[Talk-GB] Hashtagging schools project chagesets
I have submitted nearly 80 changesets for schools in Denbighshire, but I only used the #OSMSchools on about half of these (once I had left it off one, I part-replicated the same non-hashtagged comment in subsequent comments). Is there any way to fix this? I believe that it is not possible to edit changeset comments. Does it help to put it into the discussion on the chageset? Moving on to Flintshire next, paying more attention to my comments. Bogus Zaba -- Dr Bogumil N Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Wales data
On 18/01/16 18:56, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > On 18 January 2016 at 16:41, Bogus Zaba <bog...@bogzab.plus.com> wrote: >> I was however a bit surprised to see that the progress tool referenced >> here : http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/ >> includes Welsh postcodes but uses Edubase rather than estyn as the data >> source. As far as I can make out, estyn is the more comprehensive data >> source for Wales, Edubase is by no means complete. > I set up http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/ . I was aware > of the Estyn source, but was hoping that Edubase already had all the > Welsh schools covered, as the Edubase data was easier to import > automatically. You seem to be suggesting that this isn't the case. It > looks like the Estyn numbers are actually a three-digit LA code > followed by a four-digit school code, which correspond to the > "LA/Establishment Number" stored in Edubase. I did a quick check with > the Isle of Anglesey schools, and it seems both Estyn and Edubase have > the same number -- 56. If you area aware of significant numbers of > schools missing from Edubase, then please let me know, and I'll see > how easy it would be to import the Estyn data too. In the mean time, > I'm afraid the Estyn codes won't be picked up by my tool. > > Robert. > Robert - Many thanks for prompt reply. I think on further investigation you are correct - Edubase *does* contain all the schools that I have looked at in this area based on the Estyn listing. I had a full list of Estyn-listed establishments and was cross-checking to the Edubase list but using only the web-based edubase query tool (http://www.education.gov.uk/edubase/home.xhtml). I now see that in using that query you have to be careful to try both "Ruthin" and "Ruthun" or "Denbigh" and "Dinbych" - ie English and Welsh versions of the placenames. Something you might think a local would not take too long to work out... Is there a way of downloading the whole of the edubase database so that I do not run into the problems of searching on terms that I may not get quite right? Thanks also for explaining the relationship between the estyn id and the edubase establishment - that helps in tying things together. At the end of the day however, if Welsh schools are tagged with ref:estyn=* but not with ref:edubase=*, am I right in thinking that they will not be picked up as "progress" in the quarterly project? Thanks again for your work and specific help on this. Bogus Zaba -- Dr Bogumil N Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Wales data
On 19/01/16 14:58, Lester Caine wrote: > On 19/01/16 13:17, Bogus Zaba wrote: >> Is there a way of downloading the whole of the edubase database so that >> I do not run into the problems of searching on terms that I may not get >> quite right? > http://www.education.gov.uk/edubase/edubasealldata20160119.csv > 36Mb, and a little slow downloading, but has all the data and seems to > be updated regularly even if it still has old website url's and other > content ;) > Lester - Thanks for this, but I think this link is not fully functional right now. Firefox, Chromium and a simple wget command all give me a truncated file about 6.6MB. Needless to say it's missing the Welsh Council areas. I'll try again tomorrow. I guess it's updated daily with the new date put into the filename / URL? Bogus Zaba -- Dr Bogumil N Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Wales data
On 19/01/16 15:25, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > On 19 January 2016 at 13:17, Bogus Zaba <bog...@bogzab.plus.com> wrote: >> At the end of the day however, if Welsh schools are tagged with >> ref:estyn=* but not with ref:edubase=*, am I right in thinking that they >> will not be picked up as "progress" in the quarterly project? > All UK ways and relations tagged with either amenity=school or > amenity=college will get picked up by my tool at > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/ . I then attempt to match these > OSM objects with the schools on the official lists. Any ref:edubase, > ref:seedcode and ref:deniirn values are used on a first pass, but > after that there is a second pass that matches each unmatched school > on the official list to the nearest OSM object within 1km that hasn't > yet been matched. In rural areas (schools generally more than 1km > apart) this works very well. In urban areas the tool can often match > things the wrong way. But a match will still correspond to a school in > OSM being counted, even if it's an incorrect match. > > So apart from some of the matches in the tool being wrong, almost > everything should still be counted. (The exception is if there's a > missing postcode in the official data, or the actual location of the > school is more than 1km from the postcode centroid. Then the match > won't happen.) > > Hope that helps, > > Robert. > OK, I get that now. I'll crack on with what I was doing last week. Main problems I am seeing is with schools apparently changing names (is it just a name change?) or adding new school on the same site as houses another one. Some will require ground surveys which I will not be able to do as I draw circles of greater and greater circumference from home base. Bogus -- Dr Bogumil N Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Wales data
Following the wiki guidelines ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects ) I have been adding a ref:estyn=* tag to schools which are local to me. I plan to cover some rather further afield if other mappers in Wales do not seem to be participating enthusiastically. I was however a bit surprised to see that the progress tool referenced here : http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/ includes Welsh postcodes but uses Edubase rather than estyn as the data source. As far as I can make out, estyn is the more comprehensive data source for Wales, Edubase is by no means complete. Would I be correct in assuming that the progress tool is not really something that we should be relying on when it comes to looking at Welsh schools? My own overpass turbo queries suggest that there are 1474 amenity=school tags in Wales of which 36 so far have a ref:estyn=* tag. I guess we have a little way to go... bogzab -- Dr Bogumil N Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools
