Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

[Andrew Hain]

What distinction would you make between this and the cycle route over steps 
that was discussed recently or the signposted cycle route past cycle barriers 
in Barnes, London?

--
Andrew

From: Richard Fairhurst 
Sent: 14 December 2020 20:57
To: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail) 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

Neil Matthews wrote:
> Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from
> bridleways

Um, no there hasn't?

The changeset you've pointed to (which is one of mine) has a single stile moved 
to the side of a bridleway. I've done this a handful of times in the past, too, 
usually where the stile is clearly misplaced at a footpath/bridleway junction 
node rather than off to the side on a footpath, but occasionally at an isolated 
bridleway location like this.

A barrier=stile on a long-established UK bridleway is 99.9% a mapping error. 
Bridleways are open to horses and bikes, and so stiles are forbidden - PRoW 
officers are pretty hot on this. You will sometimes see a stile placed to the 
side of a gate: in OSM this is usually mapped as a highway=footway through the 
stile and highway=bridleway through the gate, though of course there's no 
distinct public footpath PRoW in this case.

OSM is an iterative process of fixup and improvement, and shouting "mechanical 
edit!" every time someone makes a change that hasn't been surveyed in walking 
boots and then manually etched onto the hard disc platters of a server 
somewhere in Amsterdam is not hugely helpful. I mean, just change it back and 
say "put back pending survey" if you feel that strongly, it doesn't need an 
entire mailing list thread.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

[Andrew Hain]

Keep Right flags web links that have gone offline.

--
Andrew

From: Philip Barnes 
Sent: 27 September 2020 18:49
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing 
URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

On Sun, 2020-09-27 at 16:28 +0100, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote:
Hi all,

First of all, I would like to introduce myself on this email list and to thank 
you all for your contributions to OSM. Great work!

After some time using OSM as a user, I decided to make my first step as a 
contributor, hence this email and the proposal inside.

Please bear in mind that this is my first attempt to contribute with a proposal 
and, although I have done my best reading the community conventions and best 
practices, I am sure I have made some mistakes on the way. Be merciful! :P

To the point now.

I am importing a subset of nodes from UK (those tagged with amenity:pub) for a 
pet project.

When analysing the data I realised that some of these nodes contain a website: 
tag that does not contain an appropriate URL schema (http/https).

Ie: www.mypub.com rather than http://www.mypub.com or 
https://www.mypub.com

This goes in contradiction with the Wiki documentation for 
website.

I created a proposal for a one-off, scoped, automated edit for these nodes to 
find the appropiate scheme for the existing URL and retag the nodes.

I added the proposal to the Automated edits log. You can read it 
here.

Just wanted to share the proposal with the UK community, gather your feedback, 
comments and advises on how to proceed from here

One issue I can think of with pubs and websites is that they need checking to 
ensure they are still current.

The defacto method most pubs use to communicate with customers is facebook.

A more general fix of urls missing http(s)://, why only pubs?.  is probably a 
maproulette quest.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

[Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common

[Andrew Hain]

I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for 
highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset in Potlatch 1.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607

I got a changeset comment querying the edit.






  *   I note you have removed foot=yes from highway=footway. My understanding 
is that the default for a footway is foot=designated, but designated requires 
an explicit sign. the paths on Wimbledon Common do not have an explicit sign, 
but are legally accessible, hence foot=yes. Perhaps osmose is wrong.
  *   Any comments?
  *   --
  *   Andrew

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN & USRN Tagging

[Andrew Hain]

If there are more than 19 UPRNs for the same building the reference will be 
longer than OSM’s tag value limit of 255 characters.

--
Andrew


From: Tony OSM 
Sent: 03 July 2020 15:31
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: [Talk-GB] UPRN & USRN Tagging


As we have access to the data and Robert Whittaker has produced a great UPRN 
locations map, how are we planning to tag OSM objects?

ref:UK:uprn and ref:UK:usrn

have been suggested as tags - I think this is the way to go.


There is also Key:ref:NPLG:UPRN:1 in the wiki.


Question: Should uprn be applied to the building outline or to a node?

The OS data applies them as nodes, they are assigned by local authorities to a 
location as a node.

The uprn is applied to many objects even bus shelters, and individual flats 
within a block; there may be what appear to be duplicates.

I suggest that for OSM buildings or building parts which are individually 
linkable to a uprn then the uprn is assigned to the building way outline; 
otherwise to an OSM node if the mapper deems appropriate

Tony Shield---   TonyS999
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Land Registry INSPIRE data - 1 July OGL release

[Andrew Hain]

A lightning talk could get some attention, including mappers with experience of 
datasets elsewhere in the world.

--
Andrew

From: Rob Nickerson 
Sent: 26 June 2020 20:49
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: [Talk-GB] Land Registry INSPIRE data - 1 July OGL release

Hi all,

Looks like 1 July will be a big open data release day. Not only do we get the 
USRN and UPRN data, but the land registry data will also be released:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inspire-data-to-be-shared-under-open-terms

Should we attempt to coordinate something to prevent a mixture of uses across 
those OSMers who may want to do something with this date?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

[Andrew Hain]

Also seen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84550786

--
Andrew


From: Chris Fleming 
Sent: 03 April 2020 14:06
To: Guthula, Jothirnadh 
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections

I've spotted some edits using this, such as:

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=82807938=true

After a ropey start, in general I've been quite impressed by Amazon's edits, 
but this one looks quite ropey, the service road drawn in is very ropey and it 
looks like you've missed the connection back to the main road (shown in OS 
Openview), in addition I don't think that 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785788619 loops back on itself, or at least I 
wouldn't draw that conclusion from imagery?

Cheers
Chris

On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 at 10:02, Guthula, Jothirnadh via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Hi UK OSM community,



As you might already know, Facebook released its AI-based detections publicly 
on 08/09/2019 
(https://github.com/facebookmicrosites/Open-Mapping-At-Facebook/wiki/Available-Countries).
 With a team of mappers @Amazon we are planning to improve missing roads in UK 
using Facebook detections as a source. Please let us know if you have any 
ongoing projects using this data source. While adding missing roads, we will be 
adding all the associated access tags as per available on-ground resources. Our 
team will edit roads manually using a normal iD editor and satellite imageries 
available with FB detections as a background source and will not use RapidID 
editor or JOSM. Also changeset comments will be addressed by our team on top 
priority.



Regards,

Jothirnadh



___
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] Anyone in South-West London?

[Andrew Hain]

I wonder if Tfondie who created the Wikipedia page may be the same person.

--
Andrew


From: Andrew Hain 
Sent: 23 March 2020 20:18
To: Colin Smale 
Cc: Talk-GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?

There is now a place name Stadium Village just north of Twickenham town centre 
that is unfamiliar to me (I live across the Thames). The linked Wikipedia page 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_Village,_Middlesex exists but reads oddly.

--
Andrew

From: Andrew Hain 
Sent: 21 March 2020 11:18
To: Colin Smale 
Cc: Talk-GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?

Further issues:

Richmond rugby ground tagged addr:city=London Borough of Hounslow
Middlesex changed to county
Fulwell bus garage tagged name=Fulwell Bus Garage (Middlesex)

There are some legitimate edits there such as shop=supermarket for Lidl 
Fulwell, payment tags for M Food To Go in Twickenham may be legitimate and 
the department store tagging was by another mapper by an editor preset.

--
Andrew


From: Colin Smale 
Sent: 20 March 2020 18:46
To: Andrew Hain 
Cc: Talk-GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?


On 2020-03-20 19:36, Andrew Hain wrote:

Also changing the name tag for Eel Pie Island.

Yeah, that was the first thing I noticed. I changed that one back, and left 
comments on a couple of other changes, but when I saw the rest I gave up.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?

[Andrew Hain]

There is now a place name Stadium Village just north of Twickenham town centre 
that is unfamiliar to me (I live across the Thames). The linked Wikipedia page 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_Village,_Middlesex exists but reads oddly.

--
Andrew

From: Andrew Hain 
Sent: 21 March 2020 11:18
To: Colin Smale 
Cc: Talk-GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?

Further issues:

Richmond rugby ground tagged addr:city=London Borough of Hounslow
Middlesex changed to county
Fulwell bus garage tagged name=Fulwell Bus Garage (Middlesex)

There are some legitimate edits there such as shop=supermarket for Lidl 
Fulwell, payment tags for M Food To Go in Twickenham may be legitimate and 
the department store tagging was by another mapper by an editor preset.

--
Andrew


From: Colin Smale 
Sent: 20 March 2020 18:46
To: Andrew Hain 
Cc: Talk-GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?


On 2020-03-20 19:36, Andrew Hain wrote:

Also changing the name tag for Eel Pie Island.

Yeah, that was the first thing I noticed. I changed that one back, and left 
comments on a couple of other changes, but when I saw the rest I gave up.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?

[Andrew Hain]

Further issues:

Richmond rugby ground tagged addr:city=London Borough of Hounslow
Middlesex changed to county
Fulwell bus garage tagged name=Fulwell Bus Garage (Middlesex)

There are some legitimate edits there such as shop=supermarket for Lidl 
Fulwell, payment tags for M Food To Go in Twickenham may be legitimate and 
the department store tagging was by another mapper by an editor preset.

--
Andrew


From: Colin Smale 
Sent: 20 March 2020 18:46
To: Andrew Hain 
Cc: Talk-GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?


On 2020-03-20 19:36, Andrew Hain wrote:

Also changing the name tag for Eel Pie Island.

Yeah, that was the first thing I noticed. I changed that one back, and left 
comments on a couple of other changes, but when I saw the rest I gave up.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?

[Andrew Hain]

Also changing the name tag for Eel Pie Island.

--
Andrew


From: Colin Smale 
Sent: 20 March 2020 17:11
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: [Talk-GB] Anyone in South-West London?


If there is anyone who keeps a weather eye on South-West London, in particular 
the Twickenham area, would they like to cast their eye over the changesets of a 
brand-new user "tommyf5"? He has been busy today making many changes that I 
would class as "fiddling" and don't look right, but a local eye would be 
beneficial. Examples are demoting St Margarets from suburb to neighbourhood, 
and renaming ways adjacent to a junction as "Whitton Road Intersection".

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Tommyf5

Thanks!

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

[Talk-GB] C roads again

[Andrew Hain]

Is there a resource I can point anyone who puts C numbers in the ref tag of 
roads at?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Andrew Hain]

We can check for properties where the brand:wikidata tag was left behind by 
checking the other tags, particularly name= and shop=.

