Re: [Talk-GB] pay_scale_area

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 02/02/2011 13:39, Richard Mann wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:51 PM, SK%3 > wrote:


... this information is needed and is currently poorly
communicated: see if you can obtain a leaflet showing the edge of
the fare zone with any degree of accuracy at a local bus station,
council office or library.

 You mean something like this:
http://oxfordkey.oxfordkey.co.uk/smart-card/faq/what-do-the-different-zones-cover/32/
Richard


Yes, but in that case I couldn't view a bigger version so that I could 
atually understand where the Oxford zone ends.


Here's the Nottingham City Transport one: 
http://www.thetram.net/times/kangaroo.asp. Fine for an overview, less 
useful if you discover that it's a half mile schlepp from the fare stage 
bus stopto the destination. Maidenhead have recently produced a map of 
their bus routes (first time since 1998 IIRC). Of course TfL have had a 
comprehensible fare zones map for years.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding a further 250, 000 UK roads quickly using a Bot?

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 02/02/2011 21:10, Peter Miller wrote:
ITO have been offering a service to compare osm road names with os 
locator road names for a while now[1]  which has encouraged a lot of 
activity - and has even led to Andy to obsession.[2] I have also 
suffered from a bout of urgent mapping myself while completing all of 
Suffolk to 95% in the past few weeks! Can I suggest that for our 
sanity we should consider developing a bot to do some of this work for 
us? This would also allow us to get the rest of the 250,000 remaining 
roads in place in less than the 13 months Andy estimates will be required?


This bot would do a number of repetitive tasks for us within the 
bounding box in which it was authorised to operate by a contributor.


It could do the following:

1) Add names to existing roads in osm where there is a single un-named 
ways in osm with a bounding box which matches that of a single entry 
in os locator.


2) In addition...  it might be able to also add roads to osm from os 
vector district, snapping them into existing roads as required where 
the existing roads align neatly with os streetview. It would only do 
this if there were no ways close by on either side.


Complex situations will be left to humans. Humans could also sometimes 
prepare an area for analysis by the bot, splitting ways as 
appropriate, adjusting alignment of existing roads and dealing in 
advance with situations we know the bot will have difficulties with.


Edits would be made as individual changesets, referenced to the mapper 
operating of the bot. Each edit would be 'signed off' by the mapper 
who would be able to see the proposed changes visual prior to 
accepting them.


Any thoughts?


Peter

[1] http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/summary
[2] 
http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/archives/2011/02/02/the-london-streets-challenge/



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


I personally don't think it's a great idea. There are many aspects to 
this, so I'll just take the ones which occur to me right now.


   * Automating road completion is not a huge impossiblity. In a
 desultory way I have been playing with name assignment to
 VectorMap District data, and I'm sure that approached in a more
 systematic and determined fashion it would feasible to produce a
 programmatic way to assign Locator names to the VDM data set. I
 have a pretty good idea of the major issues, and the outline
 algorithms to do this. The main step I have not tried is sticking
 combinations of linestrings together to maximise fit to a locator
 box. Connectivity is the other main issue. However, I think such
 data would be pretty much useful on their own, or could be
 mashed-up with OSM data for a given application (e.g., a garmin
 map). I don't see huge immediate utility in putting such data into
 OSM, as opposed to making it available in such a way that it could
 be integrated with OSM data.
   * Relying on OS data reduces the range of sources and validation of
 OSM. I'm currently experimenting
 

 with the Nottingham area to see how close I can get to the Urban
 Atlas mapping done for the EEA. My gut feel is that OSM data which
 is sourced through combinations of ground-survey and aerial
 imagery can provide similar levels of accuracy in terms of areas,
 and higher levels of reliability in terms of landuse
 classification. In other words, once OSM data start to get very
 detailed they provide a separately surveyed source of data which
 is distinct from OSGB. If we populate huge swathes of the country
 from OSGB data we lose this value (but see next).
   * Huge swathes of the country *are to all intents and purposes* only
 populated with OSGB data. Most towns in Northern England appear to
 have been largely traced: obvious examples: Darlington,
 Middlesborough, Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale, Grimsby, many parts of
 South Yorkshire. In many cases tracers using OS StreetView have
 not bothered to add road names (from time to time, I have been
 doing sweeps through Oldham fixing some of these). The few
 journeys I have made in these places indicate a poor level of
 quality. Adding data does not add mappers.
   * Many areas traced from Yahoo have received little or no ground
 survey. Most of Merseyside, Greater Manchester and West London
 fall into these categories. In some cases a concerted effort has
 been made to at least add street names from OS StreetView. See
 comment above.
   * We are still nowhere near 1 dedicated mapper per City/District
 which seems to be the minimum to give a mapped area 'life'. Of
 course we really want a group of people maintaining an area, but
 I'd settle for A lifeless but complete map 

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding a further 250, 000 UK roads quickly using a Bot?

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 03/02/2011 13:36, Tom Chance wrote:
On 3 February 2011 11:51, Ed Avis > wrote:


I think automatically importing the OS data for areas where OSM
currently has
little to no coverage - or coverage merely traced from Yahoo
imagery - is
a great idea.


I agree.

I would be totally opposed to this bot sniffing around Southwark, 
which we have got very close to 100% through a lot of on-the-ground 
surveying. I would echo Ed's observation that the OS road names have 
been much more accurate than the OSM data, mind you.


For areas like Southwark with at least a few dedicated mappers willing 
to alter their commutes and check roads, the manual approach is much, 
much better.


But what about the Lleyn Peninsula in Gwynedd, north west Wales? I've 
worked on Criccieth and the surrounding area for years, some others 
have done bits in a few other towns, but most of the county and the 
peninsula are still very bare after 5-6 years of OSM.


I don't see anyone nipping out on their bicycle of a weekend, or 
altering their commute to work, to finish the basic road network in 
Gwynedd. I suspect the area has a very low density of IT/geo 
professionals. Most of the work seems to be done by tourists, like me, 
who visit specific areas often.


If there are tools like the "no names" map and maybe an "un-checked OS 
Locator copied names" map, I don't see the problem with giving those 
remote rural areas a big boost. If anything, it might make it easier 
to recruit the sort of local mappers that can happily add a handful of 
local POIs.


Best wishes,
Tom

--
http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance


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

Well this touches close to home.

My mother's family come from North Wales: many of the poorly mapped 
places in the area either have family associations, relatives still 
living there or other memories from family holidays or my early 
childhood. You can look at places I've mapped in the area: some are from 
short more or less annual visits to the area, others reflect deeper 
meaning: the cemetery where my uncle and great-grandmother are buried, 
the village where my cousins' used to run the post office, the house 
where my mother holidayed before WWII, the open land which caught fire 
and my father helped beat out the flames.


Llyn does have a basic road network (pace Richard).  On top of that the 
OS data is a poor substitute for exploring the rich topography of Llyn, 
or for engaging people who already know it.


So why don't we try and find some local organisations which might have 
an interest: the local councils may well log GPS traces for their 
vehicles. There is a centre at Plas Tan-y-Bwlch 
 run by the Snowdonia National 
Park which runs conferences & courses. There is a university at Bangor 
with a CS department. There is an incipient Welsh Placename Society 
. There is the Royal 
Commission  on Ancient Monuments for Wales 
which is in beta with the People's Collection Wales 
. In most parts of England 
there are active Welsh Societies (e.g,[1],[2]), perhaps their members 
would love a talk about OSM and the chance to reminisce about the 
villages and towns where they grew up. There are local history societies 
like that for the Nantlle valley. There 
is the Urdd .


In other words there are lots of people & organisations with which we at 
OSM could engage, or we could just import the OS data.


Jerry

[1]. http://www.devamedia.co.uk/cymdeithas/nottingham/
[2]. http://www.oxfordshirewelshsociety.com/
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding a further 250, 000 UK roads quickly using a Bot?

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 03/02/2011 15:24, Peter Miller wrote:




Or do both? Surely the guys at the Royal Commission on Ancient 
Monuments are not about to head out on bikes to survey the area. What 
they will do, possibly, is get the boundary correct and put names on 
the buildings but not until the road network is in place or it will 
look a bit stupid?




None of this is telling me that a bot should not exist. It is saying 
that it won't be welcome everywhere and won't be used by everyone.



Regards,


Peter

Regards,


You mis-represent my point.

I am not for a moment suggesting that the RCAHMW will do any mapping: 
they already have a substantial job in stringent financial times. 
SImilarly, with other organisations. However, we could devote resources 
to a bot, or we could work at contacting people who may have lots of 
knowledge and enthusiasm about places which we have, as yet, not mapped 
in detail. Some of the contacts might yield new mappers, others new 
resources, others might be a way to get a mapping party off the ground, 
or just to validate the maps we have. What they have in common is that 
they involve speaking Welsh or English (or in Brechfa perhaps a bit of 
Basque) rather than python or perl.


Sure as hell, we won't get on the ground engagement if we appear to be 
OpenSaisMap.



Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 09/02/2011 20:27, Kevin Peat wrote:

Hi Jason,

I am the mapper (user:devonshire) who imported the woods in your first 
example around Dartmouth but it was last May so not exactly recently. 
The woods that are there now are a lot better than the NPE traced ones 
that we had before. I took the view at the time that importing the 
VectorMap data would be a major improvement.


Since the Bing imagery (old as it is) became available I am not sure 
why anyone would bother importing VectorMap woods as it is a lot less 
hassle to trace from Bing and just take the names from the OS 
StreetView. Ultimately I will probably replace the OS sourced data but 
it isn't a big priority for me right now. Feel free if you have 
nothing better to do.


The VectorMap data for streams is good especially as they are 
virtually impossible to survey well on the ground. Filling in the 
blanks may seem like a good idea but whether it is a track bridging 
the stream, the stream is piped or just disappears for a bit (as often 
happens in wetland areas) is hard to know without a survey.


Kevin







On 9 February 2011 18:42, Jason Cunningham > wrote:


OS VectorMap District is an excellent source of data for features
like streams and woodland, but these layers of data tend to be a
bit of a mess and need to be stitched together as part of a method
in importing into OSM.
eg Streams will end when they meet a bridge, then reappear the
other side of the bridge, so for OSM you need to link all the
separate sections of the streams into one long stream

Started to notice that the VectroMap District data in its "raw"
state has started to appear in the map, from more than one mapper
http://osm.org/go/erduA_U9K--
http://osm.org/go/eugeBnUca-
You can see stream are broken presumably at locations of bridges,
and woodland has strips missing presumably along paths (and is
also made up of several sections if you look at it in an editor)

Doesn't appear to be guidance in the wiki about how to deal with
VectorMap District. I just want to check I'm right in thinking
this is the wrong way to go about it? If so I'll try and write up
some guidance in the wiki.

