Re: [Talk-GB] Wish LIst for Mapnik Stylesheet (overmapping of private features)
I would hope that whoever might fix the bugs in the rendering stylesheet would start with those rather than discard all of them and start with a new bug list on github. That is step 3 on the roadmap described on the openstreetmap-carto repo: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto#tackle-the-backlog-v3x I am appreciate that the patches welcome response is not tremendously positive, but, culling issues from trac and transferring them over to the github issue tracker would be a quick and easy way to help getting the issues you care about fixed. Regards, Craig On 8 September 2013 17:19, Andrew M. Bishop osm-li...@gedanken.org.ukwrote: Chris Fleming m...@chrisfleming.org writes: On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 02:45:51PM +0100, OpenStreetmap HADW wrote: Is there a mechanism for getting requests onto the wish list for the Open Street Map Mapnk style sheets? I would look at adding an Issue to the github project: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto There are already 439 open tickets in the OSM trac system for mapnik rendering: https://trac.openstreetmap.org/query?status=!closedcomponent=mapnik I would hope that whoever might fix the bugs in the rendering stylesheet would start with those rather than discard all of them and start with a new bug list on github. -- Andrew. -- Andrew M. Bishop http://www.gedanken.org.uk/mapping/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fwd: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
I have been using prow:ref, just because I came across it in the mailing lists. I have not added many (~60 prows) and I don't mind converting those over to prow_ref if that is the consensus. My preference would be for prow:ref, as the colon is the 'standard' way to define namespaces, and I am not convinced that prow_ref is not just a namespaced tag. It is using the prow_ prefix to distinguish the prow object from the way object. 1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:* name-space. So currently prow:ref would be the only tag used. Is it wise to preclude adding more tags to the namespace? As an example, one additional tag that occurs to me is prow:operator (or prow:authority), to describe the local authority the references 'belong' to. 2/ source:prow_ref doesn't have the ambiguity / ugliness that source:prow:ref has. (Ssince the reference numbers aren't often recorded on the ground, it's probably useful to record the source.) I was just using source:ref, without really thinking about it. Taginfo has only 2 uses of source:prow:ref, which makes me feel better. There are examples of this pattern, in source:hgv:national_network (67 k) and source:addr:postcode (17 k). I agree source:prow:ref looks ugly, but I am not clear what is ambiguous about it? 3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref, route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather than the alternative colon separated versions. This seems like an appeal to popularity; one could point to tree:ref or some other *:ref. Craig On 31 December 2012 22:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref, I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have been the better option. Setting aside the issues of popularity, my preference would be for prow_ref rather than prow:ref for a few reasons: 1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:* name-space. So currently prow:ref would be the only tag used. 2/ source:prow_ref doesn't have the ambiguity / ugliness that source:prow:ref has. (Ssince the reference numbers aren't often recorded on the ground, it's probably useful to record the source.) 3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref, route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather than the alternative colon separated versions. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ 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] railway:historic = rail tags
However, there are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been realigned or ripped up, should these also be removed from the database? I think highway=no is typically used as a temporary tag to try to stop remote mappers from adding something from a source that is not up to date. In practice they probably sit around in the database in perpetuity, but it still seems quite different to actively map dismantled and abandoned railway lines. As others have mentioned, railway=dismantled seems fine. However, what is the argument for keeping connections between sections of dismantled railway, that have since been split by modern developments? As an aside, how would one map a dismantled railway bridge? And, how would one map an intact but disused bridge from which the railway tracks have been removed? Craig On 3 July 2012 22:47, Donald Noble drno...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who has added a few railway=dismantled ways to the map, I thought I might add in my reasoning. Railways, by their nature, link places and are pretty much continuous. So in areas (like Glasgow) where there are sections of old railway infrastructure visible on the ground I have mapped these as r=disused or r=abandoned depending on whether the tracks are still in-situ. But I find it useful if these can be linked by sections of r=dismantled (or some other tag) that reflects that there was a railway there, even if all traces are now gone, as this can make sense of the remnants that are there. I appreciate there is a line between mapping what is on the ground and creating a database of historic routes, and perhaps dismantled railways crosses that line (if you'll excuse the pun). However, there are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been realigned or ripped up, should these also be removed from the database? Personally, I wouldn't map a long section where there once was a railway but it has now been completely obliterated by this complex housing estate and shopping centre, but I have mapped a place where an abandoned railway was obliterated by a carpark but the remains of it are visible on either side (and on 3ish year old bing imagery). This doesn't really address the OP regarding railway:historic=rail versus railway=dismantled, which I have no real views on, as neither appears on most map renderings. Although I have recently changed a couple of railway=station+disused=yes nodes to railway:historic=station, where there is no visible evidence left on the ground (and so they are no use for navigation), so maybe railway:historic=rail keeps things tidier. regards, Donald -- Donald Noble http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble ___ 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
[Talk-GB] OSM use on ITV in Lewis
For those interested in use of OSM data, in the latest Lewis [1] at ~55 min they show a 'fictionalised' OSM map of Oxford (the Jericho/Walton Manor area). It definitely uses OSM data but with lots of modifications to include features from the episode, and to remove inconvenience things like streets and the canal. Hathaway, the irreverent Sgt, in a classic piece of procedural police drama, draws several x marks and a giant triangle on the map. Needless to say, there is no attribution in the credits, so I did not feel too bad taking screenshots [2, 3] (I'm afraid they are not very clear). Pretty much everything west of Woodstock Road up to Port Meadow has been invented [4]. [1] http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=317466 [2] http://craigloftus.net/tmp/lewis/1.jpg [3] http://craigloftus.net/tmp/lewis/2.jpg [4] http://osm.org/go/eutD0~iS Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] London 2012 tourch relay route
Tim, I have customers with 1000+ trucks around the country between them who are extremely interested in the precise location of the torch route for exactly this reason. Are you saying that their potential use of OSM is in some way invalid? The rejection of the torch route was not because it was not useful or interesting, but because it does not fit with what those people see OSM as trying to achieve. The torch route is exactly the sort of value-added service a company such as yours can/should build-on OSM, but that does not mean it has any place in OSM data. While it's clearly ephemeral, in the sense that it is of limited duration - so is much geographical data. Weather, for example. Is weather geographical data? Are you holding that up as an example of something else that should be in OSM? Out of interest, is Optrak an OSM consumer? A quick glance shows your website mentioning OS and Navteq as map providers. Regards, Craig On 7 April 2012 18:19, TimPigden tim.pig...@optrak.com wrote: While it's clearly ephemeral, in the sense that it is of limited duration - so is much geographical data. Weather, for example. In this case if you were trying to make deliveries into a town through which the torch was been carried, it would make sense to avoid being there at that time. I have customers with 1000+ trucks around the country between them who are extremely interested in the precise location of the torch route for exactly this reason. Are you saying that their potential use of OSM is in some way invalid? -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/London-2012-tourch-relay-route-tp5576344p5624879.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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bing Images
This one is at least twice as good. http://binged.it/GPumvM Craig On 9 March 2012 14:26, Mike Valiant mike_vali...@hotmail.com wrote: The node below it should be tagged as: under_flight_path=yes! From: h...@cantab.net To: nick.w.aus...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 12:33:30 + CC: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bing Images On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 10:29 +, Nick Austin wrote: I've not seen this before on Bing Images but it was bound to happen sooner or later: hmmm, what should we map that as? ___ 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update