--
Andrew

From: SK53 
Sent: 28 September 2019 17:32
To: Silent Spike 
Cc: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

The specific problem with that suggestion is that you miss lots of Thomas Cook 
shops (particularly old Co-op Travel & Ilkeston Co-op travel): it hits about 3 
within 15 miles of Nottingham whereas there are nearer 11 (for obvious 
reasons), and one of those is apparently is 
not now a travel agent.

This latter aspect shows that editors other than iD may not surface 
Wikipedia/wikidata tags & that therefore such data needs to be cross-checked, 
and bulk edits may inadvertently change other things. In many ways I prefer 
that we acquire new local mappers (like OftenResident in Alfreton) who notice 
that an area is out-of-date & set about getting it up-to-date, rather than 
doing a partial update and missing other info (like the shop is now a 
hairdresser). Obviously others think we should keep everything as up-to-date as 
the information we have available. I don't think we have ever reached a 
consensus on this.

Jerry

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 16:41, Silent Spike 
mailto:silentspike...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It's unclear to me if there's a consensus on the tagging here. Personally I 
like the `disused:` prefix.

I couldn't see if it was mentioned anywhere, but we can also query for all the 
locations explicitly marked as part of the Thomas Cook brand using the 
`brand:wikidata` tag: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MFP

All of the results here can really be automatically re-tagged as disused or 
vacant since we explicitly know they were locations belonging to Thomas Cook 
(the beauty of wikidata tagging). You might say some may already have been sold 
and re-signed, but that can always be tagged after - we at least know for 
certain that none of them are Thomas Cook travel agency shops anymore.
___
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] sidewalks

[Andrew Hain]

I am inclined to agree with this though I would distinguish between 
non-traversable paths that can be mapped with their connections and 
continuously connected traversable ones that should just have their existence 
marked on their ways.

--
Andrew

From: SK53 
Sent: 02 June 2019 14:10
To: Andy Townsend
Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] sidewalks

I recently 
extended
 some already mapped pavements in N. Cambridge. I'm not really a fan of the 
current approach because I don't think it works particularly well, and I'm not 
aware of any good routers using this type of data for wheelchairs.

The problems I see (and I've said this before):

  *   The scope for missing interconnections is trebled.
  *   It's more or less worthless unless done systematically (places like 
university & hospital campuses are viable from this viewpoint.
  *   In Britain, at least, it requires introduction of many arbitrary crossing 
points to allow any kind of sensible pedestrian routing (i.e., not 
well-supported by on-the-ground features such as dropped kerbs & tactile 
paving). You can see the ones I felt it necessary to introduce around Roseford 
Road & Perse Way. Note that many crossings, e.g., at the Harris Way/Perse Way 
intersection are not complete.
  *   It breaks existing applications. The reason why I noticed the issue in 
North Cambridge is that the Traveline South East app started giving me 
unfeasibly long times to walk to a bus stop. It turned out that it routed me 
all the way along a pavement to Histon Road & then back along Histon Road 
adding a good 500 m to the journey. This was because the original mapping just 
stopped without connecting the end of the pavement to anything.
  *   I'm not completely convinced that wheelchair users, blind people etc can 
put the same degree of trust in this type of data as the ordinary pedestrian 
can for current pedestrian routing. My feeling is that the information really 
needs to be tailored to the user: there's a massive difference between how a 
powered wheelchair or mobility scooter and a manual/pushed wheelchair can cope 
with non-flush kerbs for instance.
  *   I'm not sure if anyone has done any work to show how separately mapped 
sidewalks can be merged with the main highway to provide generalised pedestrian 
routing such as we have now.
  *   Probably to be useful in the UK, all driveways should be mapped too (as 
in Andy's dev server example): in my experience of pushing my late mother 
around in a wheelchair driveways are often much better than many shoddy dropped 
kerb installations.
  *   Naming of sidewalks can create problems (although it can also resolve 
them in cases where the two sides of a street have different names).
  *   It's a pig to survey well in places where dropped kerbs have not been 
installed systematically (as in my Cambridge example).

On the plus side:

  *   It allows more relevant details of pavements to be tagged (width, surface 
etc).
  *   The current sidewalk model is probably much more appropriate in countries 
with specific legislation preventing pedestrians crossing roads at any other 
than designated crossing points (jay walking).
  *   It's always been good publicity for OSM: even if actual real usage is 
limited.
  *   Inevitably OSM will move in the direction of capturing more information & 
this is just one example.

I guess I would have preferred : sidewalks to be mapped with a key other than 
highway (something analogous to area:highway); more research to be done on ways 
to post-process the data (in both directions from 
highway=footway,footway=sidewalk and from sidewalk=*); and good references for 
actual user experience of wheelchair routing using separately mapped sidewalks. 
One way to have our cake & eat it would be to use both sidewalk= and have 
separately mapped sidewalks & allow the consumer to choose which to use, 
although the current sidewalk=separate does not say if its both, left or right. 
Personally I think this is still reasonable in the context of one feature one 
element; sidewalk is an attributive property of the street and potentially 
difficult to derive without resorting to convoluted approaches (such as 
relations).

In summary the problem from my perspective is that mapping them separately can 
often make OSM less useful, whereas most other mapping of additional features 
enhances OSM incrementally.

Jerry



On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 15:08, Andy Townsend 
mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 01/06/2019 13:55, Michael Collinson wrote:
>
> ... I tried, then going out to "just verify" and found that I was
> hopelessly inaccurate. It defeats the point, to get a highly accurate
> localised network for folks who might depend on it.
>
>
I did something similar on the dev server a while back here:

https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/54.0167/-1.0486

(turn the data layer on to 

Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

[Andrew Hain]

It is documented at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet , the terracer 
plugin used to create it a lot but now doesn’t by default. The Germans have 
been stripping it out of the database recently [ 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=65510 ] and I’d be relaxed if 
we did the same.

--
Andrew
associatedStreet-Relationen entfernen? / users: Germany / OpenStreetMap 
Forum
Die Relationen bei mir in der Gegend wurden teilweise seit Jahren nicht mehr 
aktualisiert oder überhaupt verändert. Die meisten Versionsänderungen sind 
vermutlich durch Teilungen der Straßenabschnitte entstanden und zudem auch 
größtenteils unvollständig.
forum.openstreetmap.org

Relation:associatedStreet - OpenStreetMap 
Wiki
Using relations to associate addresses and streets. The addr:street =* tag 
provides a link between streets and belonging addr:housenumber =* based on 
geographic proximity. This link can be made explicit by using a type = 
associatedStreet relation.. Tags
wiki.openstreetmap.org


From: Jez Nicholson 
Sent: 01 June 2019 11:10
To: Talk-GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] road relations

Has anyone else come across relations grouping road assets? i.e. the road 
itself plus shops, buildings, street objects? e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1866997 Has this format become accepted 
elsewhere in the world or is it experimental?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Missing Captcha when adding event in OSM wiki

[Andrew Hain]

Have you tried using the link at the bottom of the page to switch between 
mobile and desktop view before you edit?

--
Andrew

From: n...@posteo.net 
Sent: 27 April 2019 15:19
To: Talk GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] Missing Captcha when adding event in OSM wiki


Hi

I attempt to add an event to the list on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Current_events. However, when it comes to 
saving the edit, the alert Your edit includes new external links. To protect 
the wiki against automated spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following 
CAPTCHA: comes up, with no Captcha appearing for me to be solved. Is someone 
familiar with adding events or editing the OSM wiki in general and could help, 
please?

I hope this isn't the wrong place for my question. Otherwise please point me 
into the right direction.

Thank you
Nora

[cid:part2.145692B4.4602BA69@posteo.de]
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Road name contradictions in the UK

[Andrew Hain]

Is this something that could go in Survey Me?

--
Andrew

From: Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) via Talk-GB 

Sent: 22 February 2019 20:47
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Road name contradictions in the UK


Hi Everyone,



Our Open Maps team 
(https://github.com/microsoft/open-maps)
 has been continuing to work on analyzing OSM in the UK.  Some of you may have 
seen my session in Milan where we talked about Microsoft’s ongoing OSM work in 
Australia.



We’ve created a list of the top 1500 streets in the UK that appear to be 
missing names along with the name that we suspect should be there. We are not 
100% certain if our suspicious are correct and, not being local to these areas 
we are not remotely trying to fill these in. If there are folks that know these 
areas we could use your help closing these gaps.



The complete list is available here:

https://1drv.ms/x/s!As04HHdPPfhgg4lYigS4IiWjp2JJiw



These are not major roads but they are associated with a large number of 
residential addresses so end up having a big impact.  We may also create a 
Maproulette challenge for these as well if that is preferable?



Thanks,

Oisin

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/herriotto





Sent from Mail for Windows 10


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Road name contradictions in the UK

[Andrew Hain]

Some roads tagged service look like reasonable candidates:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/346182691
[https://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-cde84d7490f0863c7a0b0d0a420834ebd467c1214318167d0f9a39f25a44d6bd.png]

Way: 346182691 | OpenStreetMap
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.
www.openstreetmap.org



--
Andrew

From: Jez Nicholson 
Sent: 07 March 2019 14:19
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Road name contradictions in the UK

I'm also wondering whether you should exclude Service Roads as it indicates an 
access road with no name, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225081816

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:10 PM Jez Nicholson 
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I randomly found 2 good examples: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634592359 
and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/478481882 which are both new housing 
estateswhich would fit why a road with a lot of houses is unnamed. They may 
have been mapped prior to them receiving official road names.

The case that Greg already noted, mobile home parks, e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230945815 may have road names but are 
sometimes private property and not accessible to mappers.

Perhaps there is extra processing that could classify them?

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:57 PM Gregory Marler 
mailto:i...@nomoregrapes.com>> wrote:
Hi Oisin,

I've taken a very quick look at this spreadsheet (oops, getting distracted from 
work).

1) Can you elaborate on the source(s) of suspected road names?
2) It would helpful if each of us could look at your list in a more localised 
aspect. Either including county would be more helpful, or at least having 
latitude and longitude in separate columns makes it easier to use in other 
tools usually.
3) There's some obvious reasons why some of those aren't in OSM just by looking 
at the first 5.
3a) One was on a caravan park, so it might not have an official name or even a 
sign (again I would like to question the source).
3b) A way was about 3 metres to connect one road to another, it's debatable 
whether it should be named itself but could be fixed without a survey.
3c) There are lots of abbreviated names in your spreadsheet, even "Clos" which 
I presume is a strange shortening of "Close".