On 02/01/16 15:24, Dave F. wrote: > On 02/01/2016 12:51, Brian Prangle wrote: >> That gives a total of 32,318 schools. Taginfo shows 27,191 schools >> which is 84.1% coverage in OSM. However 6,348 are represented as >> nodes only. It would be great to have these as polygons and >> associated buildings. It would also be great to have close to 100% >> coverage. >> >> This data comes from a cursory web search. If anyone has better or >> newer data, it's welcome. >> > > From experience I would say schools are the entities that are most > likely to be mapped with duplicating nodes & polygons, so I'm unsure > if those numbers are truly representative. I've even noticed that > individual school buildings are occasionally tagged as amenity=school > causing a similar problem to Cambridge University.. > > The boundary polygon should include not only the buildings & > playgrounds, but recreation grounds/sports pitches > > --- Local school here (Denbighshire, Wales) has been shown as a boundary polygon with tag amenity=school and the main school building is a polygon within the boundary tagged as building=school. Both polygons have a name tag which is the same (Ysgol Hiraddug). Is this the right way to tag? -- Dr Bogumil N Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools
Thanks. That makes sense and avoids the name duplication. On 03/01/16 14:31, SK53 wrote: > Generally I will place the name tag on the school grounds and not on > the buildings. This allows individual buildings to be given names, if > they have them: e.g., Science Block, Nursery. > > A couple of complications: > > * Campus sites: several schools share facilities, particularly > playing fields. The most complex one I know of is in Northwich > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.2470/-2.5336>. The shared > playing fields are mapped as leisure=recreation_ground with the > individual schools now being mapped as polygons, but sometimes it > is difficult without good local knowledge to separate out distinct > institutions. > * School Recreation Ground also available out of school hour, either > as a local rec., or in association with a sports centre co-located > with the school. In this case I think it can be left to the > mapper's discretion as to whether the school polygon includes the > playing field or not. > > Jerry > > > On 3 January 2016 at 13:40, Bogus Zaba <bog...@bogzab.plus.com > <mailto:bog...@bogzab.plus.com>> wrote: > > On 02/01/16 15:24, Dave F. wrote: > > On 02/01/2016 12:51, Brian Prangle wrote: > >> That gives a total of 32,318 schools. Taginfo shows 27,191 schools > >> which is 84.1% coverage in OSM. However 6,348 are represented as > >> nodes only. It would be great to have these as polygons and > >> associated buildings. It would also be great to have close to 100% > >> coverage. > >> > >> This data comes from a cursory web search. If anyone has better or > >> newer data, it's welcome. > >> > > > > From experience I would say schools are the entities that are most > > likely to be mapped with duplicating nodes & polygons, so I'm unsure > > if those numbers are truly representative. I've even noticed that > > individual school buildings are occasionally tagged as > amenity=school > > causing a similar problem to Cambridge University.. > > > > The boundary polygon should include not only the buildings & > > playgrounds, but recreation grounds/sports pitches > > > > --- > Local school here (Denbighshire, Wales) has been shown as a boundary > polygon with tag amenity=school and the main school building is a > polygon within the boundary tagged as building=school. Both polygons > have a name tag which is the same (Ysgol Hiraddug). > > Is this the right way to tag? > > -- > Dr Bogumil N Zaba > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > -- Dr Bogumil N Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Coastline - my botched attempt to re-align ?
A seawall was recently re-built in west Rhyl. As a result, and following two GPS surveys, earlier this week (Tue 20/10) I moved three features on the coast in West Rhyl. These were : the coastline, the boundary of a beach and the route of a cycleway which follows the new seawall. The cycle route and the beach boundary now render correctly on Mapnik and on the cycle map. However the coastline appears to follow the previous version (complete with some characteristic details which used to describe coastal structures on the old seawall). This has led to a rendering which shows a sliver of sea inland of my new coastline, beach and cycleway. See here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.3173/-3.5020 If I import the current OSM data into JOSM I can see no reason why this "ghost" coastline should appear in any rendering. There are no ways shown in the area where Mapnik and the Cyclemap show this sliver of the Irish Sea. Anybody suggest what I have done wrong and how to right it? Thanks bogzab -- Dr Bogumil N Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline - my botched attempt to re-align ?
Thanks both SK53 and Shaun - I'll wait patiently. On 23/10/15 14:14, Shaun McDonald wrote: > Hi, > > The coastline is updated at a much slower pace compared to everything else, > so it's expected that it won't align for some time in the map rendering. It > could be days, weeks, or months between coastline updates, and not minutely > updates like all of the other OSM data. So don't worry about it, the > coastline will update in due course. > > Shaun > >> On 23 Oct 2015, at 14:02, Bogus Zaba <bog...@bogzab.plus.com> wrote: >> >> A seawall was recently re-built in west Rhyl. As a result, and following >> two GPS surveys, earlier this week (Tue 20/10) I moved three features on >> the coast in West Rhyl. These were : the coastline, the boundary of a >> beach and the route of a cycleway which follows the new seawall. >> >> The cycle route and the beach boundary now render correctly on Mapnik >> and on the cycle map. However the coastline appears to follow the >> previous version (complete with some characteristic details which used >> to describe coastal structures on the old seawall). This has led to a >> rendering which shows a sliver of sea inland of my new coastline, beach >> and cycleway. See here: >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.3173/-3.5020 >> >> If I import the current OSM data into JOSM I can see no reason why this >> "ghost" coastline should appear in any >> rendering. There are no ways shown in the area where Mapnik and the Cyclemap >> show this sliver of the Irish Sea. >> >> Anybody suggest what I have done wrong and how to right it? >> >> Thanks >> >> bogzab >> >> -- >> Dr Bogumil N Zaba >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Environment Agency LIDAR datasets OGL licensed now available
On 22/09/15 10:34, Tim Waters wrote: > Hello, > > back in June we had a thread announcing that this LIDAR data was due > to be released. Well some of it has. > > https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2015/09/18/laser-surveys-light-up-open-data/ > > http://environment.data.gov.uk/ds/survey#/ > > I think it's just for England, and appears to be 1m and 2m composite > DTM and 1m and 2m DSM They do intend to release a Tiled version next, > and I think 50cm and 25cm are coming also > > What can we do with it? > > Cheers, > > Tim > ___ > Anybody know if Wales data also available? I've written to Natural Resources Wales to ask, but somebody knowledgeable on the list might reply quicker. Bogus -- Dr Bogumil N Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] useless survey?
