Re: [Talk-GB] How to get a Relation History?
Hi Graham, On 15/01/2012 09:28, Graham Jones wrote: Hi, I am trying to find the history of the relation covering the Weardale Way ( 86561 ). I can view the relation itself ok at http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/86561, but when I try to view the history of it with http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/86561/history, I always get a 'sorry...took too long to retrieve' error. Does anyone know an alternative way of finding out who edited it before me? You can, if patient, step back through versions with: http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/86561/132 http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/86561/131 etc. http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Steve_NI in September perhaps? Alternatively, I'll ask the question here in case the other user reads this list [cut] I am minded to believe that the sign I saw with 'Weardale Way' written on it was a mistake and it should have been a plain 'public footpath' sign, but I do not know how to check this. I wondered if whoever had completed the Weardale Way had another source of information about the route that we can use in OSM to check it. If we can confirm that the sign is incorrect, I will remove the extra spur path from the route. I'm not the user who recently finished off the Weardale Way (and I don't know whether that was done from survey) but surveying the Way has been one of my projects. The route between Frosterley and Wolsingham used to be a low level route running close to the railway (the way you've just walked), but was subsequently changed to a more interesting higher level route (the one that's part of the complete OSM relation). The signs you saw have almost certainly been superseded, but perhaps could be mapped as a separate "Old Weardale Way" or alternative route relation? Hope that helps, David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
On 21/04/2011 13:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote: David Dixon wrote: Richard - are you prepared to humour the rest of us and give this a go? Well, I can't stop you! If I were someone wanting the National Byway to render right now, I'd tag it as rcn, not ncn, because I believe "if it quacks like a duck, tag it like a duck" and the quality and design of the National Byway is much more akin to an old-style county cycleway (now generally Regional Routes) than to our National Cycle Network. OK, I've updated the tagging of all the National Byway relations listed on the wiki to network=rcn, and also updated the wiki to reflect the changes. I suppose I ought to go out and fill in some of the local gaps now! David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
On 20/04/2011 13:19, monxton wrote: The National Byway is currently tagged as : route=bicycle network=national_byway name=National Byway () but the proposal being discussed here is to change to network=ncn I started one of the older threads on the same topic, so I've been following this with interest. It seems the majority is in favour of the above change. Richard - are you prepared to humour the rest of us and give this a go? Andy A. - is there a straightforward way of distinguishing between different classes of NCR / RCR / LCR on OCM, say for example by including a "colour = XXX" tag that the renderer uses? Apart from making the map easier to view, the routes could match the signs on the ground. Finally, I bumped into one of our Council's rights of way officers today, who has a lot to do with cycling provision. I'd previously brought OCM to her attention and she was very impressed. She's been showing her colleagues, and realises that there's no point trying to produce a dedicated map of cycling infrastructure as it already exists as OCM, and she's looking into how the Council's data can be incorporated - a big thumbs up both to Andy and all the mappers! David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway cycle route
On 08/05/2010 11:31, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > David Dixon wrote: >> Apart from standardising the tagging, this would also add the Byway to >> opencyclemap. >> In the absence of dissent, I'll update as suggested so shout now if you >> disagree! > > As someone who's mapped lots of both the National Byway and the NCN - > disagree very very strongly. Thanks for the feedback Richard - interesting. > The National Byway is not a national cycle network, nor part of the > National Cycle Network, which is laid out to more exacting criteria. It > is a long-distance leisure route. If anything it is more akin to the > sort of route that is often tagged as 'rcn' in OSM (the old county > cycleways, that sort of thing). How much is the difference between Sustrans' long-distance routes and the Byway real, and how much just semantics? Yes, there is a different 'feel' between the two, but both are networks (the Byway is far more than a single route), both for cyclists, and both national. =ncn? In plenty of places, they share the same route. I'd also consider the National Cycle Routes to be leisure routes as well. > On the particular question of OCM rendering, AIUI Andy isn't opposed to > rendering the National Byway (brown?) from the current tagging, but just > hasn't had the chance yet. But he can answer better than I can. Your later message suggests an alternative route tag for the byway and other leisure routes. I sort of semi-agree, but at the same time consider that the National Byway in any other country would by automatically tagged as ncn, and we want to avoid overly specific tagging that may not be applicable elsewhere. Is it just that in the UK our definition of ncn is too narrow, being based solely on the (excellent) Sustrans network? OpenCycleMap could still distinguish between NCN and Byway: route=ncn --> red, route=ncn, operator=National Byway --> brown ? > I think at this point it is customary to use the phrase "tagging for the > renderer". :) I'd say "using accurate generic tagging that happily coincides with the renderer" instead ;-) David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] National Byway cycle route
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Byway Currently the National Byway cycle route (and the additional loops) are tagged as "network=National Byway" while all other cycle routes are =ncn, rcn or lcn. Are there any good reasons why the Byway shouldn't be: name=National Byway route=ncn (rcn for the loops?) ref=Byway ? Apart from standardising the tagging, this would also add the Byway to opencyclemap. In the absence of dissent, I'll update as suggested so shout now if you disagree! David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Historic data (was OS Boundaries)