Jason


___
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
 Jason has pointed out a number of issues with the natural features 
layer of VectorMap District. I'd like to add a few more:


   * Larger Streams & Rivers are only present as areas, not vectors, as
 well as not being connected. Absence of vector waterway data,
 particularly when not connected, means that OSM data is useless
 for any kind of hydrographic or hydrological analysis. Old traced
 streams from NPE maps on the other hand are still fit for this
 purpose. Use case: low cost simulation of environmental issues
 (water pollution, flooding) for charities, campaign groups etc.
   * Woodland parcels can be incredibly minute and over detailed: to an
 extent that the detail cannot be verified on the ground.
   * Woodland parcels are often not woodland. So far I have found
 parkland with interspersed trees (see any golf course), small
 groups of trees with no corresponding ground layer (not a wood,
 see first example posted by Jason), wetland features
  (exuberant
 over-interpretation of aerial images), avenues of trees, suburban
 and urban parks where one or two old specimen trees have large
 spreads, scrub...
   * Woodland parcels are often separated by a short distance to
 provide for a path, even when the canopy is closed.
   * Many areas are artificially divided by lines corresponding to the
 1 kilometer lines of the National Grid.

The main problem is that although VDM shapes are often extremely 
detailed, in many cases the accuracy and detail is spurious.


Another problem is that adding areas of streams or many woodland 
fragments places a significant burden on a) servers; b) editors and c) 
consumers (see Frederik's post). I like having these things on the map, 
but I do want to be able to have maps on the Garmin which cover a useful 
area. Thus adding this kind of detail may mean thinking either about 
adding new tags or extending existing tagging in the way which is 
happening with buildings. Personally, I might start trying to use 
natural=tree on areas and ways so that some of these 'woodland' 
categories can be separated out: an obvious render approach is like that 
used by the OSGB for 'scattered trees'.


Note that there are vector waterways and woodland available in the OS 
OpenData set which might be more useful as a

Re: [Talk-GB] B72 is a wrap

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 15/02/2011 15:32, Ed Avis wrote:

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists  writes:


http://blog.mappa-mercia.org/2011/02/whats-in-postcode.html

Great work!  How can you tell when you have every postcode and is there some way
of checking them against the OS OpenData postcode centroids?

I did do a little experiment some time ago (but you do need postcodes 
assigned to buildings):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sk53_osm/5333098864

I was going to write up some more but Chris Hill 
 beat me 
to it.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Armchair-mapping postcodes

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 15/02/2011 17:23, Ed Avis wrote:

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists  writes:


Great work!  How can you tell when you have every postcode and is there

some way of checking them against the OS OpenData postcode centroids?

Just by being systematic. If you have Chillly's codepoint postcode layer
sitting over BING its easy in the editor to assign the postcodes as you see
them when adding buildings.



I see - so you can use your judgement to work out the area of a postcode based
on its centroid and the streets and buildings nearby.

Since this isn't using any kind of ground survey to check the data, I wonder if
it would be a suitable task for a bot?  A program making guesses about postcode
areas might not be any more fallible than a human doing the same task.  Of 
course
it could only be done in areas that had already reached a high standard of
completeness, ideally with buildings traced as well as streets.

Or, perhaps, the robot could make suggestions which a human would then accept or
reject, so that 95% of the area could be covered, with human assistance for the
last few tricky bits.

This just doesn't work. The example I pointed to has shared 
semi-detached house which have different postcodes: there is no way in 
which any program could work this out, unless it already has 
housenumbers which have been mapped using, /inter alia/, shoe leather. 
Adding postcodes to ground surveyed data is relatively trivial, do not 
assume that the operation is commutative.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] OSM Pub Meet Nottingham Tueday 8th March

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

Just a quick announcement.

A first pub meet for OSM mappers in the extended Nottingham area is 
scheduled for Tuesday 8th March at the John Borlase Warren 
, Canning Circus, Nottingham NG7 3GD. 
from 19:30 onwards.


Wiki page at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup

Cheers,

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

[Talk-GB] Address information in MapDust bugs

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

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). 
There is no postcode or address information at this locality in OSM.


I presume that it is coming from another source, and am concerned that 
this source may not be compatible with the OSM. I am not using such 
data, but it might be become another reason, along with excessive noise, 
for not persevering with MapDust.


Jerry


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Address information in MapDust bugs

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 03/03/2011 09:51, Richard Mann wrote:

I think you might also consider a path density map or a
shop/pub:street density map. That's the sort of stuff where OSM can
really do much better than OS / Google.

Richard


This was exactly what I was trying to do with my various pub density 
maps . I 
did do various attempts to normalise pub density to highway length but 
none of them showed anything interesting. I have also looked at turn 
restrictions, and public toilets as potential proxies for things mapped 
on the ground versus things mapped remotely. A recent diary entry 
pointing to Gregory Williams cycle-parking heatmap highlighted another 
possible candidate. Unfortunately most of these maps (like the Botanical 
Society's maps 
of 
distribution of /Cotoneaster /species) mainly show where mappers live or 
are active.


As more of the highway network gets completed by remote mapping, the 
more important it is to find handles for on the ground mapping.


Pete Reed did some nice comparisons 
 between 
highway length by authority as reported by the DoT and OSM road length. 
I'm not aware of him having updated these recently.


Incidentally, 0% discrepancy between OSM and OS Locator is inadequate as 
an indication of streetname completion: the next test would be to check 
OSM names against PAF to see how many address elements were missing. 
Unfortunately, we would not be able to use any of the detail: but even 
headline figures by LA might be interesting. I've noticed a trend in new 
in-fill huosing developments for houses facing a main road to have a 
separate name (e.g., here ), which does 
not appear in Locator, nor do side terraces in late-19C/early-20C 
housing (e.g., here  or here 
). All these examples are places I've 
added this year.


Jerry

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 03/03/2011 03:21, Jason Cunningham wrote:
Well done to all those who finished off the road network in Southwark. 
I was drawn into OSM when searching for a mapping solution in the far 
south of Southwark, and it's brilliant to see how things have come along.


Tom, I've noticed you've added a large number of trees with species 
details supplied by Southwark Council. Some of the trees appear a bit 
random

eg http://osm.org/go/euuuYWULe--
Whats the story behind this? I wondering if they're from Southwarks 
TPO list? or  list of plum trees?
Noticed Southwark are one of the better councils for providing maps on 
their website showing important info (hopefully they can start using 
OSM as the base map)


cheers

Jason

Tom posted a picture on Flickr a while ago and I asked him the same 
question: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomchance/5415845316/.


The best place to get a sense of completeness is Peckham Rye Common & 
Park : I confess to having corrected 
 a typo on a 
couple of the trees.


I find this an exciting development: a place where I can point to and 
put pressure on other councils to make their tree databases available. 
My particular interests lie with good specimen trees and relatively 
unusual ones which are hosts to particular insects (e.g., Gleditsia, 
Holm Oak).


I have two minor reservations, which the Southwark data set shows:

1) Overlaying individual trees on an existing closed way showing 
woodland (see Peckham Rye Park). My suspicsion is that although this is 
closed canopy it's not really a wood (its nigh on impossible to keep 
accurate records of trees in woodland as the Lady Park Wood experience 
has shown). Of course this can be handled by post-processing in the 
renderer, but I think it needs a little thought as to how such things 
are mapped.


2) Tagging the botanical name. There is little point in pushing 
individual trees into OSM without this. There are three (perhaps more) 
schemes : name:botanical=*, species=* and taxon=*, each with various 
merits and demerits. The former is the most popular (a JOSM preset I 
think), but although comprehensible, it does horrible things to the 
meaning of the name tag, as name is usually used to things, not types of 
things. (I am not named /Homo sapiens/ under any nomenclature, nor am I 
going to tag phone boxs name=K5). Species is fine until we start using 
it for varieties like /Prunus cerasifolia/ 'Pissardi' (called by Alan 
Mitchell, "Pissards 'orrible Plum") and /Prunus cerasifolia/ 'Nigra'. Or 
for things like /Prunus /'Kanzan', which is such a mix of genetics 
no-one knows where it came from & therefore it does not have a specific 
name. That is why I have preferred taxon, the generic term which covers 
any scientific name whether for a species, a variety, a cultivar, genus 
or aggregate. I labour this point because experience tells me that this 
type of pedantry is important for maintaining credibility with 
naturalists: ultimately it is naturalists and tree enthusiasts who might 
maintain this data.


If my local council is anything to go by there will be plenty of 
mis-identified trees, or ones which it hasn't been possible to identify 
(typically Victorian oddities), plus new planting which has been badly 
sourced and thus isn't what it purports to be.


Thanks again to Tom for seeing this through.

Jerry

P.S. just seen Tom's comment about trees obscuring street names too.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 03/03/2011 16:30, Tom Chance wrote:


That's elegant from a logical and maintenance point of view, but adds 
hurdles for the data user.


For example, it would mean you couldn't just download OSM data and 
stick it into OpenLayers for the public like so:

http://tomchance.dev.openstreetmap.org/trees.html

A data user would need the skills to use the reference source to add 
that into the interface or merged dataset. By comparison, the 
experienced data maintainer could simply use JOSM and XAPI (if it 
actually worked these days) to fix the error quite easily.


I'm not sure this solution of adding the genus+species+common 
name+produce data to every tree is Quite Right, but in my view it's 
preferable as a botanical name isn't very meaningful to the average 
data user.


Tom


--
http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance


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


I must completely agree with Tom on this. (When has OSM cared about 3NF?).

Anyone who has used an old list of moths or butterflies has to spend an 
age working out what the current scientific name is, whereas if the list 
had been of the form Red Admiral /Vanessa atalanta /it would have been 
easy. Scientific names change more frequently than common ones, although 
even a common bird like /Prunella modularis/ may be known as Hedge 
Sparrow, Dunnock or Hedge Accentor. Plants may be a bit less susceptible 
to wholescale taxonomic change than animals and fungi, but it happens 
nonetheless (see wikipedia on the London Plane 
), and you may 
be surprised to learn that German botanists don't recognise the Crack 
Willow designation of British botanists.


Secondly it is important that people can contribute what they know about 
a tree, so provision for adding a tree just with a common name is useful.


My third point is that I would be hesitant about using wikipedia for 
plant names (e.g., /Tilia platyphyllos/ is pretty much known in UK as 
Large-leaved Lime). My first choice would be the Botanical Society of 
the British Isles plant list, available on their website, or that on the 
Wild Flower Societies webpage 
. 
The Encylopedia of Life  is probably a better 
source than Wikipedia for plants not covered by the first two lists. 
Other sources for latin names are Flora Europaea 
, possibly the Web of Life, and 
in desperation IPNI . I've added a few names to 
the list, but have left row 383 well alone.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] tagging for average speed cameras

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 04/03/2011 11:59, Richard Mann wrote:

You can't add another highway tag to something that's already a
highway, so you need to think of something else.

Richard

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Peter Miller  wrote:

Any thoughts about how should we tag highways equipped with average  speed
camera enforcement?

Do you think that it is sufficient to just add 'highway=speed_camera' to the
way in question?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dspeed_camera

If so I will update the wiki with details that instant cameras should be on
nodes and average cameras on ways.



