities correspond to cities: that is 'City of Glasgow', 'City of Edinburgh', 'City of Dundee', 'City of Aberdeen'. These have no particular special status other than having different names for things. **Wales is divided up into a number of 'unitary authorities' again ***In Wales, these can be called either Counties, County Boroughs, or Cities ***as in Scotland, these names make no difference ***Wales is also divided into communities, the councils of which have a much firmer existence than in Scotland **in Northern Ireland, there are unitary authorities again, locally known as 'districts', 'boroughs' or 'cities'. ***there is no difference between these ***there is no equivilant to community councils **England is divided into 9 Government Office Regions ***one of these is called 'London', and consists solely of the administrative area of 'Greater London', and has a regional authority ***Greater London contains 32 London boroughs, (one of which, the Westminster has the style of a city, which again is just a title) ***Greater London also contains the small City of London, which is a unique entity [an unreformed prescreptive borough] **Elsewhere in England, the Government Office Regions contain a variety of Metropolitan Counties and Non-Metropolitan Counties. **Metropolitan Counties (Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear, Merseyside, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire) still exist, but no longer have directly elected councils. ***each Metropolitan County is divided into a number of Metropolitan Districts/Boroughs. **Non-metropolitan counties may have multiple districts, or may not. If they do not, the non-metropolitan county is a unitary authority (e.g. Rutland, Leicester, East Riding of Yorkshire, Herefordshire) **If they do have districts, then it might have no county council anyway, and districts might all be unitary authorities (here, the districts of Berkshire) **or, it might be a 'shire county', with a county council, and district councils (e.g. Bedfordshire) **districts (metropolitan and non-metropolitan) can have the title 'borough' or 'city' Within metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts there may be parishes, with a parish council. Parishes may sometimes be called 'towns' or 'cities'. Not all of England is parished. None of Greater London is. Some (mainly rural) districts are entirely parished, some are not parished at all. Others have a few at the edges, etc. This is odd. I haven't checked your list for missing entries etc. It would be > sensible to compare it to the CIA list above. > I would avoid the CIA list, as it is just bizarre and conflates things that have the same style rather than the same underlying properties. -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK administrative subdivisions
On Dec 3, 2007 11:47 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But I fear that if the list is as buggy as you say, then the polygons > that go with it won't be up to scratch either ;-( > It's quite possible that the polygons are good, but the list incomplete (maybe they included only the ones they have good data for?). Are the polygons available for viewing somewhere? -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK administrative subdivisions
Generally speaking this list is pretty poor, if is is meant to be complete. If it's not meant to be complete, then oh well. Things are misclassified (Derry), outright missing (Bedfordshire, Lincolnshire, Leicester, London Borough of Bexley, Hammersmith and Fulham, etc etc). Whoever prepared this doesn't appear to have been familiar with UK subdivisions given the names for the units Metropolitan counties still exist, only their councils were abolished. For some reason this only lists 3 of them, despite there being no different between T&W, West Midlands and West Yorkshire; which are listed, and Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, and Merseyside, which aren't (and neither are their subcomponents). On Dec 3, 2007 9:02 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm a guest only on this list, having subscribed for the sole > purpose of asking this question but I thought it was not really > something for [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-) > > I have extracted the following list of "second-level administrative > areas" for the UK from a data source named GADM. Each of these comes > with a bounding polygon, the license of which is a bit unclear to me > so I'd rather not import them into OSM right away, but I think it > would be ok for me to use these polygons to extract "mini planets" for > each of the areas. > > My question to you is, (a) would such "mini planets" be useful to > folks in the UK (does somebody else already do it, or does somebody > want to do it if I hand him Osmosis-compatible polygon definitions for > each of the areas?), and (b) is the list of administrative areas > below halfway sensible, or is it a mix of various levels that would > only confuse people and nobody would know where to look for his area? > > For bonus points, (c) does the list cover the whole of the UK? > > It certainly looks confusing to *me* but then I'm from the other side > of the