A Maproulette challenge might tempt people to copy the names from your 
spreadsheet (the legality and suitability of that is very unknown!).

All the best from Chester-le-Street,
Gregory.


On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 13:38, Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc) via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
Hello again,

Wondering if there was any discussion on the previously submitted question, 
which is inline below? Happy to elaborate anyway I can where there is any 
ambiguity 

Thanks,
Oisin


From: Oisin Herriott (Insight Global Inc)
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 12:47 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Road name contradictions in the UK


Hi Everyone,



Our Open Maps team 
(https://github.com/microsoft/open-maps)
 has been continuing to work on analyzing OSM in the UK.  Some of you may have 
seen my session in Milan where we talked about Microsoft’s ongoing OSM work in 
Australia.



We’ve created a list of the top 1500 streets in the UK that appear to be 
missing names along with the name that we suspect should be there. We are not 
100% certain if our suspicious are correct and, not being local to these areas 
we are not remotely trying to fill these in. If there are folks that know these 
areas we could use your help closing these gaps.



The complete list is available here:

https://1drv.ms/x/s!As04HHdPPfhgg4lYigS4IiWjp2JJiw



These are not major roads but they are associated with a large number of 
residential addresses so end up having a big impact.  We may also create a 
Maproulette challenge for these as well if that is preferable?



Thanks,

Oisin

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/herriotto





Sent from Mail for Windows 10



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

[Talk-GB] Climbing new heights in “interesting” tagging

[Andrew Hain]

Road signs tagged natural=peak:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5890628170
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5890628171

--
Andrew
[https://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-cde84d7490f0863c7a0b0d0a420834ebd467c1214318167d0f9a39f25a44d6bd.png]

Node: ‪Give way sign‬ (‪5890628171‬) | 
OpenStreetMap
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.
www.openstreetmap.org


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Andrew Hain]

Richmond cricket club play in the Middlesex league and Middlesex sometimes play 
at their Old Deer Park 
ground[https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.46911/-0.29533]. Neighbouring 
Sheen Park[https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4579/-0.2708] play in both 
the Middlesex and Surrey leagues.

--
Andrew

From: Robert Skedgell 
Sent: 19 September 2018 21:24
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database



On 19/09/2018 16:04, Andrew Black wrote:
> There is a very big difference
>
> - ceremonial counties exist now and so are in scope for OSM.  As you say
> here are differences between them and admin counties when unitary
> authorties are involved
>  - traditional counties are an attempt to recreate the past
> So I don't think these trad counties have any ceremonial existence any
> more.  Which means they are just causing confusion.
>
> I live in London. The place I live in has been inb the county of London
> since 1889. But the traditional county beast says I live in Surrey.

I also live in London, east of the River Lea (historical Essex). It
certainly makes a difference for the purposes of athletics: my running
club is the other side of the Lea and affiliated to Middlesex, but I am
ineligible to compete in Middlesex County AA races. I suspect people
participating in other sports at club level are affected by historic
counties.

I do not have any strong views on whether or not they should be included
in OSM, but even now they are not entirely irrelevant.

--
Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)



___
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] Wickham Market, Suffolk

[Andrew Hain]

Does it measure importance sensibly or is it a category only weakly related to 
importance like the authority that maintains roads?

--
Andrew

From: Mark Goodge 
Sent: 07 September 2018 14:51
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Wickham Market, Suffolk



On 07/09/2018 13:06, Martin Wynne wrote:
>
>> But that only applies to that particular street. What do you do when
>> somewhere has some streets that are fully lit and some that aren't?
>> Are you planning to go round every street in a settlement, check the
>> street lights, total them all up and then use that to decide whether
>> it's a town or a village? Especially when you can just look it up!
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> If you can just look it up, you don't need to do anything else.

But that's my point. We can just look it up, if we start from the
assumption that the Local Government Act distinction between a town and
a village (technically, between a town and a parish, but that's just
terminology) is definitive. So observation doesn't need to come into it.

Mark

___
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] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Andrew Hain]

Although Dave’s edits left out Northern Ireland, 
(https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-gb@openstreetmap.org/msg16162.html) the 
question of whether similar edits should take place there was left open.

--
Andrew

From: Brian Prangle 
Sent: 29 August 2018 13:20
To: Dave F; Talk GB; Killyfole and District Development Association
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

 I thought that you said  c roads would remain in NI but judging by Clive's 
reaction I thought something must have changed. He's obviously not convinced 
that c roads are going to remain in NI so perhaps you should  make it even more 
abundantly and explicitly clear that this is the case and have it documented 
clearly in all the right places. Can I suggest that perhaps you might also 
benefit from your own advice when making  future country-wide automatic edits

Regards

Brian

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 21:42, Dave F 
mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:


On 28/08/2018 20:24, Brian Prangle wrote:
>  I suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI.
>

I wish people would read before putting their hands anywhere near a
keyboard.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

[Andrew Hain]

Imposing strict boundaries on OSM communication channels (in this case a 
non-ISO3166 meaning for a talk list) is out of order and is not a proper 
response to any disagreement anyone may have about tagging.

--
Andrew

From: webmas...@killyfole.org.uk 
Sent: 28 August 2018 13:04:20
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

Hi folks,

As it has been pointed out to me on IRC that GB doesn't include Northern
Ireland, and I should keep my opinions to myself.  So having left the IRC
channel, I am now leaving this mailing list as well.

I will also be canceling my OSMUK membership or failing that, not renewing in
December 2018.  I can still be reached via OSM username:KDDA or on the Talk IE
mailing list.

Thanks to all who have helped me over the years,

Clive aka KDDA







___
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] Road refs

[Andrew Hain]

Toby, I really think you need to read through the conversation archived at 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/thread.html and 
answer the points discussed there.

--
Andrew

From: Toby Speight 
Sent: 27 August 2018 19:15
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Road refs

Recently, all the tertiary roads in my region had their ref tags
removed, and replaced with "highways_authority_ref".  A week later the
unclassified and residential roads suffered similar attack.

* Who is supposed to benefit from hiding these data?
* Who is responsible for documenting what this tag means, and when it
  should be used in place of the standard tagging?  So far, there's no
  mention of it on its own tag wiki, nor on key:ref
* Who is responsible for coordinating the related changes to software -
  editors, renderers, converters and QA tools - that are required?  I
  see no sign of any of this having started.

In short, what's going on, what's wrong with the standard tagging, and
how can we get the data back where they belong?

___
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] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Andrew Hain]

Postal counties (mainly a outer London and Manchester thing in this context) 
are essentially defunct.

--
Andrew

From: Martin Wynne 
Sent: 10 August 2018 13:00:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

> The "historic" boundaries, though, whatever particular snapshot of them
> you choose as the most important one, don't have any relevance to
> everyday life.

Are not some of them still relevant to post-code areas and postal counties?

Lots of useful stuff appears on OSM for which there is nothing physical
on the ground. Bus stops in rural areas are frequently timetabled as
"Rose & Crown" or the name of a side road. There is nothing on the ground.

In this area I was taken to task for adjusting an unexplained boundary,
which turned out to be the local "PlusBus" area boundary for inclusive
fares from the nearest railway station:

  http://plusbus.info/

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] 'C' class roads references.

[Andrew Hain]

Are you offering to create a map with this level of special cases for every 
country in the world? I’d love to see the result.

--
Andrew

From: David Woolley 
Sent: 04 August 2018 09:55
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

On 04/08/18 00:47, Dave F wrote:
>
> After many discussions over the years about the referencing of 'C' class
> roads there appeared to be a general consensus to keep them in the
> database but provide a unique tag to allow them not to be rendered.

I assume you mean the reference is not rendered rather than the road.

It seems to me that, in the UK, class C roads should be exactly the set
of roads with highway=tertiary, so there is no need for a new tag.  Even
if that is not true, the correct solution would be to test the reference
in the renderer and suppress it if within the 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] Updates to 'Survey Me!' tool

[Andrew Hain]

Where I live businesses that are still open sometimes drop out of FHRS. Your 
mileage may very.

--
Andrew


From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
Sent: 23 July 2018 10:52
To: talk-gb
Subject: [Talk-GB] Updates to 'Survey Me!' tool

A couple of minor updates to my 'Survey Me!' tool at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/survey/ to tell you about:

First there is a new category of FHRS (Food Hygiene Rating System)
reference mismatches. This includes items where the number in the
fhrs:id=* tag doesn't match a current number in the official FHRS
database. The data comes from Greg's comparison tool at
https://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhrs/ and wlil hopefully be
updated daily. A small number of these mismatches may be typos in the
original data entry, but the rest will either be because a business
has closed (survey probably required) or because a business has
changed in some way causing a new number to be issued (could possibly
be fixed by reference to the FHRS comparison tool).
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] New Data in PRoW Comparison Tool

[Andrew Hain]

Could we follow the signage for the prow_ref format where the authority puts it 
on signs?

--
Andrew

From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
Sent: 05 July 2018 09:17:10
To: talk-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] New Data in PRoW Comparison Tool

On 3 July 2018 at 15:10, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
 wrote:
> I've just added another county -- East Sussex -- to my PRoW Comparison
> Tool: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/east-sussex/

Devon now added as well: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/devon/

There were a number of different prow_ref formats in use in Devon. The
most popular was of the form "Chivelstone Bridleway 6" (with the
parish name and the RoW type spelt out). This also what the county
council uses on their online interactive map. So for now I've set my
tool to use this style for Devon. Other formats with significant use
in Devon include "Chivelstone BR 6" (with the RoW type abbreviated),
"Chivelstone 6" (without the type at all), "211BR11" (presumably the
211 is a parish code), and "DN|Bampton|2" (which is the artificial
format used by rowmaps.com).

I don't think we can have a single standard for prow_ref formats
across the whole county, but I do think we should adopt a single
format within each authority area. Given the usage (in OSM and by the
Council), I'd suggest going with the "Chivelstone Bridleway 6" style
for Devon. I'm going to invite some of the mappers who've been working
on Devon PRoWs to comment here with their thoughts.

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

___
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] Local names of bits of trunk roads

[Andrew Hain]

You might want to ask for Nominatim to return relations for queries of road 
names.

--
Andrew

From: Paul Berry 
Sent: 25 June 2018 15:59:36
To: David Woolley
Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Local names of bits of trunk roads

Someone's had a brave go at defining that very relation: 
http://osm.org/relation/2776562

Feel free to extend it, bearing in mind the Great North Road != A1 (M or 
otherwise).