Regards,



Peter


___
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
I think this is probably covered in one of the enforcement 
relations.http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Enforcement.


See also 
http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Great_britain/En/relationstats_enforcement.html


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

Re: [Talk-GB] tagging for average speed cameras

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 04/03/2011 12:59, Graham Stewart wrote:

One point relating to Average Speed Cameras:
Don't assume that the first camera is entry into a monitored section 
and the next camera exits the monitoring.

This is not always the case.
They can be set up as dual-exit-entry like this:
 Enter-A --> Exit-A-Enter-B --> Exit-B (see 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7048645.stm )

Or potentially overlapped like this:
 Enter-A --> Enter-B --> Exit-A --> Exit-B
So the best we may be able to do is note the presence of the cameras. 
Attempting to place them in relations for the individual monitored 
sections could be tricky and misleading.

Graham
This is not really an aspect of mapping which interests me: I'm mainly 
aware of it, because a local mapper is and has mapped such areas. Here 
is one example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/78922




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

[Talk-GB] Reminder: Nottingham OSM pub-meetup, this Tuesday 8th March

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

Reminder that we're having a pub meet-up in Nottingham is this Tuesday 8th 
March from
7:30 pm, Sir John Borlase Warren, Canning Circus, Nottingham NG7 3GD.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup

Cheers
Jerry


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

[Talk-GB] Nottingham Pub Meet-up last night

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

We had a well attended meeting last night with 8 of us. A good mix, of 
active local mappers, old hands (smsm1 ;-) ), relative newcomers and 
interested map lurkers. There was enough enthusiasm to do it again, and 
a general view that a monthly was fine, so I'll suggest a time & place 
for early April soon.


A representative of Pedals came along, and I got the impression that 
he'll recommend stronger backing from them for OSM and CycleStreets. I 
was very pleased to link up with a high profile local advocacy group.


Marcus, David (Pedals) and Laura (lolkins) all emphasised that they 
would feel more comfortable editing if there was an opportunity for some 
guidance. Marcus represented the Nottingham Hackspace which I didn't 
even know existed, and suggested their space near Nottingham Station 
might be a good venue for a mapping party/training event. This obviously 
has great potential.


So more successful than I hoped by far, and lots to think about too.

I'll write up something more detailed on my blog.

Thanks to everyone who came. See you all soon!

Jerry

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 09/03/2011 11:57, Michael Collinson wrote:

At 12:32 10/02/2011, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:

Henry Gomersall [mailto:h...@cantab.net] wrote:
>Sent: 10 February 2011 11:07 AM
>To: Peter Miller
>Cc: Talk GB
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when 
mapping?

>
>On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 10:30 +, Peter Miller wrote:
>> On reflection possibly we should use river-bank as that has more
>> information in it, but recommend that anyone importing does a 'bridge
>> cleanup' at the same time.
>
>This is an area I'm actually really interested in (for rural rivers) 
and

keen to
>contribute. So far I've been put off by exactly this problem. Is a
reasonable
>approach to use the OS data for river edges and then fill in the gaps
(bridges
>etc) with OSM data?

+1

If the OS vector data is only assumed to be the banks and the additional
data for flow direction, bridges and other features are added from
survey/BING etc then we should end up with a very functional dataset.


A late response to this thread, but a word of caution. Comparing Bing 
imagery recently for several Yorkshire rivers with folk's riverbanks 
derived from OS data indicates that very frequently  the OS are not 
tracing the riverbank as the dividing line between water (clear river 
channel) and land (grass, scrub) but the top of the riverbank or where 
the rough "verge" meets pasture land.


Mike

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


Interesting point Mike.

There are similar issues about tracing from imagery or using Vector Map 
District when doing other waterbodies: reservoirs are the ones which 
immediately come to mind. Often the landward side of the splash zone is 
more obvious than the usual water level, and if that is used for mapping 
it gives a false impression. Patches of riparian scrub and marsh also 
seem to be treated inconsistently by the OS (perhaps aerial interpretation).


Most larger rivers will have flood-level gauges (right word?) which 
might be some kind of aid for choosing a 'natural' level to map, but 
sourcing then is not straightforward. I've only done a bit of mapping by 
wandering around in wellies with one foot on dry land and the other in 
the water.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Loch Lomond National Park sorry for 'Giro Bay' map

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 10/03/2011 13:09, Phil Endecott wrote:

Ed Avis wrote:

These maps will probably become collector's items:



What struck me was this quote:

  "She also confirmed that some previously unnamed parts of the
  loch had been named after cartographers and rangers who had
  worked together on the mapping project.

  "The spokeswoman explained names given after people was a
  common map-making tradition"


Err... it is?  OK, maybe in the 19th century if you were Robert 
Fitzroy in Patagonia, but I don't imagine any cartographer today is 
just making up names!  (Hopefully not any OSM contributors or anyone 
at the O.S., anyway...)



Phil




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


Actually, it's pretty common : at least in Nature Reserves.

There is often a need to describe quite small features amongst the group 
of people who record, conserve or otherwise make use of these places. 
Sometimes these just receive a number, for instance 'compartment 73' (I 
have a map of compartment numbers for Clumber Park, but it's an internal 
National Trust document, they are used though 
), 
or a letter ('G' Marsh, 'L' Meadow), but many are either epyonyms, or 
twee names based on more charismatic members of the local fauna & flora.


I have added several of these 'made-up' names which are in common usage 
around Attenborough Nature Reserve: the Delta 
, Warbler Dell 
, Dirty Island Bank 
, Butterfly Patch 
 (in use since the 
1960's), Corbett's Meadow 
 (a recent 'official' 
coinage, in memory of Keith Corbett who was reserve manager for over 30 
years until his death in 2007), which is also known locally as "The 
Fisherman's Car Park", and "The Old Car Park", and Education Wood 
 (a recent unofficial 
coinage, around 2005). As all the water bodies were created by gravel 
working, their names have evolved recently too. I have only added those 
which are in widespread usage: there are perhaps 50-odd names which were 
coined in the '60s and '70s, mostly eponymic toponyms, but many never 
caught on.


If I knew how, I'd add very local names to the swimming holes on Fairham 
Brook by Keyworth Meadow NR: see Neil Pinder's article 
on 
the parish website.


Carsington Reservoir 
 
is another location where local birders have evolved a significant 
number of toponyms.


If you check any of the Helm "Where to Watch Birds" regional guides I'm 
sure you could find many more examples.


Of course the difference between these names is that in the main they 
are naming new features or un-named features rather than coining new 
names out of ignorance or exaggerated self-esteem which appears to be 
the case at Loch Lomond.


Personally the ability to map these hyper-local toponyms is a very 
attractive part of OSM. Of course, they need to be researched accurately 
to ensure they are names which are used rather than 'book-names'.


Jerry

PS. Damn, this is beginning to look like another blog post!
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 17/03/2011 14:33, Derick Rethans wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011, Matt Williams wrote:

snip..
It doesn't currently parse any postcode tag on highway=* roads since
strictly it's not the roads themselves that have postcodes, but the
houses themselves. I didn't want to encourage this too much I guess.
It is however a shame that your data isn't showing up; maybe I'll
reconsider my position.

I actually think that the tags should be on the properties as well and
not on the ways.

cheers,
Derick


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


Several local authorities (certainly Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe) 
round here have postcodes on street signs: 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sk53_osm/5534947666/


I therefore tag the streets with them.

P.S. Thanks to Matt for his work.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

Matt Williams [mailto:li...@milliams.com] wrote:

Sent: 16 March 2011 7:51 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Postcode finder based on OSM data

Greetings all,

For the last week I've been working on a sort of 'replacement' for the
  ...

Works a treat and it's great to see all my hard work with addressing for the
B72 postcodes.

Cheers

Andy


Worth noting NG9, I don't think this is absolutely complete, but its not 
far off (mapper will_p).


A few weeks ago I did pull out postcodes from all tagged objects & 
compared them with CodePoint, IIRC OSM had about 0.6% of them (around 
7000 in addr:postcode format, and another 4000 in postal_code tags). 
These figures will have increased substantally since then (B72 was only 
41% complete at the time).


I do have codepoint available in WGS84 co-ordinates, but possibly not 
the latest version.


Jerry

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes to Shapefile

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 18/03/2011 22:56, Kev js1982 wrote:
Resurrecting an old thread I know but with the NSPD Open data also 
being available allowing Northern Ireland to be generated and having 
access to an otherwise idle 64bit server I've taken the opportunity to 
revisit this, and have successfully created the shapefiles (it only 
took the server 12 days to generate the blighters - it managed to 
generate Z16 tiles for the whole of Europe and Z18 for the British 
Isles in just 36 hours - meh!) but now have one more obstacle to 
overcome...


The Veroni thingy obviously generates the tiles so they butt up 
against one another which works perfectly here in the landlocked East 
Midlands, but goes somewhat wrong in coastal areas (Fig 1).


My thought here is that the "World Boundaries" shape file can be used 
to trim the coastal boundaries to be locked to land so that the map 
looks "nice" (i.e. postcodes don't end up in the sea save for a little 
overlap on beaches) - Indeed if you add the World Boundaries file to 
Quantum GIS and use the "Clip Tool" you end up with what visually 
looks correct ( Fig. 3) but if you then hide the World Boundaries file 
the problem becomes obvious (Fig 2.)


What I want to know, is it possible to trim the postcode shapes so 
that nothing outside another set of shapes (i.e. the British Isles 
landmass) is included, but instead of leaving gaps the postcode shapes 
(e.g. FY3 1) are adjusted so that the line runs along the coast line?  
i.e. I would be left with something visually the same as Fig. 3 but 
with the coastlines part of the NNXX-X shapefile layer, and more 
specifically the correct polygon (e.g. the FY3 1 polygon).


Kev


Fig 1 - Postcode areas in south west Lancashire and the north Wales 
coast (green = NNXX-X shapefile, blackline and dotted area uses the 
worldboundaries file)

http://kjs.me.uk/3rdparty/osm/SouthWestLancs-NNXX-X.png

Fig 2 - After using Quantum GIS's "Clip" tool - 
http://kjs.me.uk/3rdparty/osm/SouthWestLancs-NNXX-X_trimmed.png


Fig 3 - After adding the "World Boundaries" back on. - 
SouthWestLancs-NNXX-X_trimmed_withwb.png


/Open Street Map data licenced under the Creative Commons 
Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 license 
 by the OpenStreetMap 
/ project and its contributors. /Maps 
contain Ordnance Survey OpenData 
 © Crown 
copyright and database right 2010./ /Postcode data in Great Britain is 
provided by Code-Point Open which contains Royal Mail data © Royal 
Mail copyright and database right 2010./ /Postcode data in Northern 
Ireland is from the NSPD Open 
 
which contains National Statistics data © Crown copyright and database 
right 2010. /


On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:30, Kev js1982 > wrote:


Hi Dave,

Thanks for providing the shapefiles for download - they did the
job nicely.

