Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle routing over uncycleable BOATs
On 20 December 2012 23:36, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: (like the Unfit for Motors question, but for bicycles) I recently noticed that someone's changed the track between Stanage Pole and Redmires west of Sheffield to bicycle=no. It's been a few months since I was there (and the last time I was it was snowing horizontally) so I can't be sure but I suspect that this isn't correct - I think that it's a continuation of the BOAT that runs up Long Causeway. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/92398784 Not sure it is the exact bit you are talking but I've cycled down this bit and I'd never do it again. 'Gravel' it isn't, rather it is boulders and sharp loose rocks with up to 2 foot drops. I made it to the bottom still on the bike but I think it is the closest I've ever come to dying on my bike. Up would probably be impossible, down is just stupid unless you are way better than I am. Is the best way to indicate you're legally allowed to cycle here but would be an idiot to try* to add an mtb:scale tag of 0, or is there some other accepted (by mappers and routers) way of doing this? I've previously added surface tags to the bits I've mapped around here but I wouldn't expect a router to understand random values in that. Hard to judge from the photos and I don't have the experience but I'd say a minimum of s3 maybe s4 due to the loose rocks on the bit I've linked. -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] FW: Office of National Statistics data
On 31 October 2012 12:25, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Tom Hughes wrote: On 31/10/12 11:58, Steve Doerr wrote: On 31/10/2012 11:54, Tom Hughes wrote: On 31/10/12 11:51, Steve Doerr wrote: On 31/10/2012 11:44, Tom Hughes wrote: On 31/10/12 11:39, Steve Doerr wrote: Can we get this data into Nominatim? Why? What would it give us over the CodePoint Open data? Is that in there? I believe it is in Nominatim 2 yes. Is that different to what's used on www.openstreetmap.org for the Search box? That's where I want to see accurate postcode searching. The search box on www.osm.org uses nominatim.osm.org which as far as I know is running Nominatim 2 and includes Codepoint Open as a data source. Tom I've just tried searching osm.org for S42 7DT and the first answer is a street that is actually S42 7DY according to Chris's site. Is it perhaps just using the first S42 7## part? It does a search using the royal mail postcode but then returns only data found in OSM. It seems we might have lost the 'order by distance to the postcode' when I added the wikipedia importance code so it is now returning the 10 nearest roads in an arbitrary order. I'll try and get that fixed. I've always been concerned about merging the postcode data into the OSM output and lower lever indexing because of the uncertainty around the '© Royal Mail' part of the license. If this data is now being imported into OSM I assume I should now stop worrying about this? Or would people prefer that nominatim continues to only output true OSM data rather than a hybrid? -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] FW: Office of National Statistics data
On 31 October 2012 16:59, Kevin Peat k...@k3v.eu wrote: On 31 October 2012 14:50, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: I think this is quite a confusing approach. Post code searches often end up returning the wrong street that is also near the centroid, houses that don't belong to that post code that happen to be nearby, and also weird objects like trees and car club parking bays. +1 on that. When I search for my own postcode, as well as the buildings actually tagged with it the pub car park next door is also returned and a nearby unclassified road neither of which have a postcode set. I think in a postcode search it would be better not to return things that could never have a postcode. Making this sort of distinction (what can have a postcode) is incredibly difficult - for instance NCP carparks do have a postcode. -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Boundaries ...
On 23 September 2012 15:21, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: CP is part of the name in the OS Boundary-Line data. There doesn't seem to be any consensus or guidelines about what to put in the name tag. Should it be Dartford or Dartford Borough or Borough of Dartford or Dartford Council or something else? Is it naming the area, or the administrative entity governing it? As there are very many cases of areas at many levels named identically, from counties down to parishes, there needs to be some way of distinguishing between them. We have to watch out that we continue to distinguish distinct, unrelated hierarchies. In particular parish and ward mean different things according to the context. There are civil parishes, which are (by definition) a subarea of a higher-level local authority (normally district/borough or unitary authority) and ecclesiastical parishes: each religion/denomination has its own hierarchy of areas. The NHS has a geographic hierarchy as has Fire and Rescue. But they have only a certain correlation to governmental areas, with cases of one fire service serving multiple counties, and a counties being covered by multiple fire services (although I don't have an example of this to hand). An area at admin level 10 might be a civil parish, it might be an ecclesiastical parish, it might be an electoral ward etc etc. To me, boundary=administrative means the boundary belongs to government, which means it starts at level 2 with countries (leaving room for supra-national levels such as the EU) and includes regions, counties, unitary authorities, districts and civil parishes. Wards in this hierarchy should really be at admin level 11 (i.e. inferior to parishes). There are some special cases which don't fit the 100%: the Scilly Isles and City of London spring to mind. There is a hierarchy of parliamentary-electoral areas as well; the lowest quantum is the ward but these are not the same as the wards for local council purposes. Personally, and as the maintainer of nominatim I would be very happy to see admin_level dropped in favour of a set of specific tags (i.e. place=* or something similar). Admin_level is applied inconsistently and in ways that cause overlapping hierarchies. They also correlate badly between the place nodes and boundary relations - using a consistent set of tags across both would help no end in parsing the data! The current version of nominatim starts the process of linking admin boundaries to nodes - the next version will probably depreciate admin_level in favour of the place=* value from the label node where it is available. -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Millennium Greens Doorstep Greens