*and where those contributions have since been superceded or washed out by subsequent changes* I think people understand this is important, but the wording is so vague and examples of appropriate usage given on the list vary wildly. The example you gave still allows for IP to be present in the history of the node... *shrug* To try and clear things up, for myself at least, can I get comment on some contrived examples of practice I have used and I've seen used by others? All non-odbl nodes in the examples below are deleted or no longer existed. Most ways I've come across no longer have any positional IP from the original creator. When commenting, please do explain why they differ from accepted practice. == A == Way V1: railway=rail Way Vn: railway=rail electrified = contact_line frequency = 50 gauge = 1435 passenger = yes source:electrified = observation tracks = 4 usage = main voltage = 25000 + odbl=clean - presence of railway checked against recent Bing and OS == B == V1: highway=residential name=Garden Street Vn: highway=residental name=Garden Street maxspeed=20 mph - name=Garden Street + name=Garden Street source:name=OS_OpenData_StreetView odbl=clean - 'notional' deletion of name attribute and re-naming with StreetView or Locator sources == C == V1: highway=primary ref=A38 Vn: highway=trunk ref=A27 name=Oxford By-pass source:ref=OS_OpenData_StreetView + odbl=clean - IP exists in history but all attributes over-written If someone rejects all those uses, then basically every odbl tag I've added is incorrect and all those I've happened upon as well. My next request will be for an admin to revert about 100 changesets *weeps* This will be all the more annoying because I thought I was being careful; I read the documentation, read examples from multiple posters, looked at the history of every way I touched, and actually spent quite a bit of time re-mapping many ways I came across. Cheers, Craig On 23 March 2012 13:14, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy sources? Use odbl=clean to clear features which contain historic contributions from people who have not agreed to the new contributor terms [...] *and where those contributions have since been superceded or washed out by subsequent changes* Emphasis mine. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:odbl%3Dclean So if there's a path, and it's not clean, you can't just clean it by adding the tag - that's not what the tag is for. It means that absolutely no trace of the original IP remains in the current version, and you've checked there's no residual IP. An example would be a node tagged amenity = pub, that happens to have been moved, the tag removed, and incorporated into the middle of a road junction. Of course, I've been advising people from the beginning to avoid the tag in the first place. Since so many people are misunderstanding it, and accidentally misusing it, it has become meaningless. Therefore I don't see how it can be relied upon during the license change, and if it can't be used with confidence, there's even less point in tagging anything with it. I ask as I am intending to do some remapping of Andy Street's paths in the Bishops Waltham/Meon Valley area and wondering whether I have to actually walk the paths again or just tag with odbl=clean You don't have to walk the path if you can map it using other techniques, such as GPS traces, Bing, OOC maps etc. Especially if you know the path well enough to know how it goes (e.g. it's straight through a particular patch of woods) then just remap it remotely. Cheers, Andy ___ 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] Un-relicensable roads - now with secondary roads included
I've been working down the list in ID order (though you can sort the columns if you want) And some. I ordered by type and randomly clicked on a dozen and haven't found one you haven't already squashed. I have better luck finding things using badmap. Craig On 23 March 2012 08:51, e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Jason Cunningham wrote: Just had a look at the text file. Can anyone give me some advice on a way to quickly find the locations given in file? SomeoneElse replied: It's the way ID: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/78499375 http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=78499375 If it helps, I wrote a quick web application that reads in the latest copy of the file(*) when you start a session, and displays the id as a hyperlink (with optional api and remote control links as well). http://www.loach.me.uk/osm/ukroads/ I've been working down the list in ID order (though you can sort the columns if you want) following this method: a) use the id link to browse the way to check it hasn't already been deleted or marked as odbl=clean b) if it does need remapping, use the remote control link to open the way in JOSM c) in JOSM, use the download button to download the area around the way d) in JOSM run the licence check plugin e) remap the way and any adjacent major ways f) upload Ed (*) written originally for the major roads file, which is still default, you can now also select the file which contains the secondary ways as well from the dropdown list. I've not yet started on that list... ___ 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] Un-relicensable roads - now with secondary roads included
I just tried 2 options with my default editor set to remote. The default edit URL [1] from browse/way/32795934 does work, but throws an error: Editing failed - make sure JOSM or Merkaartor is loaded and the remote control option is enabled A simplified version of the URL that would be useful in situations like the Ed's list [2] does not work or throw any error at all. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=55.9567019lon=-3.1310164way=32795934zoom=16 [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=32795934 Craig On 23 March 2012 12:34, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 March 2012 08:51, e...@loach.me.uk wrote: b) if it does need remapping, use the remote control link to open the way in JOSM Out of interest (and I'm not 'having a go') - why did you put a remote control link there? I see lots of different QA websites and they have a mixture of links to remote control, osm.org etc. But we worked on osm.org a long while ago so that you can set your preferred editor, and I would have thought that meant every QA site could just link to osm.org, and all the users will end up with their editor of choice, whether p1, p2, merkaartor, josm or whatever the flavour of the month is. Just curious, maybe something somewhere doesn't work properly, or I'm missing the point? If there's something to fix, I'll fix it! Cheers, Andy ___ 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] Remapping update
Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy sources? As I read it, if the nodes along the way are clean then by marking the way odbl clean you're just checking the properties are clean... so if it is just a highway=footway and you know it exists there shouldn't be a problem. Craig On 23 March 2012 12:58, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Incidentally, is just knowing the footpaths evidence enough to tag with odbl=clean? Or is there the risk that the footpath was created with iffy sources? I ask as I am intending to do some remapping of Andy Street's paths in the Bishops Waltham/Meon Valley area and wondering whether I have to actually walk the paths again or just tag with odbl=clean Thanks, Nick -Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com wrote: - To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: Robert Norris rw_nor...@hotmail.com Date: 23/03/2012 12:07AM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Remapping update Re: Andy Streets changes in Hampshire. So I thought I should get around at least to sticking in odbl=clean on ways (mainly paths tracks) I know to be OK, that I've personally been on whilst cycling or walking. Which turned out to be more interesting than I thought... First via using JOSM it was telling me some ways might have problems, the history check wasn't a green CT for the user http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/essjayhch. Initially I thought odd, since they have agreed to the CTs, however checking their diary entry revealed they have been entering in C classifications for roads from Hampshire Council Council (via http://www3.hants.gov.uk/adoptedroadsearch/). It's not clear this is allowed - hence I assume essjayhch has been 'black listed' some how - but not reverted as I guess these edits will be removed/reverted come the license change switch. They also seem to have entered in many footpath refs too. Clearly I can't stick a odbl=clean on any such way. Next I then discover Andy Street had been also using Hampshire Council Council as a source reference in various changesets, such as: http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/5184209 http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/changeset/8257081 Possibly this could a reason why he can not accept the CTs In my check the other day I did not check for this type of source reference. This also means potentially any of his 2000 changesets could be problematic - so not just after 1st April 2010 for the OS Locator/Streetview allowed data. PS Thanks Nick Austin for your efforts in Portsmouth (and all over Hampshire). I don't have the patience / time / willing to do that amount of remapping. ___ 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Island in lake ...