Regards,
Paul

On 25 June 2018 at 14:44, David Woolley 
mailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk>> wrote:
On 25/06/18 14:13, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
So how should I tag this? I want to have the correct name for the sections of 
A1, yet I don’t know how far these extend (my data lists the street names at 
points, not over lengths), and equally I don’t want to lose the Great North 
Road tag - just to demote it.


I would say that the name should be that which is locally sign posted, for 
which you will need an on the ground survey.

I think I would agree with the discussion that suggests "Great North Road" for 
the entirety, should be a [route] relation.



___
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] Local names of bits of trunk roads

[Andrew Hain]

You could also check the way histories to see if the local road names have been 
mapped in the past.

--
Andrew

From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 25 June 2018 17:11:04
To: Stuart Reynolds
Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Local names of bits of trunk roads

And, to actually deal with your question, I'd do a ground survey to see where 
the name changes. Failing that, the OS Open Map Local roads vector layer will 
show where the OS thinks the road name changes.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, 17:01 Adam Snape, 
mailto:adam.c.sn...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Stuart,

Sorry, to clarify I meant the Great North Road relation.

It is entirely right that the verifiable current names are mapped.

Kind regards,

Adam

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, 16:41 Stuart Reynolds, 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
What do you mean by the “this” that is to be mapped? Do you mean “Great North 
Road” or High Road / London Road, etc. The latter are not historic - they are 
current (as you can verify on e.g. Postcode Finder looking for 11 High Road, 
Beeston, Sandy)

Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




On 25 Jun 2018, at 16:38, Adam Snape 
mailto:adam.c.sn...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi,

If this is to be mapped  shouldn't it be as a historic feature rather than a 
(current) road route?

By the way I tend to use loc_name for a colloquial name regardless of whether 
it is just used by local people.

Kind regards,

Adam



On 25 June 2018 at 15:59, Paul Berry 
mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Someone's had a brave go at defining that very relation: 
http://osm.org/relation/2776562

Feel free to extend it, bearing in mind the Great North Road != A1 (M or 
otherwise).

Regards,
Paul

On 25 June 2018 at 14:44, David Woolley 
mailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk>> wrote:
On 25/06/18 14:13, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
So how should I tag this? I want to have the correct name for the sections of 
A1, yet I don’t know how far these extend (my data lists the street names at 
points, not over lengths), and equally I don’t want to lose the Great North 
Road tag - just to demote it.


I would say that the name should be that which is locally sign posted, for 
which you will need an on the ground survey.

I think I would agree with the discussion that suggests "Great North Road" for 
the entirety, should be a [route] relation.



___
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

[Talk-GB] Bing maps

[Andrew Hain]

I had a look at the Bing map of Richmond this morning. It now has houses on it, 
or rather it has some of them. The resulting map looks, shall I say, familiar 
if a bit out of date.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Has someone just given us (the start of) access to the crown jewels?

[Andrew Hain]

The property extents might be something that can be turned into landuse 
polygons. The existing ones where I live are very low quslity.

--
Andrew

From: Tim Waters 
Sent: 14 June 2018 14:09:57
To: OSM - Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Has someone just given us (the start of) access to the 
crown jewels?

I think master map buildings could be really good for use for imagery offsets 
and to effectively ground truth surrounding traced features.

Just property extents: perhaps okay for positioning fences, walls etc?

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

[Talk-GB] House of Fraser

[Andrew Hain]

House of Fraser today announced today that half their branches are to close, 
listing which ones. Although shops should not yet be removed does it make sense 
with this announcement (or others like it in the future) to put notes or fixmes 
in the 31 locations involved?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

[Andrew Hain]

And some with an apostrophe: 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=Lloyd+TSB#values

--
Andrew

From: Rob Nickerson 
Sent: 08 May 2018 00:19:36
To: Brian Prangle
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

>Lloyds and TSB  banks demerged 5 years ago - yet we still have 180 branches 
>with the old name.

We also have 7 mapped as "LLoyds TSB", 5 as "Lloyds TSB Bank", 4 as "Lloyds TSB 
Scotland" 3 as (dubious) "Lloyds/TSB", 1 as "LLoyds TSB Bank", 1 as "Lloyds  
TSB" (double space), 1 as "Lloyd's TSB", 1 as "Lloyds TSB Bank Plc", 1 as 
"Lloyds TSB Bank PLC" and 1 as "Lloyds-TSB".

But on the plus side... um, no, that's lost on me!

Sigh.

Rob


On Mon, 7 May 2018 at 20:27, Brian Prangle 
> wrote:
The answer to the question I posed originally seems to be either  "never" or 
"immediately". Maplin I understand waiting some more time for the liquidation 
process to complete. For clarity the mechanical edit would be shop=vacant and 
previous_name=  whichever variant of the Toys R us name is present; which 
preserves the shop amenity  with a change of use and preserves the "landmark" 
data, which I hope answers some of the concerns raised so far. Maintaining map 
data surely has to be a mix of automation and hand-crafted, not a zealot 
position of one to the exclusion of the other. If we know data to be inaccurate 
and there is an easy fix surely we're bounden to users of our map to make it 
the best we can. If we adopt Frederick's position(which I see, rightly or 
wrongly, as a quest for ideological purity) we put community  before users, 
when I see it has to be a balance between the two. What's the point of  
building a map if we don't make it as accurate and complete as possible, as 
soon as possible? Otherwise it's in danger of becoming purely a thing of beauty 
hand-crafted by dedicated hobbyists, with  no thought for all those who have 
decided to use our map.

How long should we wait for a mapper to verify something that's changed? Lloyds 
and TSB  banks demerged 5 years ago - yet we still have 180 branches with the 
old name. Likewise the Territorial Army changed name 6 years ago and we still 
have 27 instances of the old name. So how about  volunteers for a campaign to 
contact local mappers and gently encourage them to update the map?

Regards

Brian


On 5 May 2018 at 11:57, Rob Nickerson 
> wrote:
And for the balance: I disagree with Frederik on this one.

If we know the map is wrong we should fix it. We should not leave it just 
because it may encourage others to fix it and then go on to do other local 
edits.

Frederik's view is that a crap map encourages more people to edit. I'm not 
convinced. A crap map could also put people off - "why bother, OSM is so far 
behind, I'll contribute to/just use Google maps instead"

I agree that a blank map encourages new mappers, but that was 10 years ago! 
Less convinced that an out of date map does. At least not with our current 
homepage or if we do get a new mapper its most likely to be a single edit 
(maybe with MapsMe) rather than a new prolific mapper.

So I'm happy with this mechanical edit (full removal preferred, but addition of 
disussed ok too).

Rob

P.s. Do we still have cases of Lloyds TSB in OSM?

___
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] Dentist with name of person

[Andrew Hain]

If a dental practice has the name of the dentist in large letters on the fascia 
(rather than any other name) does that count as a business name to be mapped or 
personal information to be kept private?

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

[Talk-GB] Addressing of flats: review best practice

[Andrew Hain]

I have been mapping a complex of flats that consists of a series of blocks each 
with its own entrance, tagging each section with addr:housename and addr:flats 
[https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/580234651]. The standard layer repeats the 
name of the whole block for each section, which I find a bit clunky 
(Humanitarian doesn’t label anything at all). Before I discuss this with the 
map renderers, am I doing the best thing for tagging?


--

Andrew

[https://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-cde84d7490f0863c7a0b0d0a420834ebd467c1214318167d0f9a39f25a44d6bd.png]

Way: 580234651 | OpenStreetMap
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.

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

[Talk-GB] Post offices where different services open for different times

[Andrew Hain]

The post office at 86 Southampton Row (London) 
[https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2326348566] has both shop and post office 
opening times posted in the window. The shop has longer hours (which I tagged 
opening_hours), the post office has two times listed. The full service is 
available for a shorter time (which I tagged opening_hours:post_office) with 
some (unspecified) services available for the same opening times as the shop. 
The POL list [http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/branch/134810] gives the 
longer opening times. Any comments on how it should be mapped?


--

Andrew

[https://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-cde84d7490f0863c7a0b0d0a420834ebd467c1214318167d0f9a39f25a44d6bd.png]

Node: ‪Ryman‬ (‪2326348566‬) | 
OpenStreetMap
www.openstreetmap.org
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use 
under an open license.


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

[Talk-GB] Post offices that have closed

[Andrew Hain]

What is a suitable way to identify post offices no longer in use such as 
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/branch/19408 to the maintenance tools?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Petrol stations again

[Andrew Hain]

Are the changes to names specifically being discussed?


--

Andrew



From: Simon Poole 
Sent: 09 March 2018 07:46
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Petrol stations again

Different area naturally, but at least here the newly created stations
in the list seem to have a roughly 50% error/something weird rate,
naturally I haven't looked at a very large sample yet and it could well
be that it is a specific problem with conflation in CH, but it clearly
is far to high for the "s**w validation just dump it in to OSM" approach
Ilya is suggesting.

The other problem that I've seen, is that Ilya is using different
capitalisation in the brand values as both presets and common use in OSM
have used up to now (for example AVIA vs. Avia), just as a general
principle is so many objects are being changed it would seem to be a
good idea to at least adjust the presets.

Simon


Am 09.03.2018 um 03:33 schrieb Paul Norman:
> On 3/8/2018 1:28 PM, SK53 wrote:
>> Remarks about individual items to be added which I have examined
>> (mainly, I thin, for Ilya's benefit):
>
> Were the 8 errors from the full set of 400, or a subsample of them?
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Talk-GB Info Page - 
OpenStreetMap
lists.openstreetmap.org
To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the Talk-GB 
Archives. Using Talk-GB: To post a message to all the list members, send email 
...




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

Re: [Talk-GB] New Post Office Data and Comparison Tool

[Andrew Hain]

Best not to use the type key for anything other than relation types (such as 
type=multipolygon).

--
Andrew


From: Mark Goodge 
Sent: 19 February 2018 15:33:10
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] New Post Office Data and Comparison Tool



On 19/02/2018 14:37, David Woolley wrote:
> On 19/02/18 13:29, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>> The raw branch list data can be found at
>> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postoffice/data/  and it licensed under
>> the Open Government Licence v3. It includes ID numbers, branch names,
>> addresses, locations, and opening hours.
>
> What does type=Crown mean, as one of those near me is marked as this,
> but is actually a concession in a W H Smith's?