One thing I have noticed (which also afflicts
random.dev.openstreetmap.org
) is that a few postcode
area/districts are missing - namely

FY2 - (North Shore) Blackpool, Lancs
PE11 - Spalding, Lincs
PL17 - Callington, Cornwall

Using the code point download (which I got via the MySociety
mirror) shows that these postcodes do exist.

Also one of the AB ones (12 or 21 IIRC) for some reason includes
parts of Éire, Spain, Portugal and atlantic; while HS includes
Reykjavik

Just thought you'd like to know there is a possible error with the
conversion process.

Nice work though - been after a postcode map for a while, and to
go from an A5 diagram to full "google maps" goodness in one swoop
is awesome!

Regards

Kev Swindells.


On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Dave Stubbs
mailto:d...@randomjunk.co.uk>> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Kev js1982
mailto:o...@kevswindells.eu>> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Kev js1982
mailto:o...@kevswindells.eu>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for that Dave - really useful.
>>
>> One question though - which prj string/file do I need for
these?
>>
>
> Answering my own question - looks to be Google Mercator.
>
> http://spatialreference.org/ref/sr-org/6627/
>
> Kev Swindells
>
>

Actually, for some obscure historical reason it's projected into
"+proj=merc" which is srs 3395.

Close to 900913, but not quite the same -- my mapnik stylesheet is
then set to reproject to google mercator for the tile generation.

Dave




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
You ought to be able to do this with Intersect

Re: [Talk-GB] OS and OSM

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 11/03/2011 10:19, Steve Chilton wrote:

I have been asked by editor of the Cartographic Journal to write a short piece 
on the effect of the release of OS OpenData on the OpenStreetMap project, and I 
am just trying to gather my thoughts, and make sure I cover all bases.
I was present at Blackadder's Society of Cartographers talk on "Why OSM won't be 
bulk importing OS OpenData" and am aware of the work Chris Hill has done on admin 
boundaries etc.
Obviously also aware of the ITO work with OS Locator and what people have done 
with that.
There was work on importing detailed water features, was that Chris as well 
(goes off to read back through his blog).
Can anyone point me to others who have explored the possibilities that OS 
OpenData provided - PARTICULARLY if they can evidence WHY it is NOT of value to 
OSM?

Cheers
STEVE

Steve Chilton, Learning Support Fellow
Educational Development Manager
Centre for Learning and Teaching Enhancement
Middlesex University
phone: 020 8411 5355
email:ste...@mdx.ac.uk
http://www.middlesex.wikispaces.net/user/view/steve8

Chair of the Society of Cartographers:http://www.soc.org.uk/

'Inspire Me!' lunch time showcase on Assessment and Feedback, organised by the 
Centre for Learning and Teaching 
Enhancementhttp://inspireme.middlesex.wikispaces.net/



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


Sorry this has been sitting in my outbox for a few days. Ignore if not 
of interest now (post new release of VDM & duplication of others comments).


A quick summary of other imports known to me:

   * Boundaries: Notts/Derbys (me, will_p), Norfolk (PinkDuck),
 Tendring (EdLoach)
   * Power-lines: a few (me), lots in Scotland (tms13), chillly
   * These are relatively straightforward imports as the information
 can be left as is. In practice powerlines are much more easily
 added from Bing imagery than from OSGB VDM.
   * Woodland, numerous places by various people.
   * Waterbodies/rivers etc: Tendring (EdLoach), lots in Scotland
 (tms13), River Trent & lower reaches of Derwent (me)
   * VDM Building outlines: done at CenterParcs, Sherwood Forest
   * Buildings derived from OS StreetView (mapseg by TSC): various
 locations, including Preston, Surrey, West Bridgford area.

Known areas substantially traced from StreetView:

   * Bolton (steely)
   * Oldham (steely)
   * Middlesbrough (CGT)
   * Darlington
   * Grimsby & Cleethorpes (warofdreams)
   * substantial areas of S. Yorkshire (warofdreams)

Areas with names predominantly sourced from OS data, /inter alia/:

   * Oldham (done by me)
   * Darlington
   * most of NW London (Hayes, Hillingdon, Northolt ...) (done by me)
   * Liverpool suburbs (done by me)
   * Corby (and I presume many other areas in Northants)

Where I added names it was only to ways already traced beforehand (both 
from aerial imagery & from OSSV), and I usually did the minimum of 
alteration to what was already there.


Looking at each available class of data (sorry rather long):

*Boundaries*. Some don't like them for mainly reasons of 
policy/philosophy. Others (like me) see them as an integral part of a 
map. Main problem in importing them was merging with existing data (to 
retain things like relation history). Quite a lot of work and somewhat 
error prone, but substantially improved data as well. Experience shows 
that boundaries are *very* prone to be being broken in OSM. On the other 
hand I think that the process of using boundaries direct from shapefiles 
is beyond what most people feel willing or capable to do. So, OS data 
was relatively straightforward to use, somewhat tedious to integrate, 
convenient for *some *uses in OSM. I'd say pros & cons evenly balanced.


*Powerlines.* See chillly's blog on this. Major powerlines are 
conveniently provided as many short lines with a gap where the pylon is 
located. Really tedious to manage directly. Much, much easier to do from 
Bing data. Largely useless.


*Water. *Riverbanks and lakes as large scale features were generally 
better than existing OSM features, often because those had been traced 
from landsat/NPE maps etc. Requires significant post-processing to 
remove bridge outlines etc. (artefacts of the fact that VDM is a render 
dataset). See Mike Collinson's recent email for issues concerned with 
this. I have generally only used this on waterways I have recently 
encountered (mainly the Trent S &W of the end of Yahoo Aerial imagery). 
Some canals have been imported, as have the banks of smaller waterways. 
I'm not at all sure about this: primarily I would like to have base 
hydrography as a connected network with flows. Again render artefacts 
are a pain. Absence of flowlines in the data for many streams is a real 
pain. Generally the most useful of the VDM layers by a long chalk.


*Woodland*. In principle as for water, *but *suffers from a number of 
issues. The main one 

Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey Public Sector Mapping Agreement

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 24/03/2011 15:42, Peter Miller wrote:


You make a good point. As far as I am aware the OS now allow derived 
works for things drawn on their maps which weren't on the base map. In 
the case of rights of way some of them are of course are on the 
background OS layer which is a limitation (see example definite map - 
link below). As such I don't think we can use the geometry even if we 
wanted to.

http://rushmerecommon.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/img_1074.jpg

Also... I am less interested in rights of way than in paths that can 
actually be used. There are rights of way around here that are under 
water now that the rivers have widened. There are other excellent 
paths that are not rights of way.
I think this is an important aspect of OSM, and the use of the 
designation tag takes us in this direction. There are huge numbers of 
well-used paths on the fringes of urban areas where public usage is more 
customary than official. Also in many upland areas there are paths which 
have never been marked on OS maps, and with access land now in place, 
are never likely to be so marked. The ability to locate these paths in 
mist or other bad weather can be a significant aid to safely walking in 
the hills.


The usefulness of the definitive statement seems to vary from council to 
council. Statements in Nottingham tend to be very detailed containing 10 
figure grid references of start and end points, widths, compass 
directions, distances and names of roads. On the other hand Windsor and 
Maidenhead seems to consist of just links to the Definitive Map 
.


Here is a nice example of an impossibly right of way where you would 
need waders and a canoe to follow the path!
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=640205&Y=256605&A=Y&Z=120 



The thing that I believe we can lift from the definitive maps with 
confidence is fact that it is a 'right of way' and the right of way 
code. That was not in the OS base map.


To change subject, this location  
represents some of the hazards of current tagging of tidal waterways 
with riverbank (recently discussed elsewhere). I've had to get my feet 
wet at high tide even on the path on the S side of the Alde estuary from 
Snape heading for Iken around Iken Cliff. Improving tagging for this 
sort of thing ultimately relates to achieving decent mapping of 
practicability of paths.


There also exist PRoW where you can be actively discouraged from 
walking: for instance the bridleway N 
 
from Wash Road on the left bank embankment of the New Bedford River at 
Welney. This overlooks the WWT reserve and people silouhetted on the 
skyline can cause considerable disturbance to the wildfowl. As a very 
naive birdwatcher I didn't know this, until I got a flea in my ear from 
a warden driving a tractor (which does not spook the birds).


Jerry

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rebooting the NAPTAN import?

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 02/04/2011 15:14, Stuart Grimshaw wrote:

This weekend sees Sheffield's first Transport Hackday, hosted at
theGistLab[3], we've got a bunch of guys sitting here with various
apps we've written or would like to write and one of the projects we
identified as a potential target for today would be refreshing the
NAPTAN data in OSM.

Myself&  one of the other hackers have been reading the info on the
existing import[1] and we've come across a few speed bumps in our
efforts.

Firstly, the info on the page is about 2 years out of date, so my
first question is what is the state of NAPTAN data in OSM? Did the
import finish?

Secondly, the license mentioned seems out of date, since 2009 the
NAPTAN data has been released under the Open Government License which
makes using it with OSM much more palatable[2]

I've seen the tools available to import NAPTAN data, and now that the
license is relaxed, I'd like to propose we kick off the data import
again?


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Import
[2] http://www.dft.gov.uk/naptan/termsOfUse.htm
[3] http://opendata.thegisthub.net/2011/03/transport-hack-day-datasets/

-S

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/stubbs
Blog: http://stubblog.wordpress.com
My art: http://stuartgrimshaw.imagekind.com
Stock Images: http://en.fotolia.com/partner/16775

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


I would suggest the following:

a) Do not import any NaPTAN data in areas where imports have already 
taken place. Experience shows that detailed survey & correction of 
NaPTAN data is not to be undertaken lightly. IIRC about 10% is wrong. 
The best data are for Hullwhere Chris Hill surveyed the lot. I have done 
only about 20% of Nottingham's NaPTAN stops and have a similar error 
rate. Unfortunately processing NaPTAN alongside primary surveying just 
didnt prove viable, but there are plenty of stops which no longer exist, 
have moved or dont exist on the ground.
b) Check with any mappers in the area before performing an import. There 
may be good reasons why they have not requested one in the past.
c) The best approach would be to host current NaPTAN data in a location 
where OSM data can be compared & then mappers could choose to import it. 
Having an application which did this would be way more useful than 
shoehorning NaPTAN data in on its own.
d) Bus stops which have disappeared are difficult beasts. Have they been 
accidentally deleted, or has a mapper actually surveyed a site & deleted 
the stop because it doesn't exist.
e) I have literally hundreds of bus stop waypoints which I have never 
got round to cross-checking against NaPTAN. Others may be in a similar 
position. You can see this where a NaPTAN stop & a previously mapped 
stop exist close together. An import will either sit in the database 
gathering dust, or it will impose a substantial workload on local 
mappers if they want to check it. We dont yet have enough mappers to 
cross check this kind of imported data in a jiffy.


For me the NaPTAN data was most useful for naming roads & spotting 
places which needed a bit of TLC. I use bus stops on the Garmin so I 
find the data useful, but I would urge extreme caution about importing.