On 24/09/15 20:41, malenki wrote: > Andy Townsend schrieb > am Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:54:38 +0100: > >> First of all - thank you for "properly mapping" this bit of the >> country. > You are welcome. But it isn't much fun when I have to look repeatedly > after "my" data to verify it hasn't vanished. > I can think of better ways spending my time. > >> It's a shame that you've met resistance doing this. With regard to >> the two sides to the argument, I'd tend to believe the person that >> writes changeset comments over the person that doesn't :) >> […] >> PS: If you come back at any stage may I suggest mid-Wales? Quite a >> lot there is still as it came from NPE: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/bta > Regarding the response to my attempts to communicate and the mapping > "cooperation" in these regions I am neither inclined to do much > regarding mapping after contributing the already collected > data nor to use OSM data now knowing who maps there how. Even > falsifying ways seems superfluous. > > Not least there is to mention the weather. Although there were only > about two wet weeks¹ from about four and the countryside is quite > beautiful when one is able to see it² I prefer places with less > humidity and more sun.³ :) > > Regards > Thomas > > ¹ > http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Av1qw1T8qBoGW7PQbaqn4A/photo > http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2_v7V7WN0563HJMEHRyJaw/photo > ² > http://malenki.ch/OSM/Bilder/mapillary/dscRX035751-58_mapillary_pano7.jpg > ³ > http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/a8ZuUvALFc3ZwgRKhMd-XQ/photo > > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Thomas - I think that the mapper with whom you had some disagreement shares you dislike of moisture and lack of sunshine. Hence prefers to do his mapping from the comfort of an office chair... I also had some correspondence with him over some local features, but I found that he was responsive and helpful. I must have caught him on some of Wales' sunnier days. Bogus -- Dr Bogumil N Zaba -- Dr Bogumil N Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What was the outcome of the discussion about C class roads with ref tags?
On 04/05/15 02:18, Dave F. wrote: Hi I seem to remember there was general consensus that C class roads shouldn't have their reference number in the ref tag as they aren't really for public use, such as on signs or maps, but the official use of local councils etc. It was suggested, therefore, to swap them to a tag like off_ref, or some such similar. Was this agreed upon? If there is consensus I personally think this would be a valid use of a mass edit due to the large number http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/98Y Does anyone have experience of doing such a auto edit? Cheers Dave F. If you go back in the archives of this list to 17/3/13 you will find a discussion labelled Refs on Tertiary and Unclassified Roads in Highland. You will perhaps not be surprised to see that there is no definitive outcome of the discussion but there are two suggestions (both seem to me to be perfectly sound) for alternative tags to use instead of ref= for these roads. The suggestions were official:ref= and official_ref=. I made a suggestion that we could use local:ref= but nobody seemed to think this was worth supporting. My reasoning was that these road references are maintained at a local level by Councils and have no national significance. Anyway I think that either of the tags which incorporate the word official seem to be acceptable. bogzab -- Dr Bogumil N Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Road Names Quarterly Project
On 10/02/15 15:56, Brian Prangle wrote: RobJN has added a bunch of Notes for Rotherham where we already have had a mapper step forward to try to resolve some of them, and Rob's tweeted the local Scouts. I've added a bunch of Notes for Liverpool (feel free to tweet anyone relevant - I'm not a twitter user) Let's see if our little campaign produces any results Regards Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Some of the Liverpool notes refer to places that I pass routinely on the bike when I cycle between Liverpool and Bootle (not right now after a small accident, but hopefully back in the saddle soon). What does resolve mean with respect to these notes? I could obviously re-map where new housing developments have been built - but is the idea to also put additional text into the note to say what you have done and whether you think the issue is all resolved? BZ -- Dr Bogumil N Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] highway=trunk Roads and Cycle Navigation
On 28/07/14 14:07, Dave F. wrote: Hi I must be missing something in your question, because what's wrong with adding the sub tags bicycle/foot = yes/no? Some users have been adding bicycle=no to UK motorways for this specific reasons. This would appear to be the right way to do it and my reading of the original post was that this was one of their proposed solutions. Only thing to avoid is an automated edit whereby all UK trunk roads suddenly have a bicycle=yes tag since there are plenty of stretches where this would be quite wrong (both in terms of legal status - road has a no cycling sign and in terms of bad/unsafe routing). bogzab ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Sustrans Cycle Maps - Copyright
If you buy a Sustrans Cycle paper map, you can find the following statements under Credits: Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of these maps, CycleCity Guides, Sustrans, their partners or OpenStreetMap cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions Town centre maps are made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Any rights in individual contents of the database are licensed under the Database Contents License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/. - See more at http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/#sthash.3lWlvXPb.dpuf Contains Ordnance Survey data (c) Corwn copyright and database right 2014. (c) CycleCity Guides and FourPoint Mapping. All rights reserved. This seems to be saying that use has been made in these maps of both OpenStreetMap data and OS data, but overall copyright is being claimed by CycleCity Guides and FourPoint Mapping. Does this make any sense? Or am I misunderstanding the last line of the above? Thanks Bogus Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] BBC article on volunteers mapping hillforts
On 07/08/2013 01:00 PM, Adam Hoyle wrote: On 8 Jul 2013, at 11:31, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Adam Hoyle wrote: This would be awesome information to have in OSM, but as it is historic information, sometimes with no obvious above ground visualisation, is it definitely appropriate for the project? (Personally I hope it is, but wanted to see what the consensus is). OHM has been set up exactly to support this type of data ;) But it looks a little empty at presnet :( http://www.openhistoricalmap.org/ Wow, I didn't realise such a thing existed - looks potentially rather awesome, although I agree it is slightly empty right now. What's the background / roadmap / plan with it? Is it 'owned' by OSM, or an offshoot? Best, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb I believe that a lot of volunteers in this area work with their local Historical Environment Record (HER - usually maintained by Local Authority) which is generally maintained as a database with added GIS links (increasingly well integrated). An initially minimal set of the data from these HERs is being nationally made available via the national Heritage Gateway website (http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk). An example of the sort of result you can get through searching this site for hillfort is here : http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1002662resourceID=5. Not sure if OSM volunteers really want to duplicate this effort, but it may be possible to obtain some of the mapping data from those who have compiled it for the HERs? Bogus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Complaining about refs on roads again!