A Crown Post Office is one that is either managed directly by Post
Office Ltd, or is provided as part of a national franchise agreement
with a major retailer.

AIUI, WH Smith is, so far, the only retailer that has currently entered
into such an arrangement, but I may be wrong.

The difference between a franchised Crown Post Office and a normal sub
Post Office is that in the latter, the management of the Post Office and
the non-PO retail are the same (typically, of course, a village shop
that combines the role of Post Office and general store), whereas in a
Crown franchise, the Post Office section is managed separately to the
normal retail operation even if they share non-managerial staff.

Mark

___
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] FHRS info when pub has been taken over.

[Andrew Hain]

My experience has been that although a missing FHRS entry is a useful warning 
of what to resurvey, there are too many false positives to remove businesses 
without checking on the ground.

--
Andrew

From: Gregrs 
Sent: 21 January 2018 21:25:07
To: Rob Nickerson
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS info when pub has been taken over.

Hi Rob,

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 03:58:37PM +, Rob Nickerson wrote:

>I don't think it has been mentioned, but having the link to FHRS is one
>way of keeping on top of changes in places where we have fewer active
>mappers. That is, by monitoring for changes in FHRS we can identify
>closures, takeovers, new cafes etc (assuming a detectable change in the
>source data). In a way this is similar to the ref:navads tag that was
>added to Shell petrol station data -> it is now a much simpler task of
>finding out what has changed by comparing to third party data thus
>allowing mappers to hone in on relevant areas.
>
>If anyone wants to have a go at building something that would be
>amazing. Similarly we still have the idea of visualising a "crap data"
>map floating around (e.g. map of Lloyds TSB, map of Total petrol
>stations, BHS etc..).

FHRS is certainly a good way to keep on top of changes, and in fact you
can already use my FHRS/OSM comparison tool
[https://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhrs/] to view fhrs:id tags that
don't currently match an establishment in the FHRS database, such as an
establishment that has closed down. You can look out for red blobs on
the map (which may also be matched OSM entities with mismatched/missing
postcodes) or examine the table with the heading 'Mismatched fhrs:id
tags'.

Hope it's useful.

Thanks,
Greg

--
Twitter: @gregrs_uk
http://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org
PGP key ID: 64907C8A
Fingerprint: EBD1 077F CCDD 841E A505 3FAA D2E8 592E 6490 7C8A

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

Re: [Talk-GB] NatWest / RBS Branch closures

[Andrew Hain]

Are there quality assurance tools that flag out of date names like Lloyds TSB?

--
Andrew

From: Paul Berry 
Sent: 01 December 2017 13:18:33
To: co...@thespillers.org.uk
Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] NatWest / RBS Branch closures

There are still "Lloyds TSB" branches to mop up too over 4 years since their 
demerger (over 600 matches based on March 2017 GB OSM extract), Are we able to 
list all of these points of interest conveniently in a tool? Overpass Turbo 
query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/tsq

Regards,
Paul

On 1 December 2017 at 12:08, Colin Spiller 
> wrote:

Lloyds Banking Group will close some bank branches (listed at 
https://www.lloydsbank.com/contact-us/branch-closures.asp ) and Yorkshire 
Building Society will close more (listed at 
http://www.ybs.co.uk/changes/index.html ).

It's a fairly general problem. Recording the list & annotating the OSM features 
sounds a good idea.

Colin


On 01/12/17 11:35, SK53 wrote:
RBS are planning another massive round of branch closures (a full list 
here).

I was wondering what the best approach might be to track these:

  *   Notes on all relevant branches. We've done this in the past for smaller 
chains (Netto, American Apparel) and the notes do get closed eventually when 
someone re-surveys an area. Easier to spot now through phone apps like Vespucci 
& OSMAnd
  *   Fixmes on the branches. As above, but a little less visible
  *   A wiki page listing branches & their equivalent OSM Id
  *   A umap instance

Any thoughts?

Jerry



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



--
Colin Spiller
co...@thespillers.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] Importing Shell fuel stations

[Andrew Hain]

There is another dataset you can use, the food hygiene ratings 
[https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Food_Hygiene_Rating_System] at 
http://ratings.food.gov.uk that has postcodes for shops selling food, which 
includes many petrol stations. It includes Northern Ireland but not the Isle of 
Man or the Channel Islands.

--
Andrew

From: Chris Hill 
Sent: 03 November 2017 19:10:27
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

On 03/11/2017 18:45, David Woolley wrote:
> On 03/11/17 17:51, Ilya Zverev wrote:
>> postcodes, should they be removed from the import? Is there a
>> database that I can check these against?
>
> There is a database, but one of OSM UK's big bug bears is that it is
> not licensed in a way that allows it to be used for OSM.  About the
> limit of what you could do is find wrong postcodes, and then use other
> means to correct them.  I think removing a postcode on a mismatch
> might be too close to using the data.
>
> I'm, of course, referring to Royal Mail's Postal Address File (PAF).
There is a list of GB postcodes (not Northern Ireland) which, being OGL,
is compatible with the OSM licence. I maintain an overlay of postcodes
using that data, which you can see more about here:
https://raggedred.net/codepoint/

I am, of course, referring to the dataset Codepoint Open, supplied from
Royal Mail and distributed on the Ordnance Survey open data page.
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendatadownload/products.html

There is a version also supplied by the Office of National Statistics
which is based on Codepoint Open, but with some extra information for
each postcode. This also contains expired postcodes too.

Both of these datasets do not show each delivery point, but just a
centroid (in OSGB grid ref) for all the delivery points.

--

cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


___
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] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

[Andrew Hain]

Are you saying that anything with a postcode beginning with SW should be tagged 
addr:city=London and anything beginning with TW9 or TW10 should be tagged 
addr:city=Richmond?

--
Andrew

From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 19 October 2017 09:35:40
To: Steve Doerr
Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

I'm convinced that many such addresses are unnecessarily long (are there really 
multiple Weldons in the Swanscome postal area?). Nevertheless we should have a 
way of mapping them if they are the official address. I agree that more general 
guidance would aid consistency. My address mapping practice is as follows. I 
would welcome correction if others feel I am doing something incorrectly::


  *   The post town 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post_towns_in_the_United_Kingdom is 
tagged as addr:city (whether or not it is a city or indeed whether an otherwise 
more important place is nearer). Though this should all be in upper case when 
used I add the tag in lower case with an initial capital letter as it would 
normally be written in a sentence.

  *   For sub divisions of this area the wiki has documented tags addr:suburb 
and addr:hamlet. I tend to default to suburb everywhere except when dealing 
with an actual isolated hamlet. Where there are two subdivisions as in Steve's 
example, I'd use hamlet for the smaller one  and suburb for the larger one.

  *   The wiki suggests to avoid addr:street and addr:place together but I use 
them for things like named retail/business parks where there is also a street 
address eg. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/527520264

  *   I do not tag the name of the property separately if it is the same as the 
main name=* tag

  *   Counties have not been formally part of postal addresses for many years. 
Royal Mail permits people to optionally add the name of the old Postal County, 
modern administrative or ceremonial county, or traditional county to their 
address according to their personal preference, but this plays no role in 
delivery. So I do not tag a county in the address.

So I'd tag Steve's example: name=The Spring River, addr:street=Talbot Lane, 
addr:hamlet=Weldon, addr:suburb=Ebbsfleet Valley, addr:city=Swanscombe, 
addr:postcode=DA10 1AZ

I hope that helps

Adam


On 18 Oct 2017 11:49 p.m., "Steve Doerr" 
> wrote:
On 10/10/2017 19:07, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet, but this quarter's UK
mapping project is to improve addresses and postcodes:
https://osmuk.org/uncategorized/jump-in-to-our-quarterly-mapping-project/



It would be useful to have some guidance on tagging for UK addresses. For 
instance, how would you tag the different elements of the following address for 
a pub/carvery that opened recently near me:

The Spring River
Talbot Lane
Weldon
Ebbsfleet Valley
SWANSCOMBE
DA10 1AZ

Regards,
Steve


___
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] "an extraordinary quirk in the UK address system"

[Andrew Hain]

Anyone up to filling in http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.5308/-2.3532 
then?

--
Andrew

From: Andy Mabbett 
Sent: 12 September 2017 22:22:35
To: OSM GB mailing list
Subject: [Talk-GB] "an extraordinary quirk in the UK address system"

This may interest some of you:

   http://www.paulplowman.com/stuff/house-address-twins-proximity/

--
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] Are Northern Ireland, Wales & England 'states'?

[Andrew Hain]

Should we go a bit further and strip out all is_in tags not used by Nominatim 
across Britain (which may mean all of them), or are there other uses we should 
consider? The community in France did that when they finished mapping communes.

--
Andrew

From: Dave F 
Sent: 20 August 2017 22:57:06
To: Andrew Black; Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Are Northern Ireland, Wales & England 'states'?

I will revert

DaveF

On 12/08/2017 22:39, Andrew Black wrote:


On 12 August 2017 at 13:12, Dave F 
> wrote:
Hi
I'm unsure if Northern Ireland, Wales & England should be tagged as 'states'.

A new user's changeset comment:
Adding more info. is_in:country_code was missing. Also classified Northern 
Ireland as a state so it appears in the same priority as Wales. Was 
unclassified before


Doesn't make sense to me.

"A high-level sub-national political entity ([Wikipedia-16px.png] Federated 
state) in several large 
countries such as USA ("State"), Australia ("State"), Canada ("Province"). May 
also be applicable in other countries and languages, "Provincia", "Estado", 
"Land" - whether is should be used is up to you and mappers in your own 
country."

 We are not a federated country. Suggest we revert it. Why is Wales a state in 
the first place.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Summer 2017 July-Sept

[Andrew Hain]

There are some State of the Map talks this year that may be relevant:
Jungle Bus: Public transport networks mapping made easy
Challenges of open data in Japanese public transport
Bus stop maintenance in Switzerland (lightning talk)

Hopefully anyone unlucky enough not to see them live can get a video.
--
Andrew


From: Brian Prangle 
Sent: 10 July 2017 12:51
To: Talk GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Summer 2017 July-Sept

Hi everyone

This will be to improve bus route relations and station entrances, by popular 
vote on OSMUK Loomio channel.

Bus route relations can be tricky for the uninitiated ( and even for the 
initiated ) so perhaps this quarterly project could do with its own wiki page, 
pointing to existing tutorials or developing some new ones. Any volunteers?