Cheers,

Jerry Clough

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What's the best way of mapping/tagging...

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 02/04/2011 17:32, Richard Mann wrote:

Sounds like a highway=living_street to me (but highway=pedestrian would be fine)

In general you need to tag the characteristics of the whole street if
you can. Micro-mapping is a bonus, and you need to be careful not to
make it unintelligable to the data user at the "whole-street" level

On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Kev js1982  wrote:

Cycling to work this week I have come across a more direct way to town, but
also a road which I am not sure how to map properly in OSM.

At the moment the whole street is mapped as highway=pedestrial with lcn=yes
- but in reality it's not that simple.

The road used to be the main road into the city centre from Trent Bridge but
has now been pedestrianised (the following images might help you understand
my comments)

Google Street View :

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.940734,-1.140834&spn=0.003246,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=52.940734,-1.140834&panoid=nqz0Qta4kazDIF3Ok2sN4w&cbp=12,324.6,,0,0.8

My aerial drawing : http://kjs.me.uk/3rdparty/osm/arkwrightwalk.png

Basically the existing "sidewalks" are still in situ and the paving allows
you to see where the edges are likely to have been (see the red bars at
either side of my image) and then at various places along the road two of
the old lanes have been paved over with a raised island of flagstones (see
the red blobs in the road) which effectively become an area for the local
kids to play football on and also walkway and the remaining two lanes have
become a cycle path (the white area) - but every 50 meters or so the islands
end on one side of the road and jump to the other-side of the road, and in
between the two islands the former four lanes of the road become a raised
sleeping policeman for about 5 meters (see the blue boxes) with the ramps
not being opposite one another (i.e. the ramp on one side is opposite the
pedestrian area on the other).

How on earth do I map and tag this street properly? - is it just a case of
drawing a road though it with all the kinks being followed and the speed
humps being added as usual setting sidewalk=no, then making the pedestrian
islands highway=pedestrian, area=yes (with the trees and bollards also
mapped) and then adding the sidewalks as two extra walkways running in
parrall with links across going across the middle of the sleeping policeman
(the sleeping policeman seem to be placed where paths from the sides join
the road, presumably to allow pushchairs and wheelchairs to cross easily).

Also the main road doesn't appear to have anything explicitly banning motor
vehicles either, although I've only seen two along the length of it (both
parked) - but the road is obviously laid out to discourage motor vehicle use
- should this be mapped in any way (this is a moot point really as the road
hits a (currently unmapped) wall before it permits motor vehicles again -
need to remember to check next week if there is a gap in that wall to allow
pedestrians through.

Kev

___
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


We seem to be moving living_street away from what I understood to be 
it's original intention: i.e., to mark areas with explicit signage as 
well as a street architecture which does not provide obvious 
discrimination between pedestrian & motor vehicle areas. In which case 
we will need different tags to pick out 'Home Zones'. These are pretty 
thin on the ground, but like average speed cameras appear to be popular 
in Nottingham: at least two exist in the area at Kennington Road & Nobel 
Road. This also diverges from what I understand is the prevalent usage 
of this tag elsewhere.


I'd be pretty happy with Arkwright Walk as highway=pedestrian, which is 
what it has looked like to me when I've visited it recently. 
Motor-vehicle access is not straightforward (at least from the London 
Road side, which is the only bit I've surveyed on the ground). 
Obviously, that does not take care of the cyclists viewpoint. I'll have 
to dig out some survey photos, although I tend to keep my camera in my 
pocket or leave it at home when surveying in The Meadows.


In many ways I'm more interested in verifying that this is indeed called 
Arkwright Walk and not Arkwright Street as claimed by OS Locator. The 
latter name AFAIK has not applied for 30 years or approximately the last 
time that Selectadisc had a shop there.


Jerry

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Rebooting the NAPTAN import?

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 04/04/2011 19:36, Stuart Grimshaw wrote:

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Ed Avis  wrote:

What we seem to be edging towards is a mixed tagging of route_ref and relations,
being respectively the 'rough' and 'proper' way to tag bus routes, and the need
for some lint-like tool to reconcile the two - at least as far as migrating data
from route_ref to the ideal tagging.

The problem with tagging routes on a map is that they change s often.
We saw during Sheffield's Transport Hack Day this weekend when the
guys from our local travel authority showed us how bus routes don't
just change from month to month, they change depending on the time of
day!

Some routes stop after a certain time of day, or they follow a
different route at weekends. They follow a different route for 1
journey before or after school and they go to different stops because
of roadworks.

They publish 2 sets of data, 1 that includes all stops, and one that
includes only the stops that are currently in use, however whichever
set of data they use for their web based bus information, they get
complaints from various people.

To keep this information accurate you really would have to update it
automatically, and given OSM's nature and the work people have done
that might automatically be updated I'm not sure that would be an
achievable goal.

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


This is a common point made by UK & US Transport professionals, but I 
think it reflects their perspective as planners implementing changes. 
From a passenger's perspective it helps to have a degree of continuity 
in service numbers and routes: not least because frequent change is a 
good way of ensuring loss of custom.


However, as Tom Chance says many bus routes stay more or less unchanged 
in essentials for decades. For instance Ed Parsons recently tweeted 
about the 285 
 having RATP decals 
on the buses, and I instantly knew the bus he wastalkign about. 
Wikipedia notes the one major route change I remember in 1994, when 
instead of going straight into Heathrow it did a big circuit on the 
N-side, which IIRC is why I stopped using it. Pretty stable. Elsewhere 
in London, the 16 red bus still runs up Edgware Road as it did in 1979, 
and the 154 along Stanley Park Road as it did in 1983.


Further afield the map in 1912 Baedeker is still pretty good for Zurich 
tram routes, although no. 1 died a long time ago.


The places where I follow bus changes with some degree of regularity 
might not be typical, but I think are adequately representative.


   * Nottingham has had *one* major change in service patterns since
 the demise of its tram network in late 1930s. This was under ten
 years ago when all routes changed to a hub-and-spoke system
 against the older cross-town routes. Since then there has been
 minor tweaking of the NCT network, and introduction of some
 smaller buses. At the moment there seems to be a flurry of new
 services being introduced by new operators which are far harder to
 keep track of than changes in the main existing routes.
   * Maidenhead & Windsor tends to see significant changes to route
 numbering every couple of years. However the basic routes have not
 changed significantly: most of the changes are attempts to find
 cross-town journeys which make reliable timetabling easier. The
 one route segment which was dropped was reintroduced fairly
 quickly. Country bus services are far more vulnerable to change
 and this usually just means dropping parts of the route or hitting
 service frequency.

I don't believe bus travellers are using (or will use) OSM for bus 
routing (CS types might, see talk-transit /passim/): but there is far 
too much attention focused on the actual journey, rather than using maps 
to gain an appreciation of the possible. I usually look at bus maps to 
a) see if the proposed destination is practicable by public transport; 
b) is that still true on the day in question (usually Sunday), and only 
then do I start looking at timetables. Somewhere like Switzerland I only 
really need a very basic map of the system and can then rely on 
Taktfahrplannung  to do the 
rest (see here  for a single 
sheet route map cum timetable for the SwissRailways). Sadly, the chances 
of having such a system in Britain are negligible. I'm with the German & 
Japanese folk that Chris Osbourne tweeted 
about.


So my basic conclusion is that having the route with the more 
significant variants in OSM is perfectly adequate for what lots of 
people want to use the data for (its good enough). All the extras of 
late night services, shortened 

Re: [Talk-GB] findmaps using OSM, and current situation regarding use of OS 'stuff' used in Google maps

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 06/04/2011 17:46, Jason Cunningham wrote:

Hi all,

Recently was made aware of Findmaps new free service that overlays a 
lot of recently released UK data over maps.

http://free.findmaps.co.uk/

The available background maps are 'google maps' 'osm mapnik' and OS.
You then chose to see several different datasets sourced, for example, 
from Natural England and Ordnance Survey.

You can add (draw) you own basic shapes/lines/arrows, and print out a pdf.
Overall an excellent service

But it raises three issues.
1. The OSM map is called the "Urban Detail". Since Google Map gets 
called Google Map it would of been nice to see OSM referred to as OSM. 
But I guess the whole point of OSM is to provide maps (data) with a 
minimum of use restrictions.


2. The use of OS data in Google Maps. I though this wasn't allowed. 
Last time I looked at this there was a problem with googles terms of 
use, which OS were not happy with. I remember thinking OS were in the 
right, and remember a response from OS which suggested that other 
mapping sites could be used. Since findmaps is clearly using OS data 
with with Google maps it suggests the situation has changed. Does 
anybody have info on the current state of play.


3. The use of Natural England data. Seems Natural England have an even 
more complex set of terms and conditions for their data sets [link 
]. I 
therefore find it hard to believe this data can be used in google 
maps. Has there been any discussion about using Natural Englands data 
in OSM because it does provide some very useful info (eg national trails)


Cheers,

Jason


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


I think the Google/OS issue has been partially resolved. However I share 
your other concerns.


OSM does not appear to properly described (or attributed). Richard 
Fairhurst pointed these issues out on talk-legal some time ago, and has 
subsequently alluded to many other non-attributed uses of OSM. I'm 
hoping he might write something up on it.


Data from Natural England and English Heritage appear to be being used 
when as far as I know they have restrictive licenses. It may be that 
these licenses are old and have been replaced by the standard 
opendata.gov.uk licenses, but as I have found discovering whether this 
is the case can be quite long winded. I did raise the issue of the 
status of Natural England data on the National Archives site a few 
months ago, but have not had any email reply.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Publishing Self-Devised Walks

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 09/04/2011 12:00, dan...@daniel-watkins.co.uk wrote:

Hello all,

Over the past couple of weeks, I've come up with a couple of interesting
walks from my house.  I would like to publish these on my blog, in the
hopes that other people looking for walks in the area will find them.
However, I haven't yet worked out a good way to do this.

One thought I had was to add all the constituent ways to a relation, and
then link to the relation shown on the OSM map (as in [0] and [1]).
However, I wasn't sure if this was an abuse of relations, given that this
isn't a walk that exists anywhere but in my head (as opposed to a more
'official' walk).

At the other end of the spectrum is screenshots and using the GIMP to draw
my route on (or using a mapping site like BikeRouteToaster to draw the
lines on, and taking screenshots of that).  However, this seems really
lame (as you lose all of the slippy-map goodness, and the updating of the
surrounding area/data), so I'd prefer not to have to resort to this.

Has anyone else done something like this?  Have I missed a project
somewhere which is designed to store such things?  Any input would be much
appreciated.


Thanks,

Dan


[Footnote 0: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=77959]
[Footnote 1: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=93785]


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


Adding personal walks with relations would certainly be an abuse of OSM: 
just imagine if we had a tiny fraction of the country's dog walkers doin 
the same! Such information is not open to verification, and is not 
related to on-the-ground features.


There are plenty of sites for sharing this kind of information: GPSies 
is one (see for example 
 my RA mystery 
walk 
).