Channel! > > It seems obvious that "Administrative Counties" and "Unitary > Authorities" are in England, "Districts" are in N.Ireland and "Unitary > Districts" as well as the island regions in Scotland. > > But is it correct that London Boroughs are on the same level as these? > Is there really a difference between an "Administrative County" and a > mere "County" (as Berkshire is listed) and the three "Metropolitan > Counties" in the list, or is this some kind of data processing > artifact? > > What's with Derry, listed as "London Borough (City)", I always thought > Derry was in Ireland? And why is Kingston upon Thames listed as > "London Borough (royal)"? > > Bye > Frederik > > Administrative County Buckinghamshire > Administrative County Cambridgeshire > Administrative County Cheshire > Administrative County Cornwall > Administrative County Cumbria > Administrative County Devon > Administrative County Dorset > Administrative County Durham > Administrative County East Sussex > Administrative County Essex > Administrative County Gloucestershire > Administrative County Hampshire > Administrative County Hertfordshire > Administrative County Kent > Administrative County Lancashire > Administrative County Leicestershire > Administrative County Norfolk > Administrative County North Yorkshire > Administrative County Northumberland > Administrative County Oxfordshire > Administrative County Shropshire > Administrative County Somerset > Administrative County Staffordshire > Administrative County Surrey > Administrative County Warwickshire > Administrative County West Sussex > Administrative County Wiltshire > County Berkshire > District Antrim > District Ards > District Armagh > District Ballymena > District Ballymoney > District Banbridge > District Belfast > District Carrickfergus > District Castlereagh > District Coleraine > District Cookstown > District Craigavon > District Down > District Dungannon > District Fermanagh > District Larne > District Limavady > District Lisburn > District Magherafelt > District Moyle > District Newry and Mourne > District Newtownabbey > District North Down > District Omagh > District Strabane > Island areaEilean Siar > Island areaOrkney Islands > Island areaShetland Islands > London Borough Barking and Dagenham > London Borough Brent > London Borough Bromley > London Borough Camden > London Borough Croydon > Londo
Re: [Talk-GB] Ward boundaries from copyrighted maps
On Nov 28, 2007 11:25 AM, Stephen Gower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I tried taking a trace of St Michael at the Northgate's ceremony > this year, but since we spent much of the time walking through > buildings (pubs, Marks and Spencer, Colleges), the trace itself > wasn't up to much! > > > http://www.acny.org.uk/parishmap.php?x=-1.2585139274597168&y=51.75365561526386 > Ah. An ecclesiastical parish. How do folks feel about these being in the database? Personally, I'd be very surprised if they started rendering on mapnik/[EMAIL PROTECTED], but having then in the DB seems fine. -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Update: Advice needed - dispute regarding names in Cyprus
On Nov 11, 2007 5:53 PM, Lauri Hahne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that no account should be suspended solely because of > actions like this unless the account is mainly used to this kind of > actions. > This is a good question. Could anyone tell us whether this user has been doing any actual mapping? And to counter things like this, I think OSM should make a statement > like "OSM reflects the world as it is perceived by a person on ground > at the very location. We only use data available on site and PD maps > corrected to reflect the contemporary situation." > Definitely, we need to write this up and explain the philosophy behind it. -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Conflicting tagging of london undergound stations
On 9/20/07, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm assuming that the vast majority of railway=subway in the world is > below ground, and therefore that requiring an additional tunnel=yes tag > on 90% or more of the subway ways, is not as good as treating the > below-ground portions as a lower layer (whether it's -1 or -2 or -1 > is beside the point) > But, what's wrong with then saying tunnel=yes;layer=-1 should be the default for railway=subway, if those tags aren't present, and then have people override them for bits of subways in cuttings or above ground? Which is what Robert was suggesting in the first place. -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Conflicting tagging of london undergound stations