On 05/01/2013 10:05 AM, David Earl wrote: On 01/05/2013 09:15, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: if someone comes with an alternative proposal for tagging those reference numbers on more minor roads (i.e. a specific key to use), which gains widespread support in the UK, I'd be happy to go along with that. According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref there is official_ref +1 for official_ref. This gets across immediately that we are dealing with an ID which is used in a official documentation and also hints that the average road user should not expect to see any sign of it on the ground. I changed a number of these ref tags to official_ref in Chester making the mapnik map much more readable (IMHO). Bogus Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possible Boundary Vandalism Warning
On 03/23/2013 05:28 PM, Colin Smale wrote: I had already suggested boundary=planning to SemanticTourist. Boundary=civil is rather ambiguous. In my eyes the boundary tag serves to differentiate which hierarchy the area belongs to. For example boundary=police might serve for police force jurisdictions, with different values of admin_level for force areas and districts (not sure exactly how they are organised). NP's don't have an admin function in the sense of a separate body to administer them, they are just documents with a legal status which are owned by (and binding on) certain bodies. There might also be Traffic Plans, Landscaping Plans etc etc. According to Wikipedia: In England the local planning authorities are 32 London borough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_borough councils, 36 metropolitan borough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_borough councils, 201 non-metropolitan district http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-metropolitan_district councils, 55 unitary authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authorities_of_England councils, the City of London Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation and the Council of the Isles of Scilly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_Isles_of_Scilly. Neighbourhood Plans are for subareas of the LPAs. Colin Boundary=planning would seem to be the obvious tag to use. Since neighbourhood plans will exist for some parts of the country but not for many others other tags such as admin with or without an admin level seem wrong to me. Seems pretty unclear how long-lived these plans and planning areas will turn out to be. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Refs on Tertiary Unclassifed Roads in Highland
On 03/17/2013 03:46 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: SK53 wrote: I'd be interested in what others think (these council based refs do appear elsewhere in the country: I can't recall ever seeing one on a road sign). I agree very, very strongly that unsignposted C-road numbers (or U, or D, or E, or whatever) should not be placed in the ref tag. It breaks people's expectations of OSM data (and it's not a harmless breakage - any turn-by-turn router which prefers refs over names will give out unfollowable directions). +1 for this. Setting out for Chester this morning, I look up the OSM map to see which way to go around the ring road. Zoom in to the area around the station. What are these strange codes appearing randomly on or near some roads? No way of knowing by just looking at the map or its key. Get the relevant area in JOSM. Oh, thanks, somebody thinks that adding tags like ref=UX60 and ref=UX505 is going to help me find my way around. Such tagging can only confuse, not assist an end-user. Knowing how the ref tag is used by major renderers, it seems to me to be simply perverse to add these tags to unclassified roads. I know that we should not tag for the renderer, but in cases where we know exactly what the renderer will be doing and that this particular outcome will be unhelpful to the end-user, let's use some common sense. By the way, in response to those who are saying that these are authoritative identifiers, which should take their place in our database, here's what the Dept of Transport says in its guidance to Local Authorities: /Some authorities choose to number their classified unnumbered roads, and can refer to them as C roads. This has no national standing, but we recognise that an authority may put in place measures to help identify a road. In the absence of a standardised national system of numbering, we advise that any local numbering is not displayed on signs/. [1] Not only do you not find these identifiers in the field, LAs are actively discouraged from showing them on signs. So perhaps if somebody really wants to add these IDs to the database, an appropriate tag would be local:ref=UX60? [1] Guidance on Road Classification and the Primary Route Network. Dept for Transport. Jan 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-road-classification-and-the-primary-route-network Bogus Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Rendering of disused railway stations
Has anybody else noticed / been annoyed by the way that disused railway stations are rendered just like regular railway stations on the cycle map, transport map and MapQuest open views of OSM? Mapnik seems to know the difference and renders the disused stations with a smaller symbol and grey label, but viewing the other three layers leads you to the conclusion that these are all regular stations. For an example see this (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.43943lon=-2.96918zoom=15layers=C) in North Liverpool where I was cycling using the cycle map recently. Bank Hall and Kirkdale are regular stations which are both useful landmarks for a cyclist and offer a potential ride home whereas Spellow and Walton Anfield do not exist. I understand that there are enthusiasts out there who are interested in historic maps, but the features which are important for that type of mapping can just get in the way of useful everyday find-your-way-around maps. Anybody know where should this be reported as a rendering bug? Thanks Bogus Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] SOTM 2013