(in Potlatch, I don't know JOSM) In JOSM you select the lake outline and the island outline and press Ctrl+Alt+A (or Tools -- Create multipolygon). I seem to recall something about getting the inner and outer paths running in the correct direction? I've heard rumours that that was once the case, but I don't think it is now. I think the direction only matters for coastlines, islands in the sea, which do not make use of relations. Craig On 28 January 2012 22:01, John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: OK how do I draw the shape for an island in the middle of a lake ... I seem to recall something about getting the inner and outer paths running in the correct direction? I've heard rumours that that was once the case, but I don't think it is now. Select the lake outline, use add to relation -- new relation -- advanced -- multipolygon (in Potlatch, I don't know JOSM) and close the add to relation box, set the role to outer, then select the island outline, do add to relation, choose the multipolygon you've just created, and set the role to inner. __John ___ 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] Bing Imagery update
Not sure how widespread the update is, but certainly the Bing Imagery covering the Isle of Wight has recently been updated to imagery taken within the last few months. There is new imagery (within ~6 months) in the North Yorkshire area. Specifically I've seen new imagery just south of Middlesbrough and in the Whitby area. The resolution isn't all that great, which seems a little strange. Craig On 19 December 2011 13:53, Stephen Gower socks-openstreetmap@earth.li wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 06:05:43PM +, Robert Norris wrote: Not sure how widespread the update is, but certainly the Bing Imagery covering the Isle of Wight has recently been updated to imagery taken within the last few months. Goes off to check nearby Portsmouth Yay finally the Spinnaker Tower is there! To view this at http://www.bing.com/maps you need to select aerial photography with the show labels option unticked. It seems to stretch from Poole Harbour in the west to Langstone Harbour in the east, and from the Isle of Wight north as far as Romsey and Chandler's Ford, but not up to Winchester. s ___ 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] Further Detail on Open Data Measures in the Autumn Statement 2011
So what does that mean re the OS saying the council copyrights the data, and the councils say the OS copyrights the data situation? Well I think it means that when the councils say the OS copyrights the data that you can show them a little piece of paper that says otherwise. What would be really nice is if the OS would just ask all councils permission to release the data and then just release it all. Perhaps by April 2013? Craig On 1 December 2011 10:24, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: There are more words about the OS being committed to changing its derived data restrictions on Local Authorities' 'Public Rights of Way' data which is not really news. Additionally the OS has also committed to release a set of National Trails in collaboration with Natural England, by April 2013. 2013? What happened to just getting the data out-there? So what does that mean re the OS saying the council copyrights the data, and the councils say the OS copyrights the data situation? Probably quicker just to map the ROWs ourselves. I'll be launching a Hampshire 2012 initiative on OSM to try and get the county's footpaths complete (or as near complete as dammit) by the end of next year. Nick ___ 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
[Talk-GB] Further Detail on Open Data Measures in the Autumn Statement 2011
As part of Osborne's statement yesterday a document titled Further Detail on Open Data Measures in the Autumn Statement 2011 was released. www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Further_detail_on_Open_Data_measures_in_the_Autumn_Statement_2011.pdf Of specific interest to OSM are the sections on the OS and the National Address Gazetteer (p.11). There are more words about the OS being committed to changing its derived data restrictions on Local Authorities' 'Public Rights of Way' data which is not really news. Additionally the OS has also committed to release a set of National Trails in collaboration with Natural England, by April 2013. 2013? What happened to just getting the data out-there? There are quite a few other tit-bits for those interested in Open Data more generally. Particularly the creation of the Data Strategy Board and the Public Data Group. I find it pretty disappointing that these have been announced before we've had the report on the related consultations that closed at the end of last month. Unsurprisingly there is a very strong emphasis on business involvement, finishing with The Government will also consider the advisability of alternative delivery models such as turning any of its member Trading Funds into Companies Act companies. Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK
There has been a little discussion on the talk page about this. I think Andy is mainly interested in specialist shops (shop=alcohol) and noting whether they sell real ale, either draught or bottled. As a first punt I suggested overloading real_ale (real_beer), with 'draught' and 'bottled' values. Did we agree on these tags? Nobody disagreed. There haven't been any other suggestions, or the objections I expected to the use of real_beer. real_beer = draught; bottles shop = alcohol but it's not rendering. Did the tagging 'work' for you? The map only covers producers atm. It doesn't render distributors (either pubs or shops). If we want to render those then I think a map just for them would be needed. And because of the numbers involved probably a map using a tile based approach (like the ITO maps), rather than the current pins on the map. However, I don't think we should think about pubs (or shops) until there has been discussion of the 'enhanced' pub tagging that I've proposed. I'm pretty sure it doesn't cover some cases. The proposal is to describe the different ownership types of pub: Managed, it seems that operator=* and brewery=* is appropriate? Tenant, we could use tenant=yes, with brewery=* and owner=* if known? Tied, I think this is represented through brewery=*? Free, free=yes? Should the tenant tagging just use operator instead of owner? How should we tag pubs owned by chains (e.g. Ember Inns) that have contracts with breweries, but I aren't tied in a traditional sense? My feeling is to just use operator=* and brewery=* as it is unrealistic represent it in more detail? Craig On 27 November 2011 11:05, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 18 November 2011 12:39, Craig Loftus craigloftus+...@googlemail.com wrote: Also I haven't checked off licences - not sure what to search for? There has been a little discussion on the talk page about this. I think Andy is mainly interested in specialist shops (shop=alcohol) and noting whether they sell real ale, either draught or bottled. As a first punt I suggested overloading real_ale (real_beer), with 'draught' and 'bottled' values. Did we agree on these tags? i found a fantastic off-licence in Leominster the other day, which sells ale on draught: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1517032398 and tagged it: real_beer = draught; bottles shop = alcohol but it's not rendering. It also sells bottled real cider and perry, BTW. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ 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] Drinking Map of UK
CAMRA: What's the difference between 'ale' and other beers?, http://www.camra.org.uk/page.aspx?o=100330 The suggestion of moving to real_beer was made in response to interest from fellow German beer drinkers, who don't know what ale is, or at least shouldn't have to. But it's common parlance to refer to real ale from the decades-long activities of CAMRA which was never called CAMRAB - this is splitting hairs It is only splitting hairs if your beer horizon extends no further than the channel. Craig On 27 November 2011 20:18, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: But it's common parlance to refer to real ale from the decades-long activities of CAMRA which was never called CAMRAB - this is splitting hairs On 27 November 2011 19:54, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 27 November 2011 19:46, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: On 27 November 2011 12:07, Craig Loftus craigloftus+...@googlemail.com wrote: Nobody disagreed. There haven't been any other suggestions, or the objections I expected to the use of real_beer. Go on then, I'll disagree - why do we need a new key called real_beer (currently 1 use in the database) when there is an existing key called real_ale with 878 entries in the database. It could be that I am not a beer-buff and don't appreciate the distinction, but they are synonymous to my simple mind, so I would have just gone with real_ale, which is a more common term as far as I am aware. Not all beers are ales. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Naptan Imports
Any thoughts? I don't know how the naptan data was imported to know if this is a common problem or not? It isn't a problem as such. The following tag naptan:BusStopType=CUS means that it is a customary stop, i.e., somewhere that the driver will pull over but it isn't necessarily marked on the ground. The NaPTAN import guidelines are that if a NaPTAN node is not physically present on the ground but you have knowledge that it is used as a stop then: Add a physically_present=no tag [, and] Add a highway=bus_stop tag, i.e., it needs a survey to confirm its status. Craig On 22 November 2011 22:26, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I just found a node tagged with lots of things to do with naptan. It looks like it should be a bus stop, but there is no highway=bus_stop tag on it. (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/471495304). I just wonder what to do with it - can either add highway=bus_stop because it was probably supposed to have that on it, or delete it because it does not seem to be doing anything. I would just like to do something with it because it is turning up as a possible brewery on the BrewMap. Any thoughts? I don't know how the naptan data was imported to know if this is a common problem or not? -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ 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] Drinking Map of UK
It is a bit of an abuse of the tag, but makes sense to me, so how about brewery=no? I think this is backwards. There is nothing wrong with naming something a brewery but it not being one. The marker should be applied to the tagQuery list, similar to Keepright. You could then write more exclusion rules if a pattern emerges from the entries being marked. Craig On 22 November 2011 19:43, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 November 2011 09:02, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Is there a way to flag false positives? Well, I don't have one at the moment. I was thinking of trying to refine them out of the tagQueries list by trapping landuse=retail etc., but you are right that this will not work for everything. It is a bit of an abuse of the tag, but makes sense to me, so how about brewery=no? Graham. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ 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] Drinking Map of UK
Also I haven't checked off licences - not sure what to search for? There has been a little discussion on the talk page about this. I think Andy is mainly interested in specialist shops (shop=alcohol) and noting whether they sell real ale, either draught or bottled. As a first punt I suggested overloading real_ale (real_beer), with 'draught' and 'bottled' values. Craig On 17 November 2011 21:48, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 November 2011 20:55, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 17 November 2011 19:59, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: The main list of tags that I will use for BrewMap now are: Could the list of specialist tags go on a sub-page of the wiki page? By all means! My question is - have I missed any that I should include for the BrewMap? Do we have any (specialist) off-licences, distilleries, wineries or vineyards, yet? Well, someone has been busy - last time I looked there was one distillery mapped now we have: 22 distilleries 1 winery 0 cider or perry There may be some mapped as industrial=***, but I can't check those until I have the new database imported. Also I haven't checked off licences - not sure what to search for? Regards Graham. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ 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] Drinking Map of UK