On 9/20/07, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't consider subways to be "in a tunnel" Well, tell that to the tunnelling engineers! > I consider them to be > simply below (most) everything else. Besides that, the roads as you say > are on bridges; the subways aren't in tunnels. > Alex, I'm not sure whether you've much knowledge of the London Underground network, so please forgive me if you knew any of this. However, it is necessary background for understanding the tagging system. The London Underground is a large electric standard-guage railway network that covers most of Greater London. There are on this network several different sections of track *mainly in the outer suburbs, there are sections are at ground level, and look pretty much like any other commuter rail system *in a few places, there are sections which are elevated on embankments, well above ground level (ie layer 1), and here the Underground goes on bridges over various roads (bridge=1 for short sections) *in a few places, there are sections in cuttings (ie layer -1), which nontheless can see the sky for large parts. A few roads will cross these on bridges. Here, we can have the road bridges be layer=0, bridge=yes *in a few places, there are sections in tunnels of various depths. these sections cannot see the sky, roads that happen to cross the path of the deep level tubes certainly aren't considered bridges. this could be represented as tunnel=yes, layer=-1 The tube network is all interlinked and most lines use a combination of these different types of rail setting. We tag all of it railway=subway, whether or not it is actually underground or not, because it is all the same system. What you are suggesting would lose the subtlety of the distinctions, especially between subway in an uncovered cutting - which will be visible from roads - and subway in an actual tunnel. Now do you understand? -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Speed limits
On 9/20/07, Nick Folwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What do people use for speed limits in the UK? The "maxspeed=" tag is > supposed to be in km/hr. I've started using "maxspeed=30mph", is that > consistent with what others are using? Or should we have "maxspeed=30; > speedunits=mph"? > maxspeed=48 ? -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Conflicting tagging of london undergound stations
On 9/20/07, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think it would be better to use the layer tag rather than the tunnel > tag, but I agree that the whole thing should be railway=subway. > I prefer tunnel to indicate tunnels. In addition, layer=-1 would be useful for where the underground goes in cuttings and has roads cross it on bridges, despite not being in a tunnel itself - the Met does this around Farringdon, as an example. -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hindhead Tunnel
On 8/28/07, 80n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > y current thoughts are that we need a tag like highway=construction which > can then be qualified with the ultimate class of the road if it is known, > producing highway=construction:trunk. This would not get misinterpreted by > renderers or other clients but still provide all the information required. > > Any other ideas or suggestions? > I was thinking along the same lines, and have tagged a few stations in London which are being built as railway=construction ; construction=station. How does this sound? (would imply highway=construction; construction=trunk for your road). -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] New Scientist article on Google/CASA/Ordnance Survey
On 8/23/07, Steve Coast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > oh oh oh what did I say? > ' "OS will find that all the people will restricting will go and get the data for themselves and release it for free," says the project's founder, Steve Coast. ' "People will go and get the map data for themselves and release it for free" is the boxout. -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PD London Tube Stations
On 8/16/07, Grant Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The list still needs to be double checked and some of the stations still > need to be imported into the main OSM database. > There are definitely some typing errors in mine that I need to go and fix... (oops) -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Future UK mapping parties
On 7/16/07, Andy Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... not in my experience! They all use GPS devices, and the last time I got a taxi he took us to the wrong part of Hammersmith (the streetname was similar to the one we wanted, and pulled out an A-Z. Was that a real taxi driver (who do have to pass this scary test), or a mini-cab person? -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Future UK mapping parties
I was thinking about organising one in east London/Hackney in August/September. I know an excellent pub in the middle of some mostly whitespace that we can use as a base : free wifi, real ale; oh and it's the only pub to have recieved a 4-page writeup in Linux User magazine. :) On 7/16/07, Nick Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Chippy has leeds pencelled in for September. Chippy: is it the 15th and 16th you are aiming for? -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fill the Gap travel advice : District Line
Just thought I'd drop a note to remind anyone planning to take the Underground to Richmond tomorrow that you can't, because of engineering works on the District Line. There are apparently replacement buses, but I'd suggest using the mainline service from Waterloo or Vauxhall to Richmond if you can. -- Abi ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