On 10/09/2012 04:48 PM, Brian Prangle wrote: Hi everyone At our previous pub meeting for mappa-mercia on October 4 we had a great discussion about how we'd like SOTM2013 to come to Birmingham - so we got a group of volunteers (well everyone at the meeting) and have come up with an outline case for Birmingham Bid - see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Birmingham_Bid_Page or link to it from the main UK SOTM2013 discussion page There's been some response already to our prior discussion on talk-gb west midlands and some other mappers outside the West Midlands have offered support(encouragement?) Comments, criticisms and support welcome Best idea I have seen on this list so far. Brum is a genuine conference centre, visitors are invariably wowed by canals etc, and you appear to have a real critical mass of people willing to help. Plus there is a chance that I could get there from N Wales without breaking the bank... +1 to Brum. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Tagging Guideline - wiki page proposals
On 21/04/12 00:13, Andy wrote: Just a couple of quick notes: * The cycle path section is a bit misleading as it stands. The tagging you have shown is for standalone paths (i.e. mapped separately from a road); the majority of cycle paths in the UK are on the side of a road and thus should be tagged something like highway=primary,secondary..., cycleway=track, segregated=yes/no. I've copied the relevant section onto my user page and altered it: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Spark * I would prefer to see the 'UK Classic vs Global' stuff taken out - these are the *UK* guidelines and hence the best/commonest practice in the UK should be given. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb I should have read these tagging guides before. I have tried to map local cycle paths along the side of the road by creating a way parallel to the road and tagging it as a highway=cycleway. Do I understand from the above that it is better practice to simply add a cycleway=track tag to the main highway? My excuse for doing it via a separate way is that I was copying somebody else's practice and I could see that his way of doing it resulted in nice rendering on the Cycle Map which can be accessed from the main map page. Bogus Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Onward Travel Information posters
On 29/03/12 14:24, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Just spotted, for the first time, one with correct attribution! Brand new poster at Burton-on-Trent station. Will post a pic when I'm, um, not on the train. :) cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Some of the posters appear on the PlusBus website - I found ones for Bath Spa and Bristol TM and Bristol Parkway. All with OSM attribution. BZ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] JOSM presets for rights of way in England and Wales
On 04/02/12 20:00, Nick Whitelegg wrote: --- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#JOSM_presets_now_available Comments on these presets and how they might be improved are welcome! I may have not been reading this list thoroughly but I did not realise that highway=path is a vexed issue. I have been tagging rural footpaths this way for some time, while I have used highway=footway for more urban footways. I see from the table in the wiki which you link to above (labelled Presets 0.7 (2012-01-29)) that none of these recommendations include a highway=path tag. Should I therefore re-tag my paths according to your table? This is a somewhat contentious issue, but all I can say is that this is precisely what I do and several others. Remember to also use the designation tag to specify the rights, public_footpath / public_bridleway / byway_open_to_all_traffic etc. highway is generally taken to indicate the physical condition of the way, e.g. highway=track if it's a track rather than a path. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Thanks. Good to know that I was not doing something stupid - I think I was just doing what others seem to have done (and of course it rendered in a way that seemed to make sense). I have been distinguishing between paths and tracks on the basis of their physical characteristics, but have not made much use of the the designation tag. Now that I see how this works, I have applied to a few recent ways and will work through other previous ways I have mapped. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] JOSM presets for rights of way in England and Wales
On 27/01/12 20:30, Andrew Chadwick wrote: Beta presets for path-like rights of way in England and Wales are now available in JOSM. They have pretty icons and everything! You can get them at https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Presets/EnglandWalesRightsOfWay or via Edit - Preferences - Map Settings - Tagging Presets. They're listed as Rights of way in England and Wales. It would be great if you could test them out! This is a hybrid approach to the vexed issues surrounding highway=path. The description states that it tries to [use] the good bits out of the global tagging style while retaining our ancient folkways and customs. Details and rationale can be found in the presets bundle itself and on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#JOSM_presets_now_available Comments on these presets and how they might be improved are welcome! I may have not been reading this list thoroughly but I did not realise that highway=path is a vexed issue. I have been tagging rural footpaths this way for some time, while I have used highway=footway for more urban footways. I see from the table in the wiki which you link to above (labelled Presets 0.7 (2012-01-29)) that none of these recommendations include a highway=path tag. Should I therefore re-tag my paths according to your table? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Example of OSM National Turst property map?
On 01/02/12 18:27, Graham Jones wrote: Looks useful - could you add Cadw and Historic Scotland to the highlighted operators? (EG http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/117407496 ) Done! http://maps3.org.uk/EH_NTMap Now does CADW, Historic Scotland and Scottish Heritage. I ran out of coloured dots though, so will need some non-copyright infringing icons to use Graham. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Estate roads, footpaths and woodland etc all mapped extensively for Calke Park and Calke Abbey (Derbys/Leics border). If you mean the house and other properties, then that has not been done. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Re-mapping : Are these two ways both valid ?