Will the map pick up on pubs too? *cough* I know lots around here *cough*, so can add the operator tag if that'll help - should we specifically pick out pubs that aren't tied (as opposed to the tag just not being there), eg operator=independent (?) Yep. There's a section on the talk page [1] trying to agree on how to tag the different types. So far we have, managed, tenant, tied and free, and some suggestions on how to tag them. These suggestions are just an initial thought and could do with refining. eg operator=independent (?) I'd be more inclined to use brewery=various or free, or something along those lines. Free houses can still have companies behind them that fit nicely into the operator tag. Both however are 'special' values that a renderer would have to know about and interpret. The current suggestions already invent tenant=yes, so perhaps free=yes? Cheers, Craig [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Breweries On 14 November 2011 23:19, Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com wrote: This project is perfect, so to chip in I've added The Chiltern Brewery north of Princes Risborough and also fixed the tags on Fuller's Griffin Brewery in Chiswick, both of which I know well. Looking forward to seeing them turn up on the map Will the map pick up on pubs too? *cough* I know lots around here *cough*, so can add the operator tag if that'll help - should we specifically pick out pubs that aren't tied (as opposed to the tag just not being there), eg operator=independent (?) Adam On 14 Nov 2011, at 18:41, Craig Loftus wrote: On 14 November 2011 14:58, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: I just wondered whether when mapping breweries whether we are using name for the name of the brewery and operator for the company that brews there. For smaller companies they may not have named their brewery, so name might do for the operator. Or are we using name for the brewing company and addr:housename if the brewery has a name? All was going swimmingly until I tried to add Nethergate in Growler Brewery... I would use name for the bricks and mortar thing, and operator for the company irrespective of whether they have a name for their brewery or not, this follows the style used for retail chains. I've just come across the St Francis Abbey Brewery, which brews Smithwick 'brand' beer (their own word), and is owned and operated by Diageo. I'm going with: industrial=brewery; name=Saint Francis Abbey Brewery; brand=Smithwick's; operator=Diageo; How one reconciles this with the use of the brewery tag on pubs, I don't know. At a first guess I would think brewery=Smithwick's, for their tied pubs as I'm guessing that is what it says on the sign. Craig ___ 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] Drinking Map of UK
sorry for entering the discussion this late, but I have just been pointed here right now because I do not usually follow talk-gb. I do however think, that this stuff should not be UK only :) I can't speak for the original poster, but I think it was perceived as a UK completeness type project, rather than we didn't want other people to spoil the fun. I do not quite understand this real_ale stuff. German Microbreweries usually serve unfiltered yeast-clouded beer which has not been pasteurised. Mostly not ale but pilsner, lager or wheat beer. Can this be called real_ale? Real ale is just a 'marketing' term that means beer brewed from traditional ingredients, matured by secondary fermentation in the container from which it is dispensed, and served without the use of extraneous carbon dioxide (obviously 'traditional' here is defined in a strictly British context). So what you describe is probably real, but as you suggest it would seem odd to tag pilsner, lager or wheat beer as ale. CAMRA (the people who made up real ale) do apparently recognise real beer as an alternative description? So should we convert the roughly 1000 breweries already tagged and if so in which way? http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=microbrewery#keys Things tagged with microbrewery should be okay... assuming they respected the tags original definition, i.e., a pub with a brewery in it? Do make comments/suggestions on the wiki pages... the tags we're using are still evolving. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Breweries Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK
When I announced Open Brewpub Map last year some people on the German Mailinglist also started talking about how to tag ordinary breweries (there are a lot of them in Germany). This is exactly what your proposal now defines. Would you give a summary of what suggestions emerged? Or perhaps issues that were brought up that we haven't thought of yet? In the context of this proposal it might as well make sense to rethink the tagging of microbreweries to something more genric. What do you think of applying craft=* to the pub/restaurant? BTW, I think wineries (not in the UK but elsewhere) should be added to the proposal as well. Already there (And we will be adding the ones in the UK... no matter how bad they are!) Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK
Brian Prangle wrote: Perhaps we should also have industrial=cider? It exists. The table of values on the wiki page is supposed to apply to both craft and industrial keys. Richard Fairhurst wrote (not quite fair - they do own Knights who make some decent enough, though perhaps slightly characterless, real cider) We have real cider now as well? Perhaps we should ditch the 'real' tags and have good=yes|drinkable|no? Craig On 15 November 2011 16:01, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Andy Mabbett wrote: Aston Manor Brewery in Birmingham no longer makes ales; just cider, on an industrial scale - yet retains the word Brewery in its name. :-( I'd argue it doesn't really make anything recognisable as cider, either, but that's a whole different argument. ;) (not quite fair - they do own Knights who make some decent enough, though perhaps slightly characterless, real cider) cheers Richard ___ 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] Drinking Map of UK
There is: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:industrial%3Dauto_wrecker and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Project/Oil_and_Gas_Infrastructur e which use the industrial key already and so far I can't find any pages using industry key (apart from the brewery page). I think that is a convincing enough reason switch to industrial. I'll change the wiki accordingly. If anyone has any other gripes with the tagging scheme do shout them out. There are a number of outstanding issues mentioned on the wiki pages. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Breweries Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK
On 14 November 2011 14:58, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: I just wondered whether when mapping breweries whether we are using name for the name of the brewery and operator for the company that brews there. For smaller companies they may not have named their brewery, so name might do for the operator. Or are we using name for the brewing company and addr:housename if the brewery has a name? All was going swimmingly until I tried to add Nethergate in Growler Brewery... I would use name for the bricks and mortar thing, and operator for the company irrespective of whether they have a name for their brewery or not, this follows the style used for retail chains. I've just come across the St Francis Abbey Brewery, which brews Smithwick 'brand' beer (their own word), and is owned and operated by Diageo. I'm going with: industrial=brewery; name=Saint Francis Abbey Brewery; brand=Smithwick's; operator=Diageo; How one reconciles this with the use of the brewery tag on pubs, I don't know. At a first guess I would think brewery=Smithwick's, for their tied pubs as I'm guessing that is what it says on the sign. Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK
Who happen to be the kind of people to invent new colon-delineated key namespaces and find them easy to use, as it happens. I almost feel guilty for bring them up, but only almost because it has been illuminating. In mentioning them, apart from trying to be as open as possible, I was also thinking about how to be more specific about the type of brewery say, without introducing keys for every type of drink under the sun, i.e., allowing craft:brewery=ale;wheat_beer;fruit_beer, whilst still allowing a simple craft:brewery=yes. I've seen this approach recommended on the basis that it limits entries in the global namespace. Does anyone know of a current implementation that actually takes advantage of namespaces in this sense? If colon-delineated is for the ultra-geeky, then this must be the work of the über-geeky: That is nothing, my current favourite is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5 With beautiful constructions like: access:vehicle?school_zone.maxspeed=30 access:motorized+electric?hov_time.occupants=1+ Craig On 8 November 2011 12:45, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Andy, On 11/08/2011 12:12 PM, Andy Allan wrote: Colon-delineated key namespaces are the exact opposite of easy-for-mappers, for all bar a very few ultra-geeky mappers. Who happen to be the kind of people to invent new colon-delineated key namespaces and find them easy to use, as it happens. If colon-delineated is for the ultra-geeky, then this must be the work of the über-geeky: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=%26%26#keys (and they have a 16:1 majority... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking) Bye Frederik ___ 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] Drinking Map of UK
If someone puts up a wiki page with the proposed tagging scheme, I will set up a renderer for it. Okay. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Breweries I've tried to distil the suggestions from the whole thread copying the structure of Graham's Historic Britain project. My main remaining concern is the invention of the industry key. Perhaps we can now take the discussion to the talk page and stop spamming the inboxes of the teetotallers? Craig On 5 November 2011 21:48, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: It might be better to use building=mill/press/barn? As I think the building=* key is loosely supposed to represent the design of the building rather than what people do inside it. We still need a multi *use* convention though. Taking craft=*, the documented style would see us use semi-colon separation, craft=cider; perry, but perhaps we could use a more 'modern' style like craft:cider=yes; craft:perry=yes? I know that tagging for the renderer is frowned upon, but I really do not like all these colons in key names, because (as far as I know) that means having an extra column in the database produced by osm2pgsql for renderingand every time I want to add an extra column it means an entire re-import of the databse. Therefore I would be much keener on craft = [beer|cider|perry] with whatever separator you would like between them than craft:cider=yes etc. The other thing that I thought of is that 'craft' sounds like a sensible tag for microbreweries, but maybe not for a bit industrial one - maybe use craft= for microbreweries and industry= for bigger ones, then we can render them differently? If someone puts up a wiki page with the proposed tagging scheme, I will set up a renderer for it. Graham. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK
On 4 November 2011 22:10, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 04/11/2011 10:49, Craig Loftus wrote: Using that as a basis we could tag building=distillery building=brewery building=cider_press building=perry_press How would you tag multi use buildings? For cider and perry I think the building is usually called a mill? Anyway... It might be better to use building=mill/press/barn? As I think the building=* key is loosely supposed to represent the design of the building rather than what people do inside it. We still need a multi *use* convention though. Taking craft=*, the documented style would see us use semi-colon separation, craft=cider; perry, but perhaps we could use a more 'modern' style like craft:cider=yes; craft:perry=yes? Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK
Using that as a basis we could tag building=distillery building=brewery building=cider_press building=perry_press (that should remove any spurious entries like Brewery Apartments if we just do a search on names) Working within existing key definitions, I'm not sure this solves that particular problem, the building key doesn't imply the usage. If something is built as a house, but now it happens to be a pub without major modifications made, you should still tag it as building=house. So assuming this refers to external modification, an old brewery that has been converted to apartments could still be tagged as building=brewery. So we need to combine it with something that actually describes the use of the building. craft=brewery would seem like the best fit but is limited to for small production on demand and by order., it could probably be stretched to cover most real ale breweries, perhaps with an industry=brewery to describe the large volume producers? To cover all these establishments should we have an industry sector tag industry=alcohol or commercial=alcohol? Perhaps alcoholic_beverage would be better to distinguish it from industrial alcohol? How to distinguish real ale from industrial mass market breweries? Would the above craft/industry suggestion be enough to cover both of these distinctions? Some breweries don't have visiting facilities so we need a tag to describe this. Any suggestions? Opening hours could do it maybe? Opening hours + tourism=attraction? How to list awards e.g CAMRA Pub of the Year 2010 Is this getting towards something better suited to a separate database? If not, perhaps someone active in a CAMRA chapter can suggest a schema? This seems like a very rewarding winter mapping project :) Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Portsmouth cycle paths and routes
Looks like there's only partial coverage in Oxford as well... http://www.spokeseastkent.org.uk/maps/cycle-parking-heat-map/?zoom=13lat=51.75754lon=-1.2523layers=BT Really? I would have said it was pretty comprehensively mapped in Oxford. The heat-map shows nicely where all the shopping areas are. If you have a particular area in mind then assuming I can get there on my bike I wouldn't mind surveying it. I know that the parking at the Headington shops doesn't reflect the recent work there but I'll get around to it soon. Craig On 23 September 2011 10:51, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: Looks like there's only partial coverage in Oxford as well... http://www.spokeseastkent.org.uk/maps/cycle-parking-heat-map/?zoom=13lat=51.75754lon=-1.2523layers=BT On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Gregory Williams gregory.willi...@purplegeodesoftware.co.uk wrote: I’m primarily a cyclist and interested in ensuring that our cycle coverage is great. Whilst looking at the Bing! aerial imagery in Portsmouth recently I spotted some cycleways and cycle lanes which we don’t have in our map. They looked like they were in fairly established areas of the city so I wonder whether there’s any other cycling facilities that we’re missing? Portsmouth is a little far for me to go on a GPS mapping expedition, so I was wondering if there are any more local cycle mappers that may be interested in scouting out facilities. It seems that we’ve probably missed quite a bit of cycle parking in Gosport too, given its density in Portsmouth, but seeming absence in Gosport: http://www.spokeseastkent.org.uk/maps/cycle-parking-heat-map/?zoom=13lat=50.80969lon=-1.10888layers=BT Gregory ___ 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Portsmouth cycle paths and routes
PS I wonder whether the stands at Oxford Brookes Uni don’t have any capacity tags. They don’t glow anywhere near as much on the map. You're right about the Brookes stands. I've just applied for a job there, so those might see some attention soon *fingers crossed* Craig On 23 September 2011 11:16, Gregory Williams gregory.willi...@purplegeodesoftware.co.uk wrote: Indeed. It looks like it’s mainly the university sites and arterial roads. Does your main shopping area pretty much coincide with Oxford Uni’s main colleges? University of Kent in Canterbury and the city centre are separate and you can see that there are lots of stands serving both: http://www.spokeseastkent.org.uk/maps/cycle-parking-heat-map/?zoom=13lat=51.27838lon=1.07101layers=BT PS I wonder whether the stands at Oxford Brookes Uni don’t have any capacity tags. They don’t glow anywhere near as much on the map. From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com] Sent: 23 September 2011 10:52 To: Gregory Williams Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Portsmouth cycle paths and routes Looks like there's only partial coverage in Oxford as well... http://www.spokeseastkent.org.uk/maps/cycle-parking-heat-map/?zoom=13lat=51.75754lon=-1.2523layers=BT On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Gregory Williams gregory.willi...@purplegeodesoftware.co.uk wrote: I’m primarily a cyclist and interested in ensuring that our cycle coverage is great. Whilst looking at the Bing! aerial imagery in Portsmouth recently I spotted some cycleways and cycle lanes which we don’t have in our map. They looked like they were in fairly established areas of the city so I wonder whether there’s any other cycling facilities that we’re missing? Portsmouth is a little far for me to go on a GPS mapping expedition, so I was wondering if there are any more local cycle mappers that may be interested in scouting out facilities. It seems that we’ve probably missed quite a bit of cycle parking in Gosport too, given its density in Portsmouth, but seeming absence in Gosport: http://www.spokeseastkent.org.uk/maps/cycle-parking-heat-map/?zoom=13lat=50.80969lon=-1.10888layers=BT Gregory ___ 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding new bus stops from NaPTAN
There would be no objection from the Traveline point of view of using the NaPTAN data released on data.gov.uk Peter thanks for the reply but my question was more about getting out of step with the original NaPTAN import process. At various places in the OSM documentation of the process there are suggestions that users shouldn't edit the actual NaPTAN data. I realise the data.gov.uk release are not the most up to date, but the Terms and Conditions on the travelinedata.org.uk are missing. I will be happy to add something to travelinedata.org.uk if it will clarify. However the terms and conditions are those on data.gov.uk and we don't want to suggest there are any additional terms. Here I was specifically referring to a broken link to the Terms and Conditions for getting a password to download the daily (?) updates available from the DfT directly; the link being on this page: http://www.travelinedata.org.uk/naptan.htm. Though perhaps a remark that releases from data.gov.uk are available under the OGL would be a worthwhile addition. Does anyone know if the OGL would require an addition to the Contributors list for the data.gov.uk NaPTAN release, now that I have used less than one hundredth of a percent of the release? Regards, Craig On 19 September 2011 10:48, Peter J Stoner stone...@mytraveline.info wrote: In message CAK5An89pm9i_BOnCkF39wz0+THwdp6+njGN83MaEv3DXioWrgw@mail.g mail.com Craig Loftus craigloftus+...@googlemail.com wrote: I came across a stop that has been added since the import, so I found the stop data in the NaPTAN release on data.gov.uk, parsed it with naptan2osm and added. Specifically: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1436667392 I just thought I'd best check that there are not objections to using data from more recent NaPTAN releases? There would be no objection from the Traveline point of view of using the NaPTAN data released on data.gov.uk I realise the data.gov.uk release are not the most up to date, but the Terms and Conditions on the travelinedata.org.uk are missing. I will be happy to add something to travelinedata.org.uk if it will clarify. However the terms and conditions are those on data.gov.uk and we don't want to suggest there are any additional terms. Prior to NaPTAN being on data.gov.uk Traveline provided OSM with a snapshot of the latest data. We don't rule out being able to do that again but data.gov.uk is probably a good way to get the data. Best wishes -- Peter J Stoner UK coordinator Traveline ___ 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
[Talk-GB] Adding new bus stops from NaPTAN
I came across a stop that has been added since the import, so I found the stop data in the NaPTAN release on data.gov.uk, parsed it with naptan2osm and added. Specifically: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1436667392 I just thought I'd best check that there are not objections to using data from more recent NaPTAN releases? I realise the data.gov.uk release are not the most up to date, but the Terms and Conditions on the travelinedata.org.uk are missing. Cheers, Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] hgv=unsuitable?
A search shows up 2 proposals that might also be of interest, although they both seem a little insane to me. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5 (RFC start: 2011-04-26) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_conditions_for_access_tags (RFC start: 2009-07-09) The 1st proposal would translate your first example to something like: access:hgv.usage=yes; access:hgv.limited=yes And I'm sure I would cover the 2nd example but I can't figure out how! The 2nd doesn't seem insane enough to meet your first example, and for the 2nd would use something like: access:width2 = destination If it isn't already clear, I provide these proposals for information purposes only and it should not be taken as an endorsement to populate the land with tags like access:lgv!school_zone.time=Mo,We 08:00-18:00 Craig On 9 September 2011 09:13, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Colin asked: Is there any accepted tagging standard for the ubiquitous Unsuitable for HGVs (white text on blue background)? So it's not illegal for HGVs, just ill-advised. So it's a bit like hgv=destination in that you don't want to be there unless there's no reasonable alternative, but it is signed differently and probably not legally enforcable. I thought simply using hgv=unsuitable would fit nicely for this. Similarly psv=unsuitable if there is a sign Unsuitable for buses/coaches, or even motor_vehicle=unsuitable for Unsuitable for motor vehicles. Any thoughts? My first post to the newbies email list in 2008 asked about the Unsuitable for motor vehicles sign I had encountered and how to tag it. I got no response. It seems that about 8 months later I decided just to add motor_vehicle=unsuitable to the way in question... http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/26551700/history Banoffee asked a similar question on the help website recently, and they decided just to use note= http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/6287/unsuitable-for-vehicles -text-sign which is what I suggested when I started this wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom two days before I added the motor_vehicle=unsuitable tag mentioned above. How about width limit 6'6 except for access? Applications like truck routing will need to distinguish these from the straight maxwidth roads. How about maxwidth:throughtraffic=6'6 ? Or maxwidth=6'6 + maxwidth:destination=none? This is a good question - I think I prefer the latter of your two suggestions. If you have a photo of the sign it might be worth adding to the examples section on the UK road signs wiki page, along with whatever tags you settle on after discussion here. A Google search (except for access site:openstreetmap.org) suggests that except for access appears in a number of note fields and a few description fields (plus the odd changeset comment). http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=except+for+access#values suggests there is one occurrence of maxweight=7.5 except for access, but note is much more common currently. Ed ___ 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
[Talk-GB] Unexplained routing problem?