Regards

Brian


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

[Andrew Hain]

You can add route relations for each number, that way you can search for the 
real prow_ref, not hidden between semicolons.

--
Andrew

From: Bob Hawkins 
Sent: 04 July 2017 12:05:25
To: Ed Loach; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

Ed
I must not have made clear the situation: the bridleway is coincident with the 
borders of two parishes, carrying a route code for each parish, not  a way 
crossing parish boundaries.
Bob


[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]
  Virus-free. 
www.avast.com
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Museums in Berwick-upon-Tweed

[Andrew Hain]

What is the easiest way to locate national grid references on the map? We could 
then put notes on the map if there is no-one to check.

--
Andrew

From: Frederik Ramm 
Sent: 28 May 2017 10:24:19
To: OSM GB mailing list
Subject: [Talk-GB] Museums in Berwick-upon-Tweed

Hi,

   someone from Berwick-upon-Tweed has written to the OSMF board, mainly
to ask if it is ok to use our map in a local history book, but along the
side pointed out two issues with the map:

"The two Museum symbols at NU 00023 52563 and NT 99988 52538 are no
longer relevant as the museums closed several years ago and the area is
now private housing."

I'll leave it to you to figure out what these coordinates mean and which
museums may need to be checked ;)

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
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] Proposed Import of UK Shell Filling Stations

[Andrew Hain]

Is it actually better to use the website as a unique identifier instead of a 
magic number? That way you can check the information online  and tools such as 
Keepright will alert you if the web page disappears.

--
Andrew

From: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
Sent: 12 May 2017 08:58:06
To: talk-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Proposed Import of UK Shell Filling Stations

On 11 May 2017 at 23:25, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Link to discussion so far on imports@:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2017-May/004956.html
>
>> My concern would be from where to they get their geocoding.  Most
>> businesses, and particularly chain businesses, tend to use postcode
>> centroids, which are not accurate enough, probably get them from Google.
>
> I voiced the same general concern, but a random sample I checked of the
> (actually rather few) stations that are proposed to be newly added
> seemed to be impeccably placed.

In which case, there is a different concern: have they done their
geo-coding from an acceptable source for use in OSM? If they've e.g.
used Address Base (or a similar product) or got coordinates from a
non-OpenData OS map, then there could be problems. I think we need
more information on the data sources here.

Some other comments:

* If a ref/id is to be used, it should probably be Shell's branch
reference number, not that of the third-party data provider. (These do
exist, and at least in some cases are verifiable on the ground, as
I've found at least one on a pump at a Shell garage up the road from
me.)

* There's an addressing edge-case error on a station near me, which is
located on the Five Ways Roundabout near Mildenhall:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/478902268 . We currently have
(incorrectly) "addr:place=5 Ways Roundabout", but the script is
proposing adding "addr:street=Ways Roundabout" and
"addr:housenumber=5".

* The script shouldn't just add source=Navads to objects it's only
modifying, as that would imply the whole object was sourced from
there. If existing tags and position are retained, then this needs to
be acknowledged somehow. If there's an existing source tag, then
Navads could just be added to the list (I haven't checked to see if
this is the case). If not, then there's more of a challenge. The
script current just adds source=Navads in this case. I think the
importers need to propose a better solution for this.

* As others have said, there needs to be more information about what
happens if there are multiple amenity=fuel objects within 50m, and
also what happens if any existing tags conflict with what the script
would like to add.

* The proposed website tag appears to point to http://www.shell.co.uk
for all the branches. Would it be better pointing to a specific URL
for that branch (assuming this exists)?

* The opening_hours from the import script for
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/248030653 don't match those displayed
on Shell's own website for the same station. One as open till 11pm on
Saturday, the other only 10pm. So is the data accurate / up-to-date?

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker

___
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] [Talk-gb-london] New OSM London Meetup - Invite

[Andrew Hain]

Does it include stations belonging to Network Rail?

--
Andrew

From: Stuart Reynolds 
Sent: 08 May 2017 23:44:56
To: Derick Rethans
Cc: Bjoern Hassler; talk-gb-lon...@openstreetmap.org; osm-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-london] New OSM London Meetup - Invite

Hi All,

For reference, virtually all of the entrances are contained within the London 
NaPTAN data (https://data.gov.uk/dataset/naptan) which is the data that begins 
with the prefix 4900. The tube entrances all begin 4909ZZLU followed by a three 
letter code for the station plus a digit to distinguish between different 
entrances. For example, 4909ZZLUBNK0 would be an entrance to Bank, while 
4900ZZLUTWH0 would be Tower Hill.

While these do not give you accessibility information, they are all maintained 
by TfL and should give you accurate positional information.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPad

On 8 May 2017, at 21:02, Derick Rethans 
> wrote:

Hi,

I think this is a good idea. We have something UK wide, but doing it a
local way makes a lot of sense (and easier to complete). Happy to do
this "fix the tube network" thing over a few weekends (After the General
Election that is).

cheers,
Derick

On Thu, 4 May 2017, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

Dear Grant, dear all,

thanks for putting on the meeting, and thanks for the sponsored pizza! Good
meeting last night, and god to have met you all.

Following up on the "Missing Maps London" idea, I thought we could may do
some "map challenges" that look at specific things that need work. It might
be a nice community building activity, and provide some continuity between
meetings?

As an experiment, I've formulated one such challenges here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London_public_transport_tagging_scheme/Map_Challenges
and added images / interactive maps / help for new mappers.

See what you think and let me know whether there's interest. Results could
be announced at the next meeting?

All the best,
Bjoern


On 30 April 2017 at 17:30, Grant Slater 
> wrote:

Hi All,

We trying a new format OpenStreetMap evening meetup in London this
Wednesday 3rd May 2017... We'd love for you to come along:

https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Q-A-Meetup/events/239366249/

New to OpenStreetMap and want to learn more or need some help getting
started? Already mapping or using OSM and have any Questions or
Challenges or want to see what others are up to? This is the event for
you.

We already have 3 great speakers lined up for the evening:

* Andy Allan - OpenCycleMap / Thunderforest
* Astrid Thorseth - Missing Maps
* Derick Rethans - London Mapper

We have a great venue (bias, I work there), there will be pizza and
soft drinks provided.

I'd love to hear any suggestions on how we could improve the event or
what works elsewhere.

Kind regards,
Grant

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



--
https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: https://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug

___
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] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[Andrew Hain]

According to http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=2762871 
edits in Brazil, Russia, the United Arab Emirates and Senegal have also 
attracted criticism from locally knowledgeable mappers, looking like someone 
who is at best out of their depth.

--
Andrew

From: Marco Boeringa 
Sent: 08 February 2017 20:46:10
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

Hi all,

I now had a very preliminary and short look at some of the changesets
involved in the Wales area, which was revealing. I now noticed most of
these features seem to have been added by multiple users / accounts:

- Sam888, e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/413378224

- Glucosamine: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/405845733

- Dyserth: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/388818928

There may be more... All of these "users" are prolific, leave almost no
changeset comments, and seem to be editing all day. It seems to me these
are editors working professionally for some OSM related company.

Andy: Is there any chance the DWG could figure out which company these
people are working for, so the company could be contacted about this
specific issue and asked not to add these type of difficult to identify
natural features?

There are so many changesets involved, I guess doing reverts is almost
impossible, lest one wants to see also more useful stuff being removed
as well, like roads and large and small patches of forest that I also
see being part of these changesets.

I have the feeling the most offending stuff is primarily the false
natural=heath. So maybe it is a better course of action to select the
heath features in the affected regions in JOSM, and delete only those in
a new changeset. I think this is by far the easiest solution. Of course,
a bit of caution and review will be required to not include properly
digitized heath features by regular OSM users.

Any other ideas?

Marco

> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:09:24 +
> From: ael 
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?
> Message-ID: <20170208130924.wdbn72h2r6rk7n6f@shelf.conquest>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:22:30AM +, Andy Townsend wrote:
>> On 08/02/2017 10:49, Brian Prangle wrote:
>>>   It would be great in my opinion if we moved on as a community and
>>> actually decided to act on our discussions.
> I agree that at least those changes that have not been subsequently
> modified by a "legitimate" mapper should be reverted. I thought
> something like that was going to happen.
>
> As I have noted before, I have encountered this rubbish in the South
> West and have partly corrected some areas where I have directly
> surveyed, but it was still problematical. I didn't touch adjacent areas
> although I was sure they were wrong.
>
> In the light of these discussion, I now feel more bold about perhaps
> just deleting more of this junk unless someone/ some group undertakes
> bulkish reversion.
>
> ael
>


---
Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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] Named landuse polygons

[Andrew Hain]

OSM is influenced by the maps its contributors see and are used to. In Britain 
that includes names of isolated farms on Ordnance Survey maps.

--
Andrew

From: Dave F 
Sent: 17 January 2017 23:00:37
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Named landuse polygons

Please be aware this is the talk-GB forum.

Use of place=farm in Britain is almost certainly misguided. If anyone
knows of an appropriate location please post here.

It's not use of the tag itself that's the problem, it's contributor's
misinterpretation of it.

DaveF


On 17/01/2017 21:52, Warin wrote:
> On 18-Jan-17 07:27 AM, Dave F wrote:
>>
>> On 17/01/2017 19:38, Warin wrote:
>>
>>> Generally I add a node place=farm as I am not certain where the
>>> boundary lies
>>
>> This is a misuse of this tag. place=farm is for the rare (non
>> existent?) cases where a residential community, such as a hamlet, has
>> acquired the name of an adjacent farm. "a place named by a name of a
>> farm" - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Farm
>>
>> The description for
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dfarm is poorly written
>> & confusing.
>>
>> If mapping just the sheds/farmhouse etc of a farm, landuse=farmyard
>> should be used.
>>
>> It was discussed previously:
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2016-September/019181.html
>>
>>
>> DaveF
>
> In Australia .. place=farm is appropriate.
> The next farm may be 250 miles away, as such it usually has facilities
> for seasonal workers (say 20 people), machinery maintenance, air
> strip, ... etc.
> They are substantial places that are important in a mapping and social
> sense.
> Most still have the name painted on the roof to assist aerial navigation.
>
> Remember that OSM is world wide, you can define things locally .. but
> they won't fit everywhere, hence the OSMwiki fuzziness.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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] Named landuse polygons

[Andrew Hain]

A recent changeset in southwest London
[https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43807789] added names to 
landuse=residential and landuse=commercial polygons. The mapper has not 
responded to the changeset comment that I left some weeks ago. The names 
themselves read more like descriptions to me as a local and they were added to 
the existing polygons, which are somewhat arbitrary (you could micromap with a 
polygon for each block omitting all roads). These names appear on OSM-carto in 
italics.