On 25/04/2010 07:57, Lester Caine wrote: > Just because YOU are not using the data does not entitle you to delete it! > The whole reason *I* am interested in OSM is as a base for documenting my > genealogical data. Being able to check a location at some point in time is > important and while many of the attempts to get time data properly tagged have > not been accepted, simple information like 'constructed=1980' would at least > allow maps to be rendered to provide a view in a particular year. ONCE that is > possible, then the related boundary information is also important. ... > Just like 'micromapping', historic information may not be of interest to > everybody, but moving forward, why would you NOT want to maintain data that > has > already been mapped. We just need agreement on how it is maintained - since > the > 'history' of object edits is simply no substitute for mapping historic data. > I fully support having a repository of digitised historic mapping data, as it would be very useful for many applications included your genealogical one. However, I'm not convinced that the main OpenStreetMap database is the best place for it. As others have said, the database is getting increasingly full with current data and adding all significant mapping features through time will only serve as clutter to the majority of users/mappers, who just want to, say, get from A to B (or map A and B). Let's get the *current* map up to scratch first! This sounds like an ideal candidate for a parallel project? Just my opinion, of course. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OS Locator - using in JOSM
I've been playing with the OS OpenData Locator dataset, which contains the XY coordinates for the ends & midpoint of many of the UK's roads. This gazetteer appears to complement the StreetView data - some (short) streets whose names are absent from StreetView are included in OS Locator. Conversely, some streets named in StreetView are absent from OS Locator. I've come up with a relatively painless way of getting the midpoint data into an overlay in JOSM - see the wiki for details: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#OS_Locator If anyone can't get this working, I might be persuaded to format a county or two - do get in touch. I can't guarantee a quick turnaround though! David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Nonsense edits in Durham & London - revert required
On 10/04/2010 23:03, Gregory wrote: > Well spotted ddixon, some of those edits seem like clear "he he, you can > change wikipedia to say what you like" edits. There have just been some > accidental deletes in Canada and it seems like the way to deal with them > is manually. > >> To undelete a way, press u, wait 5–10 seconds for the deleted ways to >> load, select the way to undelete, and press k. To revert a way to an >> earlier version, select the feature, press k, choose the version, and >> click Revert. >> >> From the Potlatch documentation: >> * undelete will always use the most recent version of each >> constituent node (even if it's moved) >> * revert will use the historic version of each constituent node, but >> if that node is still visible and has moved somewhere else, it will >> generate a new node ID >> > > My mouse is far to sensitive in clicking (I think I need to clean it) to > deal with Potlatch easily. Can you manage to put everything back? > > Please post the mailing list how the users respond. > If there is no response and there are more edits (or your corrections > get put back) then a block is likely needed, which can be done through > OSM Foundation people (or at least they know who does it). Hopefully > once the stuff is put back then the users will either contribute > responsibly or move on to troll elsewhere. > Thanks Gregory. Blackadder kindly forwarded my message to the data working group. I've no idea what timescales they work to, but after 48h with no reply from anyone I went ahead and manually reverted the edits. Since some of the changes included adding silly POIs to Downing Street I decided a speedy response was necessary. I'm now keeping a close eye on the accounts in question... David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Nonsense edits in Durham & London - revert required
User "Ajbites" has made a number of obviously nonsensical edits this afternoon, mainly in Durham but also 1 in Haiti and 1 in London. I have sent a polite "welcome, but please don't" email. Could someone with the required knowledge please revert these edits? One slight complication is that another very new user (bashiboy2) has already re-edited some of these ways. These edits appear mainly neutral but the closeness in timing suggests the two users are connected - there doesn't appear to be any new useful data here either so if necessary these edits can be reverted too. Thank you, David Ajbites: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4354930 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4354906 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4354900 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4354888 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4354864 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4354839 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4354783 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4354745 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4354677 bashiboy2: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4354863 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4354856 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4354818 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/4354793 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What has happened to Relation 2204 (ncn 4)?
On 27/02/2010 18:45, Dave F. wrote: > David Dixon wrote: >> >> Have just merged the two relation versions and missed out the four >> altered ways - seems to have uploaded OK. Hopefully (almost) all fixed >> now! > > Thanks for doing that. > > Is there an easy way to find the altered ones? > > Cheers > Dave F. > Not that I know about, I'm afraid. The 4 ways are: 4722126 4805189 4863215 6665390 I've tidied most things E of Newbury, but haven't any more time at the moment to carry on West. As an aside, these long relations seem to be very prone to being accidentally deleted, and remember talking to a mapper who did this - very easy to do in JOSM if the relation is altered anywhere along its course between data download & upload. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What has happened to Relation 2204 (ncn 4)?