I randomly came across the following routing errors with openrouteservice.org: http://craigloftus.net/tmp/routing.png I saw the first problem with the roundabout and when trying other variations I spotted the 2nd at the bottom. I can't see anything in the data that would result in such broken-ness, the roundabout looks just like the one next to it which 'routes' correctly. Would someone mind checking I'm not crazy or missing something before I file a bug? The area in question is http://osm.org/go/eutGqpMrE- Cheers, Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OS Grid Reference search Vector Map District Mirror
I've quickly put together a simple tool to search Nominatim for place names and return the corresponding OS Grid reference. http://craigloftus.net/os_grid/ If anyone interested or bored could try and break it, or suggest features, that would be grand. One feature I plan to implement is return all the grid squares for a given area. At the moment the tool is probably of no use at all, but eventually it will be integrated with the Vector Map District mirror which Richard F and I have been working on. The mirror is actually up, but there is still no index, and most files are not usable with Potlatch because they are simply too big. We're working on fixing this. Still, it is easier probably easier than downloading from the OS. Say for some reason you want glasshouses in Oxford: http://craigloftus.net/os_grid/?q=Oxford (To get the SP) http://vmd.craigloftus.net/SP/SP_Glasshouse.shp (7 KB, Building would be ~80 MB) Cheers, Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Right... I'm perhaps half done, depending on how badly I've cocked up the first half. Richard can you give the following URLs a go? http://craigloftus.vmd.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/TA/TA_Airport.shp http://craigloftus.vmd.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/NC/NC_AdministrativeBoundary.shp All the content is up but there aren't directory lists because S3 doesn't support them in 'website' mode, so I'll be producing static lists. To clarify my first sentence; I've apparently chosen a 'bucket' name that I now can't use within a CNAME alias. You can't rename buckets, so all the content has to be reuploaded to a new bucket... hopefully Phil is going to help me do that quickly via EC2. This means that the 2 links provided will stop working, eventually being replaced with something like http://vmd.craigloftus.net/*/* Cheers, Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Will Phil's guidance the mirror is now set up in its basic form. http://vmd.craigloftus.net/*/* For example: http://vmd.craigloftus.net/TQ/TQ_Airport.shp http://vmd.craigloftus.net/NC/NC_AdministrativeBoundary.shp There still aren't directory listings, so atm you will have to already know about the file you want to use. I'll probably be able to sort out the listings and a search tool tomorrow. Cheers, Craig On 14 June 2011 17:39, Craig Loftus craigloftus+...@googlemail.com wrote: Right... I'm perhaps half done, depending on how badly I've cocked up the first half. Richard can you give the following URLs a go? http://craigloftus.vmd.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/TA/TA_Airport.shp http://craigloftus.vmd.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/NC/NC_AdministrativeBoundary.shp All the content is up but there aren't directory lists because S3 doesn't support them in 'website' mode, so I'll be producing static lists. To clarify my first sentence; I've apparently chosen a 'bucket' name that I now can't use within a CNAME alias. You can't rename buckets, so all the content has to be reuploaded to a new bucket... hopefully Phil is going to help me do that quickly via EC2. This means that the 2 links provided will stop working, eventually being replaced with something like http://vmd.craigloftus.net/*/* Cheers, Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On Jun 13, 2011 8:32 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: I may be showing my ignorance, but isn't S3 a virtual server that you can run code on etc? I thought that all this needs is a web (or does it have to be ftp) server? Not quite. S3 is a web storage 'solution'. It can't run code, it is basically just a place to stick data, typically media, which is then available via Amazon's CDN. The most you can do with it is run simple static websites, or host mirrors :). The reason I suggested that approach is that it is charged on a pay as you go basis, meaning we can use it for a month or 2 and it will allow us a view of how much storage and bandwidth we need when shopping for something more permanent. The biggest issue I see is getting the data onto the server. The nice people at OS sent me all of VMD on DVDs, so I have them on my home server, but ftp'ing them up to another server using my domestic broadband would take forever..would need someone with a nice fast upload connection. Yes, I was wondering about that. I work for the University of Bath so I can access a relatively fast upload connection. Cheers, Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
Steps (a) to (e) require someone with FTP space and bandwidth to spare Roughly how much bandwidth do you think would make a worth while contribution? I'm happy to donate what ever I have remaining on my current package and upgrade within reason (with ITOs help or not). Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On 12 June 2011 20:53, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Steps (a) to (e) require someone with FTP space and bandwidth to spare and I don't have either, or I'd have done it by now. Can you give a rough estimate for how much bandwidth would make a worthwhile contribution? I'm happy to contribute what I have spare, and upgrade if needed, within reason. Cheers, Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Onward travel posters
For those curious as to what these maps look like, here's one I photographed last week: http://www.systemeD.net/temp/onward_travel_falmouth.jpg (4.6Mb file) Thanks, I was curious. I was tempted to stroll to the station at lunch to find my local one, but it is raining now :( The rather broken rendering of the pedestrian area in the top left of the Local area map is interesting; it sells OSM short. Also, it looks like they're using another source for the bus stop data (stop A is on the other side of the footpath). I'm assuming each map is edited by someone with local knowledge? ;) So it is a shame that improvements are contributed back to OSM. Cheers, Craig On 10 June 2011 11:31, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Ed Loach wrote: I can imagine the little M stickers being printed now... For those curious as to what these maps look like, here's one I photographed last week: http://www.systemeD.net/temp/onward_travel_falmouth.jpg (4.6Mb file) Compare and contrast with http://osm.org/go/erU5Lvdkm- . cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Onward-travel-posters-tp6461416p6461640.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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Closed bridges in Cumbria
I was just filling a gap between segments in the Cumbria Way and happened to notice there are still bridges in the Lakes with access=no tags from the November 2009 floods. I checked a few of the ones around Keswick and found council and newspaper reports stating that they had reopened, one as far back as December 2009. A clumsy search for access=no across the region found ~15 other bridges still closed. Before I go through each looking for a record of it being reopened, do any local mappers have the knowledge to do it quicker, or know of particular bridges that haven't been repaired/replaced? Cheers, Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Address information in MapDust bugs
Its quite visible in the JOSM plugin, under the address tab. Craig On 24 February 2011 13:58, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On 24/02/2011 13:42, Steve Doerr wrote: On 24/02/2011 13:14, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM wrote: Recently, I have noticed a number of MapDust bugs which contain a postcode sector and, apparently, a range of housenumbers (e.g., Southdale Dr 40-98, NG4 1, GB for http://www.mapdust.com/detail/142061). Where are you seeing that? For me, the address on that page just says 'Southdale Dr, England, Great Britain'. We've just been talking about this on IRC. It's in the header of the RSS feed, which is why I've only just noticed it. The streetname is passed to the standard comment field of MapDust, but not the rest of the info. ___ 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] B72 is a wrap
On 16 February 2011 16:33, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: In the last few minutes; yes, thanks - I'd used boundary:fence instead of barrier:fence - doh! There is a slight problem under mapnik with this use of barrier=* http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3395 At the moment its only true for barrier=hedge. As I mention in the ticket rendering of area barriers is now inconsistent, and at least that inconsistency needs to be resolved. At the moment I think reversion would be best. I've certainly made plenty of use of barrier=wall as a boundary. http://osm.org/go/eutD1wknt-(I must get around to adding postcodes based on the method outlined in the thread) Tangentially, I have had some discussion with another mapper (achadwick) in Oxford about the correct way to tag residential gardens; which lead to another mapnik ticket: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3302 I don't really have a strong position on this, but neither leisure=garden+access=private or landuse=residential+residential=garden, seem satisfactory. I'm not happy with these as extending them to handle other types of garden is really not elegant, e.g.: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/80833972 Any thoughts? Cheers, Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Update to OSM Analysis
Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: What I don't see is any way to indicate that the information added could benefit from a ground-survey. NaPTAN imports include the tag NaPTAN:verified=no. Should we not have something similar for data taken straight from OS Open data, regardless of whether it is traced or imported by code? Should we used verified=no, surveyed=no, ground_survey=no or what. Without any such tag then people wishing to check everything on the ground are really stuck when people helpfully (or unhelpfully depending on your viewpoint) add details from OS Opendata. Isn't the source tag enough? Once I've surveyed things I change the source to survey. People looking for survey targets can just look for source*=OS* ? Perhaps though, the black cross of verified=no would make people some people happier. Out of the options you suggest I think verified=no is preferable as it has some established use with NaPTAN; but I'm not sure whether we should also prefix it with an import specific namespace (OSLocator:verified=no)? Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Quiet lanes and one car per minute