Searching OSM for name=Millennium Green shows that these are currently mapped as: * parks * village greens * nature reserves * recreation grounds * common land To me it looks like leisure=park is best (with the others used only when the exact same land area is also designated as one of the other types, all of which seem to have some official meaning). However this does not cover the Millennium Green status - perhaps designation=millennium_green? Alternatively we tag an area as leisure=millennium_green or designation=millennium_green just round the designated area and leave the park/common/whatever tag on a separate way (e.g. Millennium Greens may comprise part of a larger open space). Millennium Greens cover a wide range of on the ground usages. Same are clearly gardens, some parks, some nature reserves. Please do not retag these features to some perceived standard. I would also avoid overloading the designation key - better to have an explicit key than to reuse and existing key. About the only thing these area have in common is that they were all funded as part of the same project, if you want capture this information I would suggest something like: millennium_green=yes or how about: funding_source=Millennium Green -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens CROW Open Area land
are clearly gardens, some parks, some nature reserves. Please do not retag these features to some perceived standard. I would also avoid overloading the designation key - better to have an explicit key than to reuse and existing key. About the only thing these area have in common is that they were all funded as part of the same project, if you want capture this information I would suggest something like: millennium_green=yes or how about: funding_source=Millennium Green -- Brian Yeah you're entirely right that the land cover can be different. They have to include significant natural area. The one closest to me is a mix of grassy areas and woodland. Oddly it misses one part of grassy area. There is a local nature reserve that includes all the grassed area but not the wood!! It would make sense to me to tag the whole area as leisure=park and then to tag the Millennium Green and Local Nature Reserve as 2 separate closed ways. The whole area isn't a park so don't tag it as such. It is an area covered by a funding program / financial trust. Perhaps the landuse tag can be used. The main issue here is that the area is Please do not reuse existing tags (designation, landuse, whatever) to mean something new. Create a new tag that is explicit. Reusing an existing tag causes huge problems for data users. It isn't a type of landuse - which describes the physical usage of the land. On second thoughts, there is a boundary proposal that could work well: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reserve#Examples Looks like the boundary tag is already used: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dnational_park http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area Looking at the page on boundary=protected_area, perhaps class 7 is the right one for Millennium Greens? As Ed has said this probably isn't appropriate although it would seem closer. How about boundary=millennium_green ? Please - use a new tag. Don't try to twist an existing tag. Adding a new tag is not a bad thing - create it and document what you have done to the wiki. -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Strange Search Result in Devon or should that be Kelland Cross?
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: Barnett, Phillip phillip.barn...@... writes: Well, the bit _I'm_ wondering about is 'Devon County'!! Should now be fixed: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5148177 I expect it'll take some time for Nominatim to pick up the new data. On a related topic can I point out the large number of items being added named CP, Civil Parish or Parish at the moment. A few examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/947839 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/920051 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/910918 These will all suffer from a similar problem. Could I suggest possibly adding place=civil parish (or something similar) and not including this in the name. -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Strange Search Result in Devon or should that be Kelland Cross?
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 06/07/10 14:00, Brian Quinion wrote: On a related topic can I point out the large number of items being added named CP, Civil Parish or Parish at the moment. A few examples: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/947839 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/920051 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/910918 These will all suffer from a similar problem. Could I suggest possibly adding place=civil parish (or something similar) and not including this in the name. Sure, and what's with all the _SHOUTY_TAGS_WITH_UNDERSCORES_ shit? In this case ask SK53. I'd assume he is using some sort of automated import tool. Each of these relations was imported by a different user and there are others loading them from the OS data as well - hence the general post rather than messaging the individual user. -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator - using in JOSM
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: On Wednesday 21 April 2010, David Dixon wrote: I've been playing with the OS OpenData Locator dataset, which contains the XY coordinates for the ends midpoint of many of the UK's roads. This gazetteer appears to complement the StreetView data - some (short) streets whose names are absent from StreetView are included in OS Locator. Conversely, some streets named in StreetView are absent from OS Locator. This has been on my todo list since the data came out. I'm hoping to get to it next weekend during the hack weekend but if anyone else gets to it first I'll do something else! -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] London Underground roundel
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:01 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: As long as there is a consistent tag to base it on (e.g. operator) it should be very straightforward (he says, never having looked at the code!)- but in implementation it must be very similar to amnenity=place_of_worship subdividing by religion=christian church icons and religion=islamic mosque icons. I think it's the bureaucracy that is the harder issue. It's the amount of admin required and finding someone that has the time to spend creating, maintaining the logos (and presumably getting permission to use them) and to create the rules. Also, the icons need to be of a certain quality (for mapnik certainly). As a one off it is trivial but... The other question is where do we stop? It's certainly a whole can of worms and once the first one is on the map it will be hard to stop it snowballing. My feeling is that someone keen should investigate this on this own map server before attempting anything like this on the official mapnik layer. But starting the process of collecting logos and permissions is definitely a good thing. -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Rotherham mapping party this weekend (15th and 16th)