On 27/02/2010 17:14, Ed Loach wrote: >> http://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/2204/697 > > As a PS I used the JOSM remote control plugin to download the above > relation, and wondered if I could save as OSM, tweak version number > of 697 to 703 in an editor, load the OSM back into JOSM, add a tag > note=retrieved from v697 and upload. > > Various ways which were in v697 have since been deleted though > preventing upload, so I don't know whether this would otherwise have > worked or just made things worse, so perhaps best it didn’t work. > > Ed Have just merged the two relation versions and missed out the four altered ways - seems to have uploaded OK. Hopefully (almost) all fixed now! David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] District Boundaries - N Wales
Peter Miller wrote: > On 23 Aug 2009, at 15:52, Bogus Zaba wrote: > >> Peter Miller wrote: >>> On 22 Aug 2009, at 12:03, Chris Hill wrote: >>> Well I'm pleased that they agree with me, but I'm not the oracle! This is another source quoting the same general information. Do the Scottish and Northern Irish counties generally extend to the low water mark too? Drawing from the NPE maps seems to be our only reasonable source for the low water mark. >>> Great stuff. >>> >>> Low water does however change much more rapidly that high water so >>> NPE is the 'least good' source of that date as it is 50 years old. >>> If one is fortunate enough to have detailed enough recent aerial >>> photography that that should be used. >>> >>> Fyi, for Suffolk the low water mark has changed by 50 meters in >>> places in the past 5 years (huge amounts of shingle has arrived >>> near Felixstowe Ferry extending low water by that amount since I >>> have lived in the area). Even the high water mark has moved by many >>> meters over 50 years in some places including Dunwich. One can see >>> the different in Potlatch comparing the OSM coastline with NPE base >>> mapping. >>> >>> We have good yahoo aerial photography for pasts of the coast in >>> Suffolk. >>> >>> However... I support the idea we use best low-water source availale >>> for each area. It might be good to create areas between high and >>> low water tagged with 'shingle', 'beach' etc. >>> >>> Should be also use low water as the edge of 'Wales' itself or has >>> any evidence for the 3 mile limit mentioned by the wiki by someone >>> been found? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> Bogus Zaba wrote: > I have had confirmation from the Local Government Boundary > Commission for Wales who agree with the view below from Chris > Hill. They say : > "...in general the seaward extent of a local authority is the low > water mark as defined by Ordnance Survey. The exception to this > are certain islands such as Flat Holm (which comes under > Cardiff), where the courts have made specific decisions, such as > Milford Haven, and where the Secretary of State has made an Order > extending the local authority boundary to include an area of the > sea (under Section 71 of the 1972 Act). As far as I am aware no > such orders have been made in respect of Welsh local authorities." > > That's good enough for me. I will define the low water mark from > NPE and use that in the Flinthsire and Denbighshire boundaries. > > Bogus Zaba > >> Regarding the Wales national boundary I should have mentioned that >> my contact at the Local Govt Boundary Commission for Wales also >> answered this partially. Words were : >> " >> >> As far as I am aware Wales by itself does not have territorial >> waters. I think it just has the UK territorial waters because it is >> part of the UK. The Commission no longer have any remit for the >> Wales National Boundary as the section dealing with this was >> repealed from the 1972 Act some time ago. For our work we consider >> Wales to be the sum of the LA boundaries. >> >> " > > Good work. Could you copy this text onto the Wales wiki page? > > I think we should take that as a good enough answer that we should > treat the edge of Wales and low water. > > > Regards, > > > > Peter > >> Bogus I'm going to stick my oar in here and say that I don't believe that is correct, nor common sense. For example, taking low water as the boundary would render the Menai Strait, Bardsey Sound, Cardiff Bay, etc. as outside Wales (and presumably outside England), yet within the UK. The Government of Wales Bill 2006 may be of some help: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060032_en.pdf '158. Interpretation [p88] (1)...“Wales” includes the sea adjacent to Wales out as far as the seaward boundary of the territorial sea. ... (3) The Secretary of State may by order determine, or make provision for determining, for the purposes of the definition of “Wales” any boundary between— (a) the parts of the sea which are to be treated as adjacent to Wales, and (b) those which are not.' Also section 58 [p104] 'Functions exercisable beyond the territorial sea: 4 (1) The power conferred by section 58(1)(c) includes power to direct that any function under— (a) Part 2 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (c. 48) (deposits in the sea), or (b) Part 4 of the Petroleum Act 1998 (c. 17) (abandonment of offshore installations), so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Welsh controlled waters is to be exercisable by the Minister of the Crown only after consultation with the Welsh Ministers. (2) In this paragraph “Welsh controlled waters” means so much of the sea beyond the seaward boundary of the territorial sea as is adjacent to Wales. (3) The power conferred by section 58(3) includes