On 20/01/12 15:58, woll wrote: I don't really have any LEGAL opinion/knowledge to answer your question with, but here is my experience: When I first started remapping, I took your option 1 (delete the feature and re-create it) because I felt that that option would ensure that no non-odbl tainting could happen. I only added tags that I could get independently from odbl-compatible sources, or from existing knowledge (so some tags may have not been 'transferred' onto the new version). To 'transfer' the maximum number of tags, you need to look at the history in detail, to see which tags are from users who have agreed to the CTs (if you can't 'transfer' the tags from your own knowledge/odbl-compatible sources. To find non-odbl tainted data, I used: http://cleanmap.poole.ch/ the licence layer on the OSMI at tools.geofabrik.de/osmi and the licence highlighting of Potlatch. As I progressed, I started do a stricter version of your option 2, by investigating the features in more detail, mainly using the info provided by: http://osm.mapki.com/history/ that shows which tags/features are non-odbl tainted. My stricter criteria for option 2 is NO data remains from non-agreers (not your enough has been done by other licence-accepting contributors that the feature no longer belongs to the original contributor). In a lot of the cases where I was working, I found various situations like: a) All the original nodes of the feature (from users not agreeing to the CTs) had been deleted (and new ones added) b) The only tags remaining from users who have not agreed to the CTs were factual tags like the name of the road or the number of the road, that I could easily get from odbl-compatible sources/knowledge. c) All the original nodes had been moved by agreeing users (presumably by aligning to aerial imagery/more accurate GPS tracks) d) The only thing remaining from non-agreers was a small percentage of the nodes in a way, and those nodes were not very accurately positioned. When I found that ALL the non-odbl data had actually been replaced, then I added odbl=clean (this last step might not be necessary in some cases, because the tools could probably be extended to work this out for themselves if they looked at the history in detail, but I did it to be safe). When I found that the only non-odbl data remaining, could be got from odbl-compatible sources/knowledge, I re-added it, and added odbl=clean (the last bit is necessary, because even though I deleted and re-added the tags, the tools can't tell that I actually did that (because the tags are exactly the same). If there were any non-odbl tags remaining that I couldn't get from odbl-compatible sources/knowledge then I deleted them. This was very rare for the features I was looking at, and was only 'irrelevant' things (e.g. not very useful notes). I probably didn't need to do this, as for most situations, I expect that the final process that will transfer the data would automatically delete these tags (it wouldn't delete a way just because there was just 1 non-odbl tag remaining, it would just delete that tag and keep everything else. however adding the odbl=clean tag means that the existing visualisation tools will then display things correctly). If the only non-odbl data remaining was a small percentage of the nodes in a way, I deleted/replaced them with more accurate ones based on more accurate GPS tracks or imagery (and normally took the opportunity to add more nodes for more accuracy). So, option 2 is not really less work - it actually takes quite a long time to look at the history in detail (and then drilling down to look at all the nodes of a way). Option 1 is not necessarily more work either: Unless you can easily get all of the tags from odbl-compatible sources/knowledge (or you don't care if you don't 'transfer' all of the existing tags) then you also need to look at the history in detail. To specifically answer your questions: Your option 1 is obviously legal/ethical (you're deleting everything and recreating it) I personally would not be happy doing your option 2 (which would vary on everyone's different interpretation of enough). The re-mapping I have done is stricter than that and ensures that there is no tainting remaining (but that means that option 2 is not necessarily less work than option 1). -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-mapping-Are-these-two-ways-both-valid-tp7205346p7208034.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Thanks very much for this comprehensive answer. I can see that I was being a bit naive in my approach to option (2), although locally some of the history does not appear to be all that complex so checking it thoroughly might not be as big a job as it would be for data that has been touched by the hands of many, many
[Talk-GB] Re-mapping : Are these two ways both valid ?
I posted this to a recent thread, but was unanswered possibly because all those involved thought it was over and done with. I could still do with an answer though. Sorry to ask such a naive sounding question in this thread where there are clearly many involved who know *a lot about the subject, but I am left rather unsure about what we mean when we say that we need to do some re-mapping of nodes and ways which are in danger of removal when only contributions from new licence acceptors is allowed in the OSM database. Seems to be one of two processes (in order of decreasing level of effort required): 1. Delete the features contributed by the non-acceptor. Replace with brand new feature from either gps survey or from acceptable imagery/mapping sources or combination. If I understand correctly then if the non-acceptor is the author of version 1 of the feature, then this will result in loss of all subsequent history as well, so that we will essentially have version 1 of a new feature and no trace of the previous feature. 2. Review the history of the feature. Decide if, even though the original contribution was from a non-acceptor, enough has been done by other licence-accepting contributors that the feature no longer belongs to the original contributor. If this is the case, tag with odbl=clean and forget about it. My question is : Are both of these approaches acceptable from a legal/ethical perspective and will they both work (ie will both result in features that will make it into the database following Apr 1st? For features in my local area (NE Wales) I and others with local knowledge could clearly follow either or both of these approaches, but (2) is obviously less time-consuming and preserves much more of other people's hard work. Bogus Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] GB License Change Readiness
Sorry to ask such a naive sounding question in this thread where there are clearly many involved who know *a lot about the subject, but I am left rather unsure about what we mean when we say that we need to do some re-mapping of nodes and ways which are in danger of removal when only contributions from new licence acceptors is allowed in the OSM database. Seems to be one of two processes (in order of decreasing level of effort required): 1. Delete the features contributed by the non-acceptor. Replace with brand new feature from either gps survey or from acceptable imagery/mapping sources or combination. If I understand correctly then if the non-acceptor is the author of version 1 of the feature, then this will result in loss of all subsequent history as well, so that we will essentially have version 1 of a new feature and no trace of the previous feature. 2. Review the history of the feature. Decide if, even though the original contribution was from a non-acceptor, enough has been done by other licence-accepting contributors that the feature no longer belongs to the original contributor. If this is the case, tag with odbl=clean and forget about it. My question is : Are both of these approaches acceptable from a legal/ethical perspective and will they both work (ie will both result in features that will make it into the database following Apr 1st? For features in my local area (NE Wales) I and others with local knowledge could clearly follow either or both of these approaches, but (2) is obviously less time-consuming and preserves much more of other people's hard work. Bogus Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] For motorway travellers...