Hi, This is a notification / reminding that the Rotherham mapping party is happening this weekend. Due to recent mapping the focus of the party has shifted from central Rotherham to the West and surrounding areas - but there is still plenty to map! Details for the party are here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rotherham_Mapping_Party And the cake for the party is now up, although it may get tweaked on the day. While emailing, we have a minor issue that unfortunately we've not arranged to borrow any GPSs from the foundation. If anyone is in a position to bring a spare GPS that would be most appreciated. Add your name to the wiki or email me if you are intending to come. Cheers, -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Boundaries - update
1) Complete the conversion from boundary=administrative - boundary=ceremonial for the ceremonial-only counties. I will do this and also change the name of these to 'Blar (ceremonial)' to make a clear distinction from the administrative boundary. Changing them to boundary=ceremonial is great, but can I request that you don't add '(ceremonial)' to the end? This is implicit in the tagging and it is generally easier to automatically add a postfix than to remove it. -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Address, post code data base
Hi, I ran a little script against the data base of planning applications of Islington Council and ended up with around 16,500 address. Around 6,500 of them are relatively old and only have the first part of the post code. After tidying the data little and removing dupes, this still leaves 10,000 Islington addresses with a fully qualified post code, available in a plain text file for your perusal. So I was wondering if others have done the same for their area, and how to best share this data. Has anybody experimented with address data bases yet? Is there a preferred file format? Is there a drop-off point anywhere? I've got a set of scripts that parse and try and match/import the data to a seperate postcode database. The plan was to make it available as a combination geo-coding service and bulk data upload. The command line scripts are mostly working and produce quite usable results most of the time but I had a large project turn up at work before I could quite finish it or get the public interface written. That's just coming to an end now so I was expecting to get back to it. Relevant thread here: http://www.mail-archive.com/talk-gb@openstreetmap.org/msg01291.html My feeling was that this data was best kept in a seperate database because it might not be that accurate (multiple streets with same name) and in case of any copyright problems - I was going to make it available as a seperate download like NPE / Postboxes / etc. I'd love a copy of your data to try feeding into the code I've got - could you email it / let me have a copy? Might encourage me to get it finished :-) Cheers, -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping the unloved and unwashed
Has anyone made any plans for mapping parties for any of the unloved north yet? After cycling up and down the hilly climbs of Sheffield I quite fancy mapping somewhere flat like Lincolnshire :-) I've checked the wiki but didn't notice anything - so are their any unannounced plans in progress? -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping the unloved and unwashed
There is nothing prohibiting yourself organising mapping parties. I think the events are few and far between due to the not so great weather at this time of year. Why did I just know that was going to be the response :-) I'll probably be up for trying to organise something for Rotherham or Barnsley or somewhere at some point but realistically I probably don't have the energy to organise anything at the moment - turning up is probably about my limit! As for the weather - yes, it's a bit cold at the moment but now is presumably a good time to organise things for March and April. - Brian Has anyone made any plans for mapping parties for any of the unloved north yet? After cycling up and down the hilly climbs of Sheffield I quite fancy mapping somewhere flat like Lincolnshire :-) I've checked the wiki but didn't notice anything - so are their any unannounced plans in progress? -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping the unloved and unwashed
Should we investigate buying aerial photography for some of these un-loved places which would allow us the capture the base road structure and land-usage prior to any actual visit and speed things up a lot? The photography that Mikel and eye have been sorting out for Gaza Strip is costing $11 (£7.50) per sq km for 2 meter accuracy, 1 month old colour images (with the associated rights to derived mapping from them). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Palestine_Gaza Please, please NO! Mapping an area after it has been traced is: a) almost as much work as without the tracing (you still have to go down each road to look for missed features) b) very unsatisfying because it doesn't look like you have achieved anything I hate doing area that have been traced, I even hate doing areas that *I* have traced. It is however nice to fill in extra details that can only easily be done from aerial images like building outlines and other large features - I'd love to buy some aerial imagery for Sheffield for instance - but only once the basic mapping is *finished* please! Thinking ahead, should be set up an Aerial photography team who sort out the purchasing and hosting of commercial photography as and when required? I can see the point, but do this with great care please or I'm sure you will loose some dedicated mappers. -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possible Data Source For Bradford
Hi, It looks like the data is provided under licence from the Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright and so can't be used. -- Brian On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Kærast [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Bradford Council provide public gis information on rights of way, and other stuff at http://gis.bradford.gov.uk. Unfortunately it needs a Windows computer and special software installing to be used, and so I've been unable to look at exactly what is provided and whether it would be useful to us. Does somebody want to have a look and take on contacting them if it seems useful? Even if they're not willing to open source the data, it might still be useful to compare what we've got to see how complete we are. -- K__rast ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