What is a general view on when it makes sense to add a name to a landuse 
polygon?

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

[Talk-GB] OSM point of interest counts in each district as a proportion of FHRS

[Andrew Hain]

___
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] OSM point of interest counts in each district as a proportion of FHRS

[Andrew Hain]

As an exercise in measuring OSM’s coverage I have crunched the numbers in 
GregRS’s CSV output to calculate the number of OSM candidates in each district 
as a proportion of the number of FHRS entries that the program reports. The 
figures are a bit arbitrary and values over 100% are not necessarily wrong. The 
tool doesn’t cover Northern Ireland.

The list is:

1 Tendring 135.07%
2 Gravesham 117.93%
3 Isles of Scilly 117.81%
4 Rushcliffe 117.58%
5 Blackpool 108.66%
6 East Northamptonshire 108.17%
7 Wellingborough 107.94%
8 Guildford 107.82%
9 Erewash 106.40%
10 Broxtowe 106.14%
11 Argyll and Bute 105.49%
12 Islington 104.16%
13 Gedling 98.48%
14 South Cambridgeshire 97.83%
15 Edinburgh 97.60%
16 Nottingham 97.45%
17 Derbyshire Dales 97.07%
18 Cambridge 96.83%
19 Allerdale 94.78%
20 Wychavon 94.78%
21 West Devon 94.47%
22 Bath and North East Somerset 93.83%
23 Oxford 93.09%
24 Aberdeenshire 92.90%
25 Ryedale 90.70%
26 Mid Devon 89.31%
27 Central Bedfordshire 88.97%
28 Westminster 87.99%
29 South Norfolk 87.13%
30 South Lakeland 86.94%
31 Amber Valley 86.34%
32 Birmingham 85.27%
33 Poole 84.66%
34 Melton 83.60%
35 Lancaster 82.43%
36 Southampton 82.31%
37 South Ribble 81.76%
38 Basingstoke and Deane 81.49%
39 Sevenoaks 81.44%
40 Staffordshire Moorlands 81.22%
41 Camden 81.09%
42 South Hams 80.09%
43 Copeland 79.87%
44 Carlisle 79.84%
45 Gateshead 79.72%
46 Hart 79.69%
47 New Forest 79.65%
48 Winchester 79.49%
49 High Peak 79.23%
50 Eden 78.69%
51 South Tyneside 78.59%
52 Rutland 78.34%
53 Perth and Kinross 77.14%
54 Derby 77.05%
55 East Cambridgeshire 76.82%
56 Shetland Islands 76.34%
57 Breckland 76.18%
58 North East Derbyshire 76.15%
59 Bristol 75.91%
60 Huntingdonshire 75.45%
61 Rother 75.34%
62 Sir Ynys Mon - Isle of Anglesey 75.00%
63 Malvern Hills 74.92%
64 Chelmsford 74.79%
65 Hambleton 74.79%
66 St. Albans 74.31%
67 Sutton 73.25% (corrected)
68 Shropshire 72.57%
69 Ashfield 72.34%
70 Richmondshire 71.91%
71 Lambeth 71.70%
72 Sir Ddinbych - Denbighshire 71.52%
73 Tewkesbury 71.37%
74 Runnymede 71.23%
75 Chesterfield 70.80%
76 Stratford-on-Avon 70.73%
77 Fenland 70.50%
78 South Oxfordshire 70.38%
79 Uttlesford 70.05%
80 York 69.92%
81 Exeter 69.82%
82 West Berkshire 69.75%
83 South Gloucestershire 69.64%
84 Cornwall 69.64%
85 Bromsgrove 69.37%
86 Waverley 69.29%
87 Medway 69.28%
88 Wokingham 69.19%
89 North Dorset 68.99%
90 Wyre Forest 68.86%
91 Cherwell 68.73%
92 Highland 68.55%
93 Taunton Deane 68.41%
94 Cotswold 68.40%
95 Mole Valley 68.32%
96 Eastleigh 67.89%
97 Selby 67.86%
98 West Oxfordshire 67.85%
99 St. Edmundsbury 67.69%
100 East Hampshire 67.66%
101 Test Valley 67.52%
102 Chiltern 67.02%
103 Weymouth and Portland 66.84%
104 Wiltshire 66.35%
105 Midlothian 66.10%
106 Rugby 66.00%
107 Maldon 65.99%
108 Na h-Eileanan an Iar 65.84%
109 Bedford 65.69%
110 East Staffordshire 65.37%
111 Leeds 65.30%
112 Waltham Forest 65.24%
113 City of London 65.10%
114 Wakefield 65.03%
115 East Hertfordshire 64.90%
116 Christchurch 64.74%
117 Three Rivers 64.61%
118 Northumberland 64.60%
119 Darlington 64.55%
120 Abertawe - Swansea 64.31%
121 Gwynedd - Gwynedd 64.16%
122 Reading 64.13%
123 Stroud 63.85%
124 Suffolk Coastal 63.84%
125 East Riding of Yorkshire 63.76%
126 North Hertfordshire 63.68%
127 Cheshire East 63.65%
128 Orkney Islands 63.60%
129 Craven 63.60%
130 Mid Suffolk 63.25%
131 Sheffield 63.22%
132 Tamworth 63.13%
133 Norwich 62.95%
134 Solihull 62.82%
135 Warwick 62.75%
136 North West Leicestershire 62.67%
137 West Dorset 62.61%
138 Kensington and Chelsea 62.53%
139 Surrey Heath 62.34%
140 Vale of White Horse 62.33%
141 North Warwickshire 61.97%
142 Hammersmith and Fulham 61.87%
143 Sandwell 61.83%
144 Aylesbury Vale 61.49%
145 Torbay 61.41%
146 Charnwood 61.31%
147 Ipswich 61.26%
148 South Staffordshire 61.21%
149 Ashford 61.00%

Re: [Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

[Andrew Hain]

I am more interested in the possibility that the business has closed.
--
Andrew

From: SK53 <sk53@gmail.com>
Sent: 21 December 2016 13:17:48
To: Andrew Hain
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

Technically these are still FHRS identifiers as old identifiers are not reused. 
Obviously in the case where a new business in the same premises gets an FHRS 
identifier then that should take precedence.

We have quite a few in Nottingham, older ones are shunted into old_fhrs:id 
(pretty much our local convention for historic tags).

Non-current FHRS identifiers are still extremely useful; I was able to check 
something for robbieonsea the other day by referring to a 2013 FHRS file.

In the ideal world we'd have a full list of FHRS Ids over time.

Jerry

On 21 December 2016 at 13:05, Andrew Hain 
<andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk<mailto:andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk>> wrote:

Richmond has updated its FHRS records and two entries that previously appeared 
in the list are now reported as unresolved in the GregRS tool. Should I add 
notes that they are no longer in FHRS and should be checked in the ground or is 
adding notes from public quality assurance tools a bad idea?

--
Andrew

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

[Andrew Hain]

Richmond has updated its FHRS records and two entries that previously appeared 
in the list are now reported as unresolved in the GregRS tool. Should I add 
notes that they are no longer in FHRS and should be checked in the ground or is 
adding notes from public quality assurance tools a bad idea?

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

[Talk-GB] FHRS and businesses run from home

[Andrew Hain]

Some FHRS entries refer to people's names, or to business names, with the 
address of a private house. These may be people who cook from home or 
itinerantly. Is it however appropriate for OSM to map these addresses as 
anything more than houses, for example by adding fhrs:id or the name in the 
FHRS data set?


--

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

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Andrew Hain]

Every account that has ever been blocked has a link from the profile called 
“Active blocks”.

--
Andrew

From: Paul Sladen 
Sent: 17 August 2016 11:04:20
To: Will Phillips
Cc: Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Will Phillips wrote:
> On 15/08/2016 08:39, Colin Smale wrote:
> > "This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be
> > able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest
> > in my mapping. -Alex Kemp"
> I have raised this issue with the user directly but the tone has turned
> unpleasant and to me feels quite threatening.

The changes are one thing; but the automated non-responses are going
to be a bigger issue in resolving this this has it disrupts
the project by preventing discussion.

I'm wondering if the 'alexkemp' has previously received the
block-uploads-until-messages-are-read flag in the past?
If so perhaps a strong encouragement is required?

-Paul


___
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] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Andrew Hain]

Do we know how these values are calculated, for instance do they come from an 
external source?


--

Andrew



From: Colin Smale 
Sent: 15 August 2016 08:39
To: Talk-GB
Subject: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper


Hi,

I noticed a number of new admin boundaries have been tagged with ref:hectares=* 
with the numeric value giving the area of the entity in hectares.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper

[Andrew Hain]

Just out of interest, are unincorporated areas in Australia tagged with 
boundary relations?


--

Andrew



From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>
Sent: 15 August 2016 12:00
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] ref:hectares on admin boundary, and non-responsive mapper
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM UK site

[Andrew Hain]

Christian Ledermann 
 writes:

> 
> I'd also like to see an aggregator like 
http://planetpython.org/ or
> http://planet.plone.org/
> to have a central place where all UK OSM 
related blogs are consolidated
> which could be integrated in the main 
website (see http://iwlearn.net/news)

Or like blogs.openstreetmap.org?

--
Andrew




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

[Talk-GB] London meetup on Thursday

[Andrew Hain]

The next London pub meetup will be on Thursday 16th June at 7pm in the Monkey 
Puzzle near Paddington station (http://themonkeypuzzlepub.co.UK). Sorry for the 
short notice.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

[Andrew Hain]

SK53  writes:

> many contributors do it not purely to add stuff to OSM, but for a multitude
of other reasons:
> to learn more about the places around where one lives;
> to get out;
> to meet-up with like minded people;
> to get some exercise;
> to go to the less obvious places;
> to avoid stultifying in front of a screen;
> to collect some data for some other purpose.
> 
> As long as people are motivated by one or all of these reasons, I see no
reason why they won't contribute to OSM. I suspect it's a fallacy that
people only contribute to OSM because other sources of OpenData aren't up to
scratch. If we have competition it is with other types of
volunteer-collected data, not with things like OS Open Data. OSM will never
achieve the consistency of coverage that OSGB do, so there will always be
applications and use-cases which will prefer to use data of this sort 

Only up to a point. I don’t expect OSM to be better for everyone, but I
would stop contributing and find other outlets for my spare time if I ever
feel the ability to be useful (and keep other sources of maps and map data
from being complacent) goes away; I have in fact not mapped bus routes for
some time because I haven’t seen enough reward there.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

[Andrew Hain]

John Aldridge  writes:


> By ensuring that OSM data is of higher quality, or contains useful 
> information still absent from those other sources. If we can't or don't 
> do that, OSM (in the UK) will cease to have a purpose, and can be left 
> to wither un-mourned.