On 02/01/12 18:55, OJ W wrote: The Good Pub Guide used to have a useful section for places that you could get dinner as an alternative to motorway service stations. I wondered if it was possible to do the same thing using OpenStreetMap data. So KML available at http://ojw.dev.openstreetmap.org/driving_pubs/ (data from September) -- and if anyone wants to go on a spree of tagging other favourite lunch-spots with food=yes then I can regenerate that page from time to time. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Nice idea. Not sure about a spree but I just tagged three close-to-motorway pubs known to me in the Wirral/Chester area with the requisite food=yes tag. Bogus Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS VectorMap water feature import
On 11/12/11 11:26, Borbus wrote: First of all, when I say import I mean a manual import: reprojection of OS shapefiles, conversion to OSM data and careful processing in JOSM before uploading. I'd really like to get all the water features from OS into OSM. It's very useful data and also makes maps prettier. It's quite a laborious task, though, as the data requires manual creation of multipolygons and of course merging with any water features we already have. I have already done a small amount here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.6006lon=1.6362zoom=13layers=M Although I have not joined together all gaps, just some gaps where a way crosses it and it is obviously a conduit. Now I have split the Vectormap square TG into smaller chunks which I plan to process one by one and upload. The amount of data in just this square is quite large, but it's still probably less than half of Norfolk. Have any large scale imports from this dataset already been done? Do people think this is a good idea? Any suggestions regarding the process? Happy mapping, Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Plenty of those responding seem to be saying good idea in principle, but huge amount of effort required. Just to add my voice to this line and to provide a bit of experience. Before I left the Environment Agency about three years ago I was involved in a project to do something a bit like this. The source data was different (Master Map) and the ambition for output was in some ways more modest (centreline only required), but it had to be (a) as comprehensive as possible including all the MasterMap features and (b) had to be topologically complete with no gaps etc. A lot of money was spent on the project and we were constantly having to re-draft budgets and time-scales as it became clear just how big a job this was going to be. The local knowledge (an important requirement as emphasised by many here) was provided by Agency Area staff who are familiar with the river network in their area. The project was completed after I left, as a result of which the Agency does now have a good centreline river network (described along with other Agency datasets here http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/GEHO1210BTHN-E-E.pdf ) but this took several years and considerable internal and consultancy human resource to compile. I think that at least some aspects of the detailed methodology used have been published. I will look into this and if I find it, will post links to this list. I know that we have an army of enthusiastic volunteers, which can to some extent substitute for money and paid GIS technicians, but to be really comprehensive in this type of mapping requires access to many miles of water features which run through private land and cannot therefore be ground-truthed with the GPS-in-my-hand methodology. In my local area (North East Wales) I have contributed to OSM data on roads, cycleways, footpaths and boundaries. I am not sure whether I would feel able to systematically improve much on the water features which I see in current OSM data - minor amendments in some easily accessible areas would be the best I could do. I would not feel comfortable importing features from OS Vector data which I would never be able to get around to seeing on the ground. Bogus Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] District Boundaries - N Wales
Peter Miller wrote: On 22 Aug 2009, at 12:03, Chris Hill wrote: Well I'm pleased that they agree with me, but I'm not the oracle! This is another source quoting the same general information. Do the Scottish and Northern Irish counties generally extend to the low water mark too? Drawing from the NPE maps seems to be our only reasonable source for the low water mark. Great stuff. Low water does however change much more rapidly that high water so NPE is the 'least good' source of that date as it is 50 years old. If one is fortunate enough to have detailed enough recent aerial photography that that should be used. Fyi, for Suffolk the low water mark has changed by 50 meters in places in the past 5 years (huge amounts of shingle has arrived near Felixstowe Ferry extending low water by that amount since I have lived in the area). Even the high water mark has moved by many meters over 50 years in some places including Dunwich. One can see the different in Potlatch comparing the OSM coastline with NPE base mapping. We have good yahoo aerial photography for pasts of the coast in Suffolk. However... I support the idea we use best low-water source availale for each area. It might be good to create areas between high and low water tagged with 'shingle', 'beach' etc. Should be also use low water as the edge of 'Wales' itself or has any evidence for the 3 mile limit mentioned by the wiki by someone been found? Regards, Peter Bogus Zaba wrote: I have had confirmation from the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales who agree with the view below from Chris Hill. They say : ...in general the seaward extent of a local authority is the low water mark as defined by Ordnance Survey. The exception to this are certain islands such as Flat Holm (which comes under Cardiff), where the courts have made specific decisions, such as Milford Haven, and where the Secretary of State has made an Order extending the local authority boundary to include an area of the sea (under Section 71 of the 1972 Act). As far as I am aware no such orders have been made in respect of Welsh local authorities. That's good enough for me. I will define the low water mark from NPE and use that in the Flinthsire and Denbighshire boundaries. Bogus Zaba Regarding the Wales national boundary I should have mentioned that my contact at the Local Govt Boundary Commission for Wales also answered this partially. Words were : As far as I am aware Wales by itself does not have territorial waters. I think it just has the UK territorial waters because it is part of the UK. The Commission no longer have any remit for the Wales National Boundary as the section dealing with this was repealed from the 1972 Act some time ago. For our work we consider Wales to be the sum of the LA boundaries. Bogus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] District Boundaries - N Wales