There are also sites like Nick Whitelegg's Freemap 
 which are aiming to 
integrate the sort of information walkers are interested in sharing.


If you want to use OSM data to generate the route using routing it is 
possible to create a GPX or KML file on a number of routing engines 
(e.g., OpenRouteService, OpenMapQuest). The resulting trace can be 
displayed using OpenLayers with an OSM background or added to a site 
like GPSies. Have a look at the OL KML example here 
. Obviously the route 
you choose will depend on how much technical effort you want to expend.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism/bad edits in Cardiff (changeset 7775606)

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 11/04/2011 21:20, Paul Williams wrote:

Hi,
In and around Cardiff city centre, a new user has recently decided in
his first edit (see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/7775606) to go about and
delete several things from the map including POIs, roads or parts of
roads, and even the Cardiff place node - so Cardiff is now not on OSM
as a place! I sent a polite message to the user on Sunday morning to
ask whether he had made some mistake but haven't had a response yet. I
can't see anything in the changeset which is at all constructive, all
he seems to have done is delete things which were correctly mapped, so
I was wondering whether the changeset can be reverted.

Cheers
Paul Williams
(Paul The Archivist)

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

Quite an effective edit, Nominatim now thinks Splott is in Newport.

I always find this type of situation awkward: a quick revert will 
minimise the need to do a lot of effort cleaning up, but I always hate 
correcting edits by new contributions unless I can add something more.


IMO, the best person to weigh up these factors and act on them is you. 
You are a local mapper. Your edits & contributions are amongst those 
affected.


It is possible to use the History option in JOSM. Download Cardiff 
centre and then from the history menu choose Revert Changeset. There 
don't seem to be any conflicts at the moment & it's possible to check 
over the data before reloading back to OSM.


Of course this is just my take on things, and perhaps I'm biased having 
fixed a bad RR8 edit on the Nottingham Ring Road only yesterday.


Cheers,

Jerry



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Maxspeed tagging for the UK

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 12/04/2011 09:38, Peter Miller wrote:



On 11 April 2011 23:39, SomeoneElse > wrote:





On 9 April 2011 08:15, Peter Miller
mailto:peter.mil...@itoworld.com>
>> wrote:


...

   We seem to be nudging towards something close to a
conclusion.

   Can I suggest that the following two methods are
valid, however
   the second one should be considered to be 'better' and
where it is
   used then it should be retained to avoid edit warring.

...




   Method 2
maxspeed=60 mph
maxspeed:type=GB:rural
source:maxspeed=survey



Great - someone has now changed a bunch of "maxspeed=national"
locally to me to to "maxspeed=60 mph".  Next I guess someone will
come along and add
"source:maxspeed=i_was_sat_in_my_armchair_and_it_seemed_like_a_good_idea"
or similar?

We've lost the information that the sign is actually NOT a 60 mph
sign.  Something like method 2 above would have avoided losing
information (although "GB:rural" is meaningless; if pushed,
"GB:national" or some variant would be better).


The general conclusion of the discussion above was that where 
maxspeed=60mph is applied to a single carriageway road there is also a 
default 'maxspeed:type=GB:unrestricted' (or whatever value is decided 
on). This default (and the one for 70mph for motorways and 
dual-carriageways) was including to avoid burdening the mapper with 
another tag to add in most situations. The only 60 mph signs that need 
another tag are those rare cases where a single carriageway road does 
have a numeric speed limit.


Fyi, about 95% of currently mapped speed limits in GB at speeds of 
60mph and 70mph speed limits were already tagged as 'maxspeed=60' and 
'maxspeed=70' when I first looked at this about 4 weeks ago leaving 
only about 5% tagged as national or nsl.


I have been converting this remaining 5% over the past 2 weeks (with a 
brief delay while we discussed the principle on talk-gb after a 
reversion of one of my edits). I have had no complaints from others to 
my changes and only one reversion of one section of the A1 as I 
mentioned in my post. I take this as broad support for the changes.


By tomorrow there will be next to no remaining 'national' and 'nls' 
speed limits in Britain other than in your patch around Macclesfied 
which I won't touch any more.


There are also a small number (another 5%) of roads that are not in a 
recognised mph format, either because the mph is missing or because it 
is in km/h or for some other reason. I will be doing a copy-edit pass 
on these either fixing them if it is obvious or marking them with a 
fixme:maxspeed tag if not. I should be finished with that in about a week.




Regards,



Peter



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
I think there has been a discussion: I'm a bit surprised that there was 
also an agreed consensus, let along one which justifies mass edits. And 
if pushed I would have said that the consensus was maxspeed=national.


The discussion never pursued a number of outstanding issues. The most 
important of these being whether it would be useful to identify dual 
carriageways in general, rather than specifically for identifying speed 
limits (I believe that it would, the post-processing effort is high and 
there are sufficient anamolies to make it difficult to identify all 
satisfactorily). Others relate to relevant speed limits for different 
classes of vehicles, and finding suitable names for the additional tags.


I was unhappy with the original mass edits which added unnecessary fixme 
tags and other curious tags to roads. To compound this with assuming 
that further mass edits would be acceptable seems way over the top.


Suitable renders make a big difference by showing what is missing and 
encouraging people to be more proactive in mapping them. Andy Allan's 
new experiemental transport layer is a big bonus in that regard. Using 
such a render to drive tagging is less desirable, simply because it 
results in 'tagging for the renderer' type behaviour such as the 
creation of ways to supress display in the ITO OSM Analysis layer.


I've not pitched my oar in until now. I had been quite happily using a 
numeric value for maxspeed, but the discussion on this list showed me 
the error of my ways. The main reason I'd used a value was a misguided 
belief that it would improve the times calculated by routers. I'v

Re: [Talk-GB] Roadside cycle-lanes vs. off-road cycle-paths

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 15/04/2011 19:21, Phil Endecott wrote:

Dear Experts,

Can anyone propose a test that I can use to distinguish between 
roadside cycle-lanes and off-road cycle paths?


This is part of my effort to superimpose OSM path info onto OS 
District Map.  I would like to show off-road cycle paths that would 
typically be shown on a paper OS map, perhaps as a bridleway, and not 
roadside paths that would not be shown separately from the road itself.


One option is to look only for the footpath/bridleway tags, but that 
does seem to miss some things.


Any suggestions?


Thanks,  Phil.




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


I presume you mean examples like this http://osm.org/go/eu8YB5rsb-- 
(NCN-6 runs on a cycleway parallel to A6005) and 
http://osm.org/go/eu8YfjTe6-- (parallel cycleways alongside dual 
carriageway separated by a broad verge).


In these cases I suspect the only way to find them will be by adding a 
buffer to the cycleway way and determining if it intersects a road. 
Building an index on the st_buffer(way,###) value and comparing to 
planet_osm_roads might get most such cases & not hit huge performance 
problems. This may be a hint that in some cases we might want to provide 
additional information. I think there are various schemes for 
associating objects with a road. Maybe a simpler way would be to assign 
a landuse=highway to major road corridors.


Jerry

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

[Talk-GB] Another Nottingham Pub Meet-up Week after Easter

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

I've been remiss in getting another Nottingham Pub Meet-up organised.

I'm going to suggest next Tuesday 26th April at the Lincolnshire 
Poacher, Mansfield Road, from 19:30 onwards. Preferably in the back-room 
snug. I'll check out if they do food at that time.


I'll be outside at 18:30 for anyone who fancy joining me doing a bit of 
mapping. Suggested options, which I'll prepare with walking papers, include:


   * Rock Cemetery
   * The Aboreteum
   * collecting some no-name roads in St Anns (there are about 30 roads
 within 250 yards of Mansfield Road where names need checking)

If this date is inconvenient we can perhaps try another day next week. 
I'd like to keep Tuesdays, particularly as Wednesday is the open evening 
at NottingHack, and fingers crossed, we'll do some future events with them.


Cheers,

Jerry

PS. I'll add this to the wiki shortly.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Public Right Of Way map for Northumberland

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 21/04/2011 13:50, TimSC wrote:

...

If you have patience, the OS 7th series sheets that are coming out of 
copyright and have rights of way on them. Of course they are 50 years 
out of date... (but it's mostly accurate in my experience).


...

Regards,

TimSC


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


I distinctly remember seeing the first 7th series maps with the rights 
of way on them, probably in 1967 : we initially thought my uncle had 
annotated his local sheet.


Looking at one close to hand which has rights of way marked (Sheet 120, 
Burton) it is marked copyright 1962, with major roads revised 1968. In 
the top right hand corner of the key is "Reprinted with the addition of 
public rights of way, new major roads and Staunton Harold Reservoir 
1969). This is B/* for those with the relevant Charles Close volume.


Although our understanding is that the printed copyright date is the one 
to work from, I wonder if it is wise to treat the rights of way 
information as out-of-coyright.


I suspect councils will be more than happy to share this data once OSM 
data becomes useful to them: in the same way that it is becoming easier 
to use OSM Cycle data than many other sources. One aspect which may 
appeal as they thin out rights-of-way officers, is the report a problem 
type issue: often locked gates, dangerous stiles. We mark this information.


The other group which we dont seem to have much contact with are local 
Footpath Preservation societies and Ramblers Association local groups. 
Some of these have been going forever (The Manchester Association for 
the Preservation of Ancient Public Footpaths was formed in 1826 and The 
Hayfield and Kinderscout Ancient Footpaths Association in 1876) and must 
have a huge bank of  information not impaired by OS derivation issues 
about the local footpath network.


Jerry

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

[Talk-GB] Nottingham Pub-meet Tuesday 26th April 19:30

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

Just a quick reminder 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup.


Lincolnshire Poacher, Mansfield Road, 19:30.

I'll do an hour mapping before hand, and will be outside the pub at 18:30.

Cheers,

Jerry

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

Re: [Talk-GB] railway stations (again)

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 26/04/2011 12:38, Thomas Wood wrote:

On 04/26/11 12:04, Peter Miller wrote:

Baker Street. There are three separate nodes tagged
'railway=station,name=Baker Street' (one for each line served). In
reality there five separate lines each of which may have 2 platforms
(unless any of them share platforms) together with 4 entrances but only
one 'station'.

Embankment. There is a single 'railway-station' node on one of the lines
that stop at Embankment. In reality there are four lines each of which
may have 2 platforms (except for those that share lines) and two 
entrances.


Westminster. There is a single 'railway=station' node at a crossing of
the two lines. In reality the lines probably cross each other on
different layers and each probably have two platforms. There are a total
of 5 entrances according the NaPTAN.


etc...

These issues have been bugging me for a while - for instance, on the 
sections of District/Picc through Hammersmith, you get the rediculous 
situation of the lines forming something similar to =X= such that each 
is connected to the single station node.


Unfortunately, as is always the case, time is my limiting factor 
(hopefully some will appear freed over my summer!)


Thomas

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


Well spotted, we definitely ought to work for something more coherent.