Plus, usefully be part of a worldwide map that people can write worldwide
tools for.

--
Andrew





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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Andrew Hain]

I still get internal errors in a few places, for instance Richmond upon Thames.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Andrew Hain]

I’m getting internal server errors when I try to look at the previews.

--
Andrew


From: Edward Betts 
Sent: 11 March 2016 15:46
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

I've added a code to preview the XML of the changeset that adds wikidata tags
to objects in a given area. You can find preview links on region, county and
district pages, but only if there are less than 150 objects to annotate with a
wikidata tag.

Examples:

Norwich
 http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/district/Norwich
 preview: http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/preview/8/Norwich

Swindon
 http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/county/Swindon
 preview: http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/preview/6/Swindon

Hackney
 http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/preview/8/London_Borough_of_Hackney

Isle of Man
 http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/region/Isle_of_Man
 preview: http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/preview/2/Isle_of_Man

The preview page might be a little slow the first time, but the data is cached
so future access will be fast.

I think the next step is show the list of items to be tagged in human readable
form with a form where mappers can sign their name or username and assert that
they are local, then hit an upload button. The wikidata links will be uploaded
to OSM with the mappers name in the changeset.

The tags on the changeset might look like:

comment=Add wikidata tags to objects in Norwich
district=Norwich
checked_by=Edward
assertion=Edward, a mapper local to Norwich, has checked these Wikidata 
links are correct

--
Edward.

___
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] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Andrew Hain]

Well done and congratulations. 

Building or land tags can go on multipolygons, in fact it manages cases more 
complicated than this one better. It does seem silly to have just one tag in a 
different place though.

--
Andrew 


From: Edward Betts 
Sent: 11 March 2016 10:03
To: impo...@openstreetmap.org; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

I've uploaded my first changeset - Places of worship in Birmingham.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37766888

This is a modification to 10 ways and one relation.

The relation is a multipolygon representing Birmingham Oratory. The uploader
has put the wikidata tag on the relation, which looks wrong. The other tags for
the church are on the outer way. I will fix this before I do any more uploads.

--
Edward.

___
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] route relations type=road

[Andrew Hain]

But surely I can see no obvious harm in the presence of the relations. Also 
searching the database by reference doesn’t always work, for instance not all 
road segments tagged  A1 in the UK are part of the road from London to 
Edinburgh.

--
Andrew


From: Chris Hill 
Sent: 07 December 2015 10:27
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

On 07/12/15 18:11, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 00:54 +, Dave F. wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I know this has been discussed before , but recent edits by user:
>> abc26324 prompts me to ask/verify again the point of road relations
>> in the UK. Example:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/103301#map=10/51.2112/-2.5578
>>
>> Route relations are meant to represent, err... routes taken by people
>> that transverse multiple different ways; such as bus cycle etc & not
>> just a 'collection' of things, especially when they can easily be
>> collated/extracted from the ref on the actual way.
>>
>> I notice even the M4/M5 have one apiece. This has lead to tag
>> duplication which can never be a good thing.
>>
>> Are there any roads in GB where references are shared? If not, I see
>> no reason for their existence.
>>
> I have noticed that he is at it again and has not responded to either
> my comment with regards to the A50, or chillly's comments with regard
> to the A161.
>
> This time he has added a relation for the bits of the A1 that are not
> A1(M), there is already an A1 relation. I again am not sure why we need
> such relations, and the history is too big to view.delete
>
The author has not responded, so I have deleted the route relation for
A161. I will use changeset comments on any more that I find in the UK to
discuss why they are there - my expectation would be to delete any
others but only after attempting to engage the author.

--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


___
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] Totesport

[Andrew Hain]

Betfred took over Totesport a few years ago but there are still tags
name=Totesport, name=totesport or operator=Totesport in Ashford,
Birmingham(2), London (2), Manchester (2), Northampton, Oxford, Rotherham
and Wakefield.

--
Andrew


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Discussion of Mechanical Edits

[Andrew Hain]

Andy Allan gravitystorm@... writes:

 
 This mailing list appears to be having some sort of immune-response
 over-reaction. We don't like mechanical edits in general. Fine.
 Therefore every mechanical edit must be fought against, to the bitter
 end. That's an over-reaction.
 
 No, that can't work any more. If we're going to build a successful
 community here in the UK then we need to cope with thousands of people
 having their own opinion, not just no consensus among a few dozen
 people on this list. Having every sensible plan derailed by
 noticeable opposition is not a scalable policy either. This concept
 of regional opt-outs is also badly thought through, since nobody is
 in charge of a particular area (no matter how much they might strut
 around on the lists) and encouraging people to self-appoint as having
 area-based vetoes builds the opposite of the community that we're
 trying to build.
 
 I'd like to encourage everyone to step back, and think of a better way
 to organize ourselves. This isn't it.
 
 Thanks,
 Andy

Thank you Andy.

I will repeat on this list what I said in conversation yesterday in a
different context: OSM must be protected against any norm within OSM (to the
extent that discussing bulk edits is a norm) being misused for disruptive ends.

--
Andrew


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

[Talk-GB] Canadian postcodes at State of the Map

[Andrew Hain]

Ervin Ruci of Geolytica gave an interesting presentation at SotM, now
available on video[1], about his efforts to build a crowdsourced postcode
database. Apart from technical matters he also talked about legal issues
with Canada Post.

[1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SotM_2014_session:_Crowd_Sourcing_Canadian_Postal_Codes

--
Andrew


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping turn lanes on major roads

[Andrew Hain]

SomeoneElse lists@... writes:

 
 I'd always assumed that the correct way to map turn lanes is via:
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes .
 
 However, some mappers in the UK* have started mapping each individual 
 lane as a separate parallel road.  Here's an example:
 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/267402#map=19/53.03296/-0.52524layers=N
 
 That note was obviously written from the point of view that mapping a 
 single carriageway road as one way with appropriate turn lanes tags is 
 correct; whether it is or not is the question that I'm asking here.
 
 So - should we map a dual carriageway as two parallel roads and a single 
 carriageway as one (with appropriate turn lanes) or is it equally valid 
 (or even perhaps better) to map each turn lane as a separate parallel 
 road, even if there's nothing but a broken line of paint between them?

I have always reserved multiple ways for non-traversable (physically blocked
to crossing traffic) multiple carriageways[1], use for single carriageways
is wrong, not more detailed.

[1] My mapping: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.45778/-0.32001

--
Andrew


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

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

[Andrew Hain]

Philip Barnes phil@... writes:

 
 I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong
 before I continue?
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24727341#map=8/52.507/-3.796
 
 Thanks
 Phil (trigpoint)
 

References beginning with three or more letters or containing a semicolon:
http://osm.org/way/28542839  official_ref=Caldecott FP 9
http://osm.org/way/154708809 official_ref=Copperas Hill
http://osm.org/way/5073178   official_ref=Cuddington RB 25
http://osm.org/way/28402131  official_ref=Cuddington RB 25
http://osm.org/way/170956041 official_ref=UY2646; Marton RB 32
http://osm.org/way/29716611  official_ref=Cuddington FP 12
http://osm.org/way/27202827  official_ref=Cranage RB 9
http://osm.org/way/180892569 official_ref=Copperas Hill
http://osm.org/way/154555351 official_ref=Claremount Road
http://osm.org/way/180892571 official_ref=Copperas Hill

--
Andrew


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

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

[Andrew Hain]

Philip Barnes phil@... writes:

 I am going to use the horrible word, mechanical edit, but I feel it
 needs sorting out.
 
 I propose that nothing is removed, but the ref tag for tertiary and
 unclassified is moved to official_ref. This will retain the data and
 allow OSM to be used by those who can make use of this data.

I agree with this proposal. Go ahead.

--
Andrew


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

Re: [Talk-GB] City names translation

[Andrew Hain]

Ed Loach edloach@... writes:

 There is a bit in the wiki which recommends avoiding
 transliterations:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Avoid_transliteration

It was only put in recently and I personally find it unhelpful. Would anyone
object to removing it?

--
Andrew


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK postcodes on each side of the road

[Andrew Hain]

Lester Caine lester@... writes:

 and in this case, the street and other 
 location data can be provided by tags on a street rather than 
 duplicating that data unnecessarily on every building ...

Surely that’s what associatedStreet relations are for.

--
Andrew


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Key: PMSA_ref

[Andrew Hain]

Andy Mabbett andy@... writes:

 
 I've tidied up and updated the documentation for Public Monuments 
 Sculpture Association PMSA references:
 
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:PMSA_ref
...
 
 For example, WMbiBIxx288 is now:
 
 http://pmsa.cch.kcl.ac.uk/pmsa-database/6690/
 
 Should we tag with the URI as well as the ref?

What do you see the tag being used for?

--
Andrew


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

Re: [Talk-GB] FW: OpenStreetBugs PhaseOut: help needed, Mapping party

[Andrew Hain]

Andy Allan gravitystorm@... writes:

 
 Great to see lots of other people diving in over the last hour or so! Be bold!
 
 Cheers,
 Andy
 

Northern Ireland is now free of OpenStreetBugs.

--
Andrew


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Upcoming changes to OpenStreetMap.org website

[Andrew Hain]

Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes:

 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/announce/ :)
 (it's a bit unloved though... needs more people volunteering for CWG to
 help)

Could that go into the community blogs for people who follow OSM bu web pages?

--
Andrew


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Editor backbground layers in iD

[Andrew Hain]

SomeoneElse lists@... writes:

 
 
 I logged a bug with iD regarding the non-visibility of some items in
 the background layer
menu:https://github.com/systemed/iD/issues/1929#issuecomment-27236976
 The issue that I actually logged is actually being addressed as part
 of a different bug, but another question span out of it.  Of the
 available background layers: http://imgur.com/1O0KsiO
 are there any that can be omitted entirely?

Is there a useful distinction between the two 1:25000 layers?

--
Andrew


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