Ralph Smyth wrote: In terms of existing traffic count data, the problem is that generally (and indeed as is the case in Oxfordshire) it tends to be available only for A and B roads rather than many unclassified (and C) roads. I suspected the same but I hope (I haven't had chance to check) that the council would be aware of and surveying rat runs, so that would deal with some overly busy routes? On 27 Jan 2011 01:00, Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote: Yes your idea is good and I've had a similar idea with bicycle parking (when is a rack full, empty, or in-between). It makes sense to keep it in a designated database. When one enters data they can say what time of day it was and how long they sat there for. I agree that a separate database for collecting the surveys would be most appropriate but at the same time it creates another project that the mapper has to be aware of and buy into? Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Quiet lanes and one car per minute
Something reminded me of this thread and my suggestion that data for some roads may already be collected. This seems to be true of Oxfordshire and it is even published. The counts are collected by automatic and manual means by the Transport Monitoring team of Oxfordshire County Council. http://bit.ly/hf7rI0 The descriptions of the sections of road covered leave a lot to be desired but it is useful data none the less. There isn't a mention of license for reuse so I've just sent off an inquiry. Cheers, Craig On 20 January 2011 23:05, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 01:58:43PM +, Craig Loftus wrote: I like the idea. And although I like the simplicity, I think it might be worth somehow taking account for seasonable variability. There a number of Agreed. In Cornwall, for example, roads that are very quiet for most of the year become insanely busy during the tourist season. Mind you the high banks and restricted views make cycling on those narrow twisty roads something not to be undertaken lightly in any season. Adrian ___ 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] Quiet lanes and one car per minute
I like the idea. And although I like the simplicity, I think it might be worth somehow taking account for seasonable variability. There a number of quiet roads in the Lakes etc. atm that I wouldn't want to walk down in the summer. Perhaps the simplest approach would be using traffic:note to say when the last survey was made, allowing another user to average/update in an informed way. Might there also be existing sources of this data (for some roads) 'owned' by local authorities or highways agencies; these are guesses, I don't know who does this kind of surveying. I think in my part of the SW the large majority of highway=unclassified would be =1 car a minute average so just from a tagging perspective it would be a lot easier just tagging those few that are busier. I agree, working with assumed values based on way classification would make it a lot easier. Cheers, Craig On 20 January 2011 13:52, Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com wrote: Richard, I think in my part of the SW the large majority of highway=unclassified would be =1 car a minute average so just from a tagging perspective it would be a lot easier just tagging those few that are busier. Kevin On 20 January 2011 12:48, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Hi all, Sending this to talk-gb@ first (rather than tagging@ or talk@) as I'm just floating an idea... I've long wanted to get motor traffic levels on rural roads into OSM. Traffic levels make a huge difference to the enjoyability of rural cycling, and would enable really fun rendering and routing possibilities. OpenCycleMap could highlight quiet minor lanes even if they weren't in the NCN. CycleStreets could prefer them. I could do a lovely cycle touring map in the style of the old quarter-inch OS maps. And so on. Traffic levels are, also, a real pain in the saddle to record. OSM's iterative; always has been. We start as a broad-brush survey and get more detailed as time goes on. So it doesn't matter if we don't get detailed hour-by-hour traffic averages to begin with - it'll get better once people are used to recording it. But how to do that? Looking at some Sustrans and Countryside Agency design documents, it turns out that they share a criterion for quiet lanes: 1000 vehicles per day. Let's say (remember, we're talking really broad-brush here) that traffic is reasonably even between 6am and 10pm, i.e. 16 hours, and absent at other times. That's 1000/16=62.5 vehicles per hour. One car per minute. So, how about it? Find a country lane. If you're standing there at a typical time of day, and there's less than one car per minute, that's a quiet lane. Tag it traffic=quiet, or if you'd like to be precise, traffic:hourly=60 (or whatever). Really simple. We could do great things with this. As time went on, no doubt people would get into surveying it with more and more detail. Comments welcome! cheers Richard ___ 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] ODBL Coverage
I don't really want to raise the issue again but I found the new map of ODBL coverage (http://osm.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/map/) interesting as it literally highlights the effect the new license and terms will have on map coverage in the UK. The town I currently map in, Oxford, would be wiped off the ODBL map, with the exception of a few minor roads. Interestingly, looking at those minor roads, they are only there because a user as incorrectly accepted the new contributor terms (they have made use of OS material). Does any one have an objective update on how the OS issue stands with regard to the new CTs? Out of interest, how many people have opened a new account and contribute non OS derived work through it? It would seem like a sensible approach for those of us who can't currently accept the new terms. Apologies if these are old/silly questions but I don't have a deep enough understanding to pick through all the arguments and counter arguments that go on in the other lists. Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] ODBL Coverage
Now please, take the legal debates back to legal-talk and stop trying to move them around. I'm not some pro CT apparatchik trying to spread FUD, and I don't appreciate the hostile reaction. I obviously asked a very silly or very old question. Does any one have an objective update on how the OS issue stands with regard to the new CTs? Now you're assuming that the CTs are not compatible with OpenData, a question which has yet to be resolved - some people believe that they are compatible. Actually I wasn't assuming they're not compatible, I was asking about the OS issue which I remember being the reason for why I can't possibly click agree yet. Given your reaction I assume the issue is still up in the air, being shot at by everyone man and his dog. As someone who's been drawing open GPS-sourced maps in Oxford since even before OSM was started, lives a short way outside the city, knows many of the local mappers, and runs the local mailing list, I can happily say that this assertion is complete nonsense. It shows exactly why you should take these tools with not so much with a pinch of salt, more an entire Siberian salt mine. I wasn't suggesting that Oxford was mapped using OpenData licensed content. I was actually using the visualisation with the understanding that there was a strong OSM community in Oxford and that the visualisation might therefore be used as a proxy measure of those who are waiting for the OS issue to be resolved before agreeing to the terms. Mapper J (who I don't know personally) is AIUI not keen (largely for reasons of OS compatibility) but is a comparative newcomer who arrived after the city had essentially been surveyed; ITO Mapper suggests to me that his contributions are largely one particular estate and some tag-fiddling elsewhere. I'm afraid you misread Mapper J, he has no particular interest in copyright matters, but doesn't want to see his tag-fiddling, whatever its perceived value, go to waste. Cheers, Craig On 16 November 2010 13:41, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Craig Loftus wrote: The town I currently map in, Oxford, would be wiped off the ODBL map, with the exception of a few minor roads. As someone who's been drawing open GPS-sourced maps in Oxford since even before OSM was started, lives a short way outside the city, knows many of the local mappers, and runs the local mailing list, I can happily say that this assertion is complete nonsense. It shows exactly why you should take these tools with not so much with a pinch of salt, more an entire Siberian salt mine. Off the top of my head, prolific Oxford mappers A, B, C, D and E (names redacted to protect the innocent) dedicate their work to the public domain anyway; mapper F is a share-alike enthusiast but has just confirmed to me that he agrees with ODbL; I've not asked mappers G, H and I but they're sensible, pragmatic chaps with no particular interest in copyright matters and I'd be very surprised if any of them said no. Mapper J (who I don't know personally) is AIUI not keen (largely for reasons of OS compatibility) but is a comparative newcomer who arrived after the city had essentially been surveyed; ITO Mapper suggests to me that his contributions are largely one particular estate and some tag-fiddling elsewhere. So to say it would be wiped off the ODbL map is clearly not true. Moral 1: these visualisation tools are fun as far as they go but tell you precisely nothing until everyone has been asked to accept the new licence, which hasn't happened yet. Moral 2: legal-talk is that way - cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/ODBL-Coverage-tp5743624p5743835.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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Tagging fruiterers' yards