As for Paddington I would keep the two tube stations separate from the 
mainline station. The fact that there are two stations called Paddington 
is invariably confuses people who might expect that this is a practical 
exchange point. In fact the old Metropolitan Hammersmith Line station is 
not really a decent exchange point except for some local mainline 
services: it's also a nightmare with a decent sized bag.


St Pancras is effectively several stations under one roof: the Eurostar, 
Midland Mainline and the Thameslink services are pretty much independent.


Working out a way to represent these individual components, the 
relationship with the underground, location of services (ticket offices 
etc) and suitable pedestrian routing through these stations would not 
only help for other complex transport exchanges, but offer real value 
for users of OSM. The walk to/from platforms 12/13/14 of Paddington to 
the Bakerloo & District/Circle line platforms is a not inconsiderable 
part of a cross-London transfer.


On the other hand, something like the tagging of Zurich Hbf is probably 
too complicated for an average contributor to want to contemplate: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1532513.


Jerry



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

Re: [Talk-GB] traditional orchard survey

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 05/05/2011 09:35, Peter Miller wrote:



On 5 May 2011 09:02, TimSC > wrote:


Hi all,

I thought this UK list of orchards was interesting. It would be
nice if they were to release it as open data. Not sure if they
traced it from some restricted source though.


Just what I was thinking as well.

Would someone (TimSC?) like to contact them. Given that it was from 
aerial survey and given that we have access to Bing aerial then all we 
need from these people is a geocodet and ideally also a name and their 
reference code for the orchard. We can create the boundary from that 
information. A geocode/name/reference is unlikely to contain any 
restrictive IPR.


Regards,


Peter



http://www.ptes.org/index.php?page=205

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9474000/9474777.stm

I also notice the Kent Heritage Tree Project has launch events:

Ashford 14th May (I might attend)
Canterbury 14th June
Tonbridge 10th July

http://www2.btcv.org.uk/display/kent_heritage_tree_project

TimSC


___
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

I'm a bit surprised that such a dataset does not already exist.

A similar (? identical) dataset is available on the (still running) 
MAGIC website with the data owner being given as Natural England: 
http://magic.defra.gov.uk/datadoc/metadata.asp?datasetname=Traditional%20Orchards%20-%20Provisional%20%28England%29. 
I would presume that this is available for download under Natural 
England's non-open license.


Other organisations (and people) who may have more information on 
traditional orchard locations might include some of the following:


   * Local Biological Record Centres: I know the Notts one did some
 detailed landuse survey work in the late 1970s.
   * Local Wildlife Trusts: again some have substantial survey bases.
   * Coleopterists  (interested in
 specific orchard associated beetles). Recent data is likely to be
 point samples on a 100 m grid.
   * Mistletoe enthusiasts, specifically Jonathan Briggs of
 http://www.mistletoe.org.uk/
  who co-ordinated a
 national mistletoe survey in the 1990s.
   * Moth-ers and bug folk may also have specific orchard related
 interests (I know Joe Botting & Tristan Bantock have been pursuing
 the Mistletoe Bug in Severn Valley orchards).

Of course nearly every one of these organisations will have used OS 
mapping during data entry: but in many cases they may have someone who 
can give a sensible overview of at the vice-county level.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Kent Heritage Trees Project - launch event report

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 14/05/2011 18:28, TimSC wrote:

On 14/05/11 17:39, Andy Mabbett wrote:


The Woodland Trust do something similar (no URL, sorry, as I'm mobile).


Do you mean http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/visit-woods/ ? I 
already asked for their data set but they were not very 
communicative... It would be cool to have though. (A fairly 
comprehensive list of public and permissive access woods for the UK 
and their operator.)


TimSC


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
I'm sure Andy means this 
http://www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk/discoveries/interactivemap/ which I 
think is backed by the Woodland Trust.


My own experience & discussions with local tree experts suggest that the 
data collected by this survey is fairly unreliable. There are too many 
'citizen science' programmes of this kind which don't produce really 
useful data because they lack any quality thresholds. It's best to see 
them as designed to get people involved: essentially they are marketing 
exercises. I've got a blog entry on the stocks about a similar issue: 
I'll probably end up doing several.


To put a bit of context on the 10,000 trees in the Kent programme: the 
Girona tree import was 28,000 trees and I think Tom Chance's Lambeth set 
is of a similar size. The figure I have at the back of my mind for 
Nottingham street trees is 8000, but I suspect that this is too low. I 
know that Nottingham University Campus & the adjacent Wollaton Park have 
over 3000 significant trees (probably excluding ones in woodland): these 
are in our local tree expert's patch. With his guidance the council have 
produced some excellent leaflets on trees in local parks, such as The 
Arboretum . 
I presume the BCTV Kent project is therefore restricted to large trees: 
one of the problems with the Ancient Trees survey is that it has tended 
to be affected by wild overestimates of trees size and age. Another is 
that prominent and fast growing trees (think Poplars, which are 
short-lived) tend to be over-represented


I've got a limited experience of a systematic tree survey: I attempted 
to locate all the Oaks in Attenborough Nature Reserve, mapped them 
 with GPS & measured 
BHG (Breast Height Girth). In an area of around 250 ha this took me 5 
1.5 hour visits for around 100 trees from small saplings to ones upto 3 
m BHG. I did this for the following reasons: a) because the ability to 
say I found insect x on tree y was useful; b) to see how much work was 
required; c) oaks are relatively rare at Attenborough so it was an 
achievable set of data to collect. The data set is now very out-of-date: 
I have not resurveyed to see which trees have survived the new flood 
defense work (most by the railway line will have gone for good), and I'm 
continually noticing trees I missed.


Tree identification is often non-trivial: a professional botantist I 
know was hired to re-survey the Brithdir Arboretum within Coed-y-Brenin 
because the orginal planting plan had either not survived, or which 
trees had survived was not known. He told me that identifying some 
individual trees took him hours. Certain heritage trees have been 
surveyed on a national level for decades: notably ancient Yews, and the 
native Black Poplar 
 (/Populus nigra 
betulifolia/). In the latter case a book 
 
was published by the Botanical Society's Black Poplar referee Fiona 
Cooper. However, the map was selective as landlords have been known to 
fell trees to prevent visits by Poplar geeks. Many counties include 
native Black Poplar in their BAP (Biodiversity Action Plans). Richard 
Mabey has good accounts of both these trees in /Flora Britannica/.


So to summarise: its important to have a clear objective before mapping 
trees. So far on OSM most mapping of trees has been casual, and 
therefore implicitly is for the renderer. I can think of several areas 
where clear objectives can be formulated:


   * In many urban contexts - parkland, amenity grassland, churchyards
 - mapping isolated trees or groups of trees seems both achievable
 and potentially useful.
   * Tom Chance (and others) are interested in locating fruit trees:
 again achievable.
   * I'm probably more interested in rare or unusual trees which are
 usually specimen trees in parks and larger gardens, and I'm keen
 that they be accurately identified. Having a known location of a
 given tree means that one can visit that tree and familiarise
 oneself with its appearance. It's then a lot easier to spot other
 specimens.This, though, is really a complete activity in itself.

A reasonably accurate identification is what really adds value, and 
that's the hard

[Talk-GB] Access Land tagging

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

I recently did a blog post on Access Land 
.


Part of the idea of doing this was to do something concrete to provide a 
basis for discussing better tagging for this sort of land. Basically, I 
added a relation tagged designation=access_land and foot=yes. At points 
where I had pictures of the access land roundel I've added 
entrance=access_land to stiles and gates. My example is Parkhouse Hill 
.


Any better ideas? Any thoughts about rendering?

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

[Talk-GB] Reminder: 3rd Nottingham Pub Meet-up Tuesday 24th May

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

Just a quick reminder that I (and I hope some others) will be at the 
Lincolnshire Poacher from 19:30 tomorrow night for Nottingham area pub 
meet-up. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup


Providing the weather isn't too bad I'll be there at 18:30, so that we 
can do something similar to what we did last month. We'll do something 
slightly different (Mapperley Park and/or Rock Cemetery). I'll have 
Walking Papers for the chosen areas so that there'll be a chance to 
write stuff down.


Obvious topics for discussion in the pub: the Fosse Way widening (I've 
now got a reasonable line all the way to Newark), perhaps follow-up on 
Kev's revision of the local cycle network.


Cheers,

Jerry

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

[Talk-GB] Any interest in a mapping party S Wales Sunday 26th June

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

I plan to be in S. Wales for a few days late June, and will be free on 
Sunday 26th June.


My suggestion would be Carmarthen : its not well mapped and is 
convenient for me, and reachable by public transport.


Any takers?

Jerry

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OpenKent, OSM coverage estimation

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 08/06/2011 15:58, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

TimSC wrote:

On 07/06/11 14:37, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

You don't need to put stuff into OSM to make it mashable-uppable. Most
competent licences will have a Collective Work/Database provision to
enable this.

While this this strictly true it is sometimes hard to associate
external records with specific OSM objects. Some importing of reference
and ID numbers makes this easier.

It's only hard because no-one's yet built a tool to do it.

You don't have to be that other double-barrelled Tim to understand that
linked data is the coming thing and that (as indeed timbl has pointed out)
OSM is ideally suited to be part of this new world. But you have to have
some way of linking, and stuffing OSM with every single id of every single
dataset that might want to link to it is self-evidently _not_ the way to do
it.

It isn't as complex as you'd think. You could provide an OSM service which
ensures some degree of id memory. Alternatively, you could provide a way of
fuzzy matching without ids ("the chemist around 52.9346, -1.87639"). There's
huge amounts of prior art to work from (Yahoo WOEIDs and all that).

If only we had more people who were prepared to pull their boots on and
actually do stuff :(.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Hardly code, but a few thoughts on this point: 
http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/06/possums.html


Aaron Cope's building=yes (link in blog post) work uses WOEIDs and is 
much more sophisticated: therefore might be a good place to start with 
learning how to make them persistent.


If I can get Peter Koerner to create a history extract of part of the 
UK, then I might play a bit as well. It realy helps to have a feel for 
the data in finding the real gotchas.


Jerry

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

Generally, I am still opposed to a bot. There is a substantial body of 
evidence that automated imports damage the ability to recruit and nuture 
new mappers. Recent posts about Latvia, Austria and The Netherlands on 
talk all substantiate this: in many cases the people recognising the 
issue were those who either carried out the import or agreed to it.


I think a completion bot is a distraction from a much more important issue.

In order to get  a better level of completeness in the UK what we need 
are more mappers. There are several ways to recruit mappers: they 
require a decent amount of hard work, and probably a broader range of 
skills than writing a bot. We need a more organised way of generating 
publicity on a regular basis both for national and local media. We need 
a better press kit. We need to move the emphasis of mapping from getting 
GPS tracks: dont get me wrong this is still valuable, but a local mapper 
without a GPS can do a fine job with Bing, OS OpenData, Walking Papers, 
a camera, and ground surveys. We need more outreach techniques: not just 
mapping parties, or pub meets or mini-mapping, but workshops for people 
interested in consuming data, workshops to review the data from 
particular usage perspectives (cyclists, walkers, sustainable living, 
wheelchair users, etc.). We could do with more supporting materials for 
such things: slideshows, posters,  how to organise  I'm finding this 
ain't that easy, but at least I'm trying.