I have completed the following relations for Unitary Authority Boundaries and put them in the Wales Wiki : Wrexham (137981), Flintshire (198566) and Denbighshire (192442). Now some inevitable questions: 1. How should Flintshire and Denbighshire be completed out at sea? On the Wales Wiki it says The current Wales Boundary (08 July 2009) is both wrong and unhelpful. So I guess I should not be using that. Currently Unitary Authority boundary lines go out to sea traced from the NPE, but they do not join up with any coastal boundary. As it happens in this part of NE Wales, nobody seems to have made the coastline (high water mark?) ways to be members of the national boundary relation, although that has been done for about 70% of the welsh coastline. 2. In putting together the relations for these boundaries I found myself splitting a lot of roads and streams into relatively short sections so that I could then make these sections members of the boundary relation. Is this recognised good practice, or is it better to make a separate boundary way which simple shares nodes with the relevant stream or road etc ? 3. In doing all this I have used the NPE layer which can be used as a backdrop in josm and potlatch. I have realised that this NPE is not the same NPE as can be found in other places (eg the postcode collection application at http://www.npemap.org.uk/). The latter is clearer than the tiles in josm and potlatch especially regarding parish boundaries (which you find yourself tracing) which are nice dotted lines in the postcode application and faded grey lines in the josm/patlatch layers. Can the clearer (newer?) tiles be made available in the osm editing environments ? Thanks Bogus Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way
Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hello Godfrey, Sorry I should have made another point: If it's a path which you know is a right of way via an Ordnance Survey map, but cannot verify that on the ground, again you must use foot=permissive even if that's not true. This is because you can't verify the right of way status from a non copyright source. To even tag such a path as foot=permissive you need some sort of evidence that it's being used by walkers (e.g. seeing other walkers on the path, Keep to path signs, local custom e.g. all paths in the New Forest have permissive public access). If you see a path where the *only* evidence that you can use it is an OS map, then you probably can't even use foot=permissive. In such cases you'll just have to tag as highway=path as the only thing you can verify from a non copyright source is the physical nature of the way. Perhaps foot=unknown or access=unknown too, or note=Might be private. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Surely if you have walked it and not been thrown of my man with gun or mad dog, then you can assume that it is indeed foot=permissive ? Bogus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Wales Boundaries (Wrexham Denbighshire)
I have been working on these two relations. Wrexham is finished and the entries on the WikiProject Wales are complete, because somebody already put them there - I just fixed the relation (137981) and some of its members. With Denbighshire however I made a new relation (192442) and am slowly adding various ways that will make up this boundary. Not sure however how to edit the Denbighshire entry in the wiki to add the links to the way and the various analysis tools (b a r j links). Can someone point me in the right direction to do this. Hope to move on to Flintshire and Conwy once Denbighshire is done. Bogus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] How are we doing admin boundaries and what does nnnnnn b a r j stand for ?
Sorry if this contains some really stupid questions, but i have poked around the mailing list and the wiki and not been able to answer them for myself. 1. Given that we are not allowed to use official OS data (many threads on this topic), how is it that boundaries are progressing really well (title of recent thread)? If I want to contribute to my local boundaries (Denbighshire - there appears to be very little done at any level) how do I go about it ? 2. On the wiki pages for English and Welsh boundaries there are (following the name of the county, UA etc) links to data for a relevant relation followed by links marked b a r and j - how should I interpret these code letters. btw the r and j links seem to not work for me anyway. Thanks Bogus Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] How are we doing admin boundaries and what does nnnnnn ba r j stand for ?
Peter Miller wrote: On 27 Jul 2009, at 17:25, Bogus Zaba wrote: Sorry if this contains some really stupid questions, but i have poked around the mailing list and the wiki and not been able to answer them for myself. 1. Given that we are not allowed to use official OS data (many threads on this topic), how is it that boundaries are progressing really well (title of recent thread)? If I want to contribute to my local boundaries (Denbighshire - there appears to be very little done at any level) Great how do I go about it ? We are using old OS maps (the 1950's OS version available in Potlatch). We are also using local knowledge and then quess-work where all else fails (ie using high-water mark) until we find otherwise. We are also quietly encouraging the government to release the official data. Don't use complete guesswork, but if there is a short section that is not clear I add it as best I can and add a note saying it isn't accurate. In some cases there is no way of legally getting the information other than looking at bin lids and other extreme measures (I am not joking about bin lids either). The lack of complete accuracy should help extract the official data from the OS. 2. On the wiki pages for English and Welsh boundaries there are (following the name of the county, UA etc) links to data for a relevant relation followed by links marked b a r and j - how should I interpret these code letters. btw the r and j links seem to not work for me anyway. There seem to be problems with r and j at present for at least some boundaries. Boundaries are created using ways and relations. You can read about them here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary When you have created a new relation you can add it to the England wiki page in the same format as the others. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_England#Regions_of_England Its not entirely simple so feel free to ask more questions if needed. Regards, Peter Thanks Bogus Zaba ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Peter Thanks for your helpful response. First question of the more questions would be : when you say 1950s OS version available in Potlatch - where exactly is that available? I have done most of my editing from my own GPS track logs in JOSM, but I have used Potlatch a bit and have seen an options dialog where you can ask for a different background, one of the choices being something you can type in for yourself. Is this what I want and if so what do I type in here? Thanks Bogus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