Does anyone have advice about how to tag a fruiterer's warehouse/yard? A fruiterer being a supplier of fruit and vegetables to shops and restaurants. shop=* doesn't seem quite right for somewhere supplying only to the trade, and probably mostly being a distribution point for deliveries. I've sent this to talk-gb rather than tagging as I think they're a not uncommon sight in the UK sop hopefully someone has tagged on before. Cheers, Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline Tidal Positions
Which is more accurate: the OS Streetview data that shows MHW (spring, I assume) or the PGS data? I haven't used it for coast lines, but doesn't OS Vector District include the high water mark? This would be the most 'accurate', although not necessarily the most 'correct' source? Certainly better than tracing from Streetview. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Shapefiles Craig On 16 September 2010 13:00, Graham Stewart gra...@dalmuti.net wrote: No firm answer for you, but I can tell you that I've had to move stretches of coastline (around Newcastle) out to the MHW shown on the OS Streetview, as the PGS coastline had me, my GPS trace and a couple of nearby buildings bobbing about in the sea. :) On 16 Sep 2010, at 02:43, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcoastline Which is more accurate: the OS Streetview data that shows MHW (spring, I assume) or the PGS data? http://os.openstreetmap.org/?zoom=16lat=51.26415lon=-3.01719layers=B0 Cheers Dave F. ___ 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Contacting OS about errors in their data
Perhaps OS would be good enough to edit the appropriate way to remove the not:name tag? It would seem like the 'least they could do' in return for having the error pointed out to them. One of the few benefits I hope to see from the Tories Big Society cuts will be some kind of closer relationship being developed between OSM and OS. Does anyone know if such discussions are already taking place? As another thought; I believe it has been mentioned before that the OS thinks that OSM could fill a valuable role in keeping footpaths up-to-date (as the OS don't)... previous discussions on the list seemed to reveal some uncertainty surrounding footpaths. Perhaps if the OS did the leg work to open up all the footpaths we could just take it off their hands entirely? With them becoming the downstream. Craig On 9 June 2010 16:38, Andrew Ainsworth andrew.ainswo...@gmail.com wrote: It's good to hear that those errors will be routed over to OS, one question though. How will we know if they are/have acted upon it other than when OSSV/OSL gets updated as part of the usual update cycle? On 9 June 2010 15:00, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 9 Jun 2010, at 14:28, Tim Francois wrote: Thanks for all the responses guys. Here's what I did. 1) email OS [1] with details of the errors. 2.a) Add the errors to wiki [2]. 2.b) Included note in the description explaining that an email has been sent to OS. I'll update the note as and when I get information back from OS. Do be aware that the not:name field will also be routed back to the OS from the OSM database. We are in the process of setting up a reporting mechanism for the OS (and other providers) using that tag. Fyi, there are 77 ways with not:name tags in the UK dataset as of a couple of days ago. Regards, Peter Thanks Tim [1] customerservi...@ordnancesurvey.co.uk [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Catalog_of_Errors On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 00:18 +0100, Gregory wrote: How about adding a column(or encouraging a note in the description) to say the date the source was connected and the date the error was known to be fixed? On 8 June 2010 22:16, Nick Austin nick.w.aus...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Andrew Ainsworth wrote: When I reported some errors recently I contacted customerservi...@ordnancesurvey.co.uk mailto:customerservi...@ordnancesurvey.co.uk. They passed it onto someone and then I received a reply saying they would resurvey and correct it. May I suggest that you create a wiki page and collect these things there. This can later be used as a good argument for others to release data: Look, these guys gave us their data and we helped them improve it I listed the error I found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Catalog_of_Errors Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView
OSM has the apostrophe after being surveyed to check (thanks Craig!). Although I did make the correction and a number of other; this instance wasn't based on a ground survey, I just decide it made sense. The track runs passed a cemetery which indicates that it is is holiness himself that owns the way; for which an apostrophe would be required. Although I don't want to discourage you getting more sunshine, apostrophes are a fun example... street signs can't be taken as the final word on the name of a road. I know of roads which are signed with an apostrophe at one end and without at the other. However, do we then need to worry about street names that have 'legitimately' (with time) changed as the result of misspelling?! Hmm... much scope for shed painting in that issue. The main occurrence of this problem is roads named after saints. Which have the additional problem of the abbreviated saint (St) and whether or not periods follow them. I've been fanatically changing them to the full 'proper' form irrespective of what a particular source says e.g. Saint John's Square. Craig On 5 May 2010 11:31, Tim Francois sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Is that layer 17 I see before me?! Also, after my email about name discrepancies between the OS Locator and OS StreetView packages, I can now confirm that OS StreetView DOES display apostrophes on SOME roadnames. For example, have a look at Pope's Walk http://os.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.369529lon=-2.348878zoom=17. OS Locator says it's Popes Walk (no apostrophe), but StreetView does include the apostrophe. OSM has the apostrophe after being surveyed to check (thanks Craig!). I guess even more reason to get outside! Tim ___ 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] OS OpenData StreetView
Follow the street sign. This usually means Street, but not Saint. I think St-as-in-Saint has become a distinct word (pronounced Sunt I'm not convinced; about the street sign being the final arbiter or about 'St' being a word. I will accept it is colloquially pronounced Sunt by people with certain accents, but that doesn't make it a different word. According to 'convention' (see URL) abbreviation should be left to the interface. I impy this to mean that the surveyor should do the work to determine whether it is Street or Saint that is meant. We can apply the convention in reverse by seeing the maps and street signs that the names are taken from as 'interfaces' - which can include abbreviations and mistakes. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Street_Names Craig On 5 May 2010 12:26, Tim Francois sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Just to be clear, we were originally talking about St-as-in-Saint! Tim -Original Message- From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com] Sent: 05 May 2010 12:17 To: Tim Francois Cc: Craig Loftus; talk-gb OSM List (E-mail) Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView Follow the street sign. This usually means Street, but not Saint. I think St-as-in-Saint has become a distinct word (pronounced Sunt not Saint, and with no full stop after the t) and looks peculiar when expanded, whereas St-as-in-Street is only an abbreviation. Richard On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Tim Francois sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Oh, really? I've just changed a few from Saint to St. based on road signs. Personally, I'm not bothered either way (though it does mean that my neat OS Locator comparison table will never reduce to zero!!) as most people know the difference, but is there a general consensus on this? Also, apologies for suggesting you walked anywhere...!! ;) Tim -Original Message- From: craiglof...@gmail.com [mailto:craiglof...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Craig Loftus Sent: 05 May 2010 11:56 To: Tim Francois Cc: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail) Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView OSM has the apostrophe after being surveyed to check (thanks Craig!). Although I did make the correction and a number of other; this instance wasn't based on a ground survey, I just decide it made sense. The track runs passed a cemetery which indicates that it is is holiness himself that owns the way; for which an apostrophe would be required. Although I don't want to discourage you getting more sunshine, apostrophes are a fun example... street signs can't be taken as the final word on the name of a road. I know of roads which are signed with an apostrophe at one end and without at the other. However, do we then need to worry about street names that have 'legitimately' (with time) changed as the result of misspelling?! Hmm... much scope for shed painting in that issue. The main occurrence of this problem is roads named after saints. Which have the additional problem of the abbreviated saint (St) and whether or not periods follow them. I've been fanatically changing them to the full 'proper' form irrespective of what a particular source says e.g. Saint John's Square. Craig On 5 May 2010 11:31, Tim Francois sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Is that layer 17 I see before me?! Also, after my email about name discrepancies between the OS Locator and OS StreetView packages, I can now confirm that OS StreetView DOES display apostrophes on SOME roadnames. For example, have a look at Pope's Walk http://os.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.369529lon=-2.348878zoom=17. OS Locator says it's Popes Walk (no apostrophe), but StreetView does include the apostrophe. OSM has the apostrophe after being surveyed to check (thanks Craig!). I guess even more reason to get outside! Tim ___ 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Rolling-back my changesets?
Hi, I've just managed a major gaff and need a roll back/deletion of changesets: 4550653, 4551064, 4551124, 4553870 (username craigloftus). There have been no subsequent edits to the effected area so hopefully there isn't any damage done other than making me look like a prick. I was given permission to trace and use a map 'owned' by the University of Bath but it transpires they don't have the right to grant that permission... If someone can reply with a map mods. email address that I can chase up with that would be appreciated. Sorry Craig Loftus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