We also need to recognise that the more detailed each area becomes the 
harder it becomes for a new mapper to feel that they can contribute, not 
forgetting the "I might break something". If we are to devote effort to 
code its better directed at tools which can make the life of new mappers 
easier: this obviously includes contributing to existing editors, but it 
may mean creating new ones. It almost certainly means working to get a 
much more sophisticated OpenStreetBugs integrated into the rails port: 
many new mappers will initially be happy to point out bugs (see recent 
examples on OSM Help where the first thing someone wants to fix is a 
turn restriction).


I strongly dislike the meme "OS data is always more accurate than OSM", 
because it implies there's no point in doing surveys anyway. Yes, errors 
occur, although mainly in transcription rather than in surveying as can 
be seen by errors in using OSSV & OSL, but tools like ITO OSM Analysis 
and OSL Musical Chairs really help to pick up these errors: I've been 
able to go back to pictures and audio recordings and indeed verify that 
I'd not changed Street to Road when I copied the tag over from another 
way. There is also the spurious accuracy problem: people filling in a 
road name from OS Locator when there is *NO *evidence on the ground that 
the road has that name (pace RichardF in W Oxon): see my blog post on 
Kenyon Road 
. 
Many of the unnamed roads in the immediate vicinity of where I'm writing 
this are of that type: sometimes dogged persistence can nail down that 
the road is still called that, for instance from address information.


Take a look at Corby : its OSL road complete: 
a small part on the N edge was surveyed, the rest is largely from OSSV. 
There is a huge amount of information missing: footways, paths in parks, 
information about Places of Worship, other POIs. Corby is the classic 
sort of place which is less likely to receive attention from OSMers 
according to Muki's studies: its out of the way, it lacks a strong 
middle-class demographic. There are plenty of people living in places 
like this who are using Skobbler's apps, but we're never going to reach 
out to them if we do the easy bits from our armchairs and leave the 
harder less rewarding mapping activities for others.


Why not build a separate database & render which merges the missing 
names (& roads) from OSSV/OSL and OSM data, but is external to the OSM 
planet database. This could use many of the same techniques as a bot.


A bot is putting short-term gain ahead of our long-term interests.

Regards,

Jerry

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 09/06/2011 15:47, SteveC wrote:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:42, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM 
mailto:sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:


Generally, I am still opposed to a bot. There is a substantial body 
of evidence that automated imports damage the ability to recruit and 
nuture new mappers.


Could you cite the evidence? Is it just hand waving about AND or 
something more specific?



Generally Google (or perhaps Bing) is your friend, but::

Latvia, ex.Jaak Lainste 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056786.html
Austria ex Felix Hartmann 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056801.html


I may be thinking of Derick Rethan's example when I mentioned AND.

For completeness I should cite Chile, where they have a good experience:

Chile ex Julio Costa 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-February/056770.html


There are other disasters like the French Cadastre 
<http://osm.org/go/0BOhfIg4F-> or the Danish 
<http://osm.org/go/0SpJwUg74-> address import where data was imported 
but no-one ever put the roads in. The Danes seem to be quite happy and 
seem to have rectified quite a bit of the data recently thanks to Bing 
imagery; I certainly wasnt when buildings I'd added in Briancon were 
just zapped for an import, nor did the number of import clean-ups I did 
on the cadastre because there were huge number of duplicates overwhelm 
me with joy.


I used to be sceptical about the anti-import lobby (e.g., The Pottery 
Club 
<http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/shine/archives/2009/11/10/the-pottery-club/>), 
seeing it as the 'old-hands' resenting things not been done the hard 
way; and like others here I believed if I traced roads in then people 
would come along and stick the names on. They didn't names only appeared 
when either a) I surveyed them, or b) I added them from OSSV data. So I 
now no longer buy into "the build and they will come" theory: it rarely 
works in other domains which is why firms spend money on advertising and 
marketing.


One last thing: I believe the onus is on import advocates to demonstrate 
how the import will deliver value & strengthen OSM.


Imports will never get the A46 changes 
<http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/05/along-fosse-way-mapping-new-road.html> 
mapped within a day or so of them happening: and this is the real story 
to sell OSM rather than "We're almost as good as the free data set from 
the Ordnance Survey". Also imports, and even mapping parties by 
non-locals will never get the data good enough to be able to just focus 
on what has changed. It's really frustrating going round a place which 
looks well mapped and ending up adding 20 new streets because the 
obvious cues aren't there. I doubt if anyone else has done anything like 
Dair Grant <http://www.refnum.com/projects/osm/edinburgh/>'s Edinburgh 
survey.


J

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Forum (was OSM Analysis New Data and bot)

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 10/06/2011 10:17, Graham Stewart wrote:

> Richard Fairhurst said:
> The problem with these fast-moving mailing lists is that I get 
halfway through a reply to Graham's e-mail, go to the pub..

My emails often have that effect :)
That raises the question of why on earth we're still using cliquey 
semi-private email lists when we could be using nice open public 
forums with categories, threaded discussions, formatting and voting - 
but that is a discussion for another day. ;)


Do you mean like this one: 
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=5.


It's just not very popular.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 14/06/2011 10:41, Craig Loftus wrote:

On 14 June 2011 10:26, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

Potlatch 2's improved (not deployed yet) shapefile background layers asks
you for the projection before loading, rather than relying on the .prj file.

Thanks for clarifying.

I'm not very familiar with projections so a little more clarity would
be useful for me. As potlatch 'understands' OSGB, is loading an OSBG
shp file any more expensive than loading a WGS84 shp file?

If it is, it may be worthwhile reprojecting all the files. This would
also have the advantage of making the mirror useful for those of us
who simply refuse to stop using JOSM, despite all the awesome you keep
piling into potlatch.

Craig

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
JOSM is perfectly capable of dealing with different projections: it's 
how the French cadastre plugin works.


Adding an OSGB36 capability to JOSM would seem to the way to go.

There is a basic rule about shapefiles and OSM imports: learn about 
projections first!


RichardF's mail shows why: if you dont add all the funny numbers at the 
end of the projection (the Helmert Transform) things end-up 100m away 
from where they should be! There's a good intro on the OS site, also 
Chris Hill wrote a blog post about this last April or May.


Jerry

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Governance: How Should Decisions Be Made?

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 13/06/2011 00:38, TimSC wrote:


The OSMF is currently reviewing its role in OSM. I want to know the 
view of ordinary mapping contributors about how decisions should be 
made in OSM. Is OSMF a "supporting" body? If so what does "supporting" 
mean in this context? Is it a "governing" body? What decisions should 
be left to individuals and what decisions left to collective decision, 
made by OSMF, on behalf of mappers and users?


The order of the options has been randomised. Apologies if I missed 
your real wishes, please comment.


http://doodle.com/s2zg64vyaup72dcw

(Sorry for the cross post if you have already seen this in talk.)

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


Dear Tim,

Rightly or wrongly, I believe you have a personal agenda concerning this 
issue.


I also believe that this type of poll is hopelessly unrepresentative 
(see the Pharyngula blog for countless examples).


I would also expect OSM-F to make announcements about consideration of 
changes to their role, and ask for formal responses.


OSM governance, however passioniate you feel about it, does not seem to 
me to belong here on the talk-gb list. I do not subscribe to talk, 
talk-legal and many other lists, because I do not want my inbox to be 
full of mails which have little or no relevance to my interests. 
Furthermore many of these emails seem to me to be written by people with 
little interest in constructive discussion, and a great interest in 
destructive discussion.


Please do not start cross-posting about an non talk-gb issue here.

Regards,

Jerry


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Woodland Trust and Open Data

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 16/06/2011 15:31, TimSC wrote:


My communication recent with the woodland trust, regarding open data:

It would be good if you could do more on data openness - that is more 
permissive permissions to use data on your web site. Also it would be 
good to be able to upload creative commons licensed photos to your 
visitwoods pages, as there are many good photos on flickr like that.


Regards,

Tim


On 16/06/11 15:28, Tim Sheerman-Chase wrote:

On 16/06/11 15:20, visitwo...@woodlandtrust.org.uk wrote:
Your comments about data and creative commons prompted an 
interesting discussion in our team. While we would like to do more 
about data openness, our data is licensed from a huge number of 
partners, so we are unable at present to make it more open. We would 
like to assure you that your comments have been taken seriously, and 
have been fed into our ongoing project development.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I look forward to any future 
attempts that can be made on your part to adopt open data.


You might be interested in something I did with Kent Council Council 
recently. They released a list and rough location of green spaces in 
the Medway area. I have created a web 2.0 website to collect user 
annotations and improved position data. 
http://toolserver.org/~timsc/locateservices/greenspaces/ I hope it is 
food for thought.


Regards,

Tim





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Virtually all the Woodland Trust management plans are available on their 
website: a lot of the mapping that I have seen (either on the web, or 
signposted changes on the ground) is based on MasterMap. They are 
well-known in the conservation 'industry' to be rather better resourced 
than many other charities.


I had a conversation with the CEO of a large wildlife charity last 
summer: he was interested that I could suggests alternatives to MapInfo 
as licence & support costs were significant outgoings. Many of the 
conservation organisations I know will only have one license for GIS and 
therefore using geographical information is not embedded in either the 
way they do things or in how they collect data (for instance when field 
surveys are done). Helping charities to understand these issues are 
probably more helpful than asking them to devote (scarce) staff 
resources to open data. I dont know how the PMSA affects this: but many 
Wildlife Trusts will have strong mutual relationships with the 
equivalent councils.


From an OSM viewpoint a lot of data will be affected by the OSGB 
derived work issue: which AFAIK is not resolved.


Jerry

Jerry

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

[Talk-GB] Nottingham Pub Meet-up Tuesday 21st June: reminder

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

To my horror I see that I did't update the mani wiki page when I changed 
the calendar. Many apologies. Let me know if this is now too short notice.


Just a quick reminder, that this is scheduled for 19:30 tomorrow, meet 
up at 18:30 for mapping walk outside the Lincolnshire Poacher.


Wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup

I'm hoping we can fix a date for late July for Mapping Workshop at the 
Hackspace: theme cycling & POIs.


Sorry I haven't written up last months meeting: I've been heads down 
with other stuff (and I'll be away for a few weeks after this week).


Regards,

Jerry Clough



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright issues of checking details on other websites

[Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM]

On 05/07/2011 10:51, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Tom Chance wrote:

So I suspect it's potentially breaching copyright, and a matter of
judgement as to whether it's worth the risk. For example, if you
were copying in data from a commercial web site whose business
model was based around that data (like a listing of pubs) you
might get yourself and OSM into some trouble. On the other
hand, copying in some basic contact details for a local church
or restaurant off their own web site is unlikely to cause any
trouble!

Exactly that.

If you want a very very broad rule of thumb, you could ask "am I checking
these contact details against a database of contact details?".

If so (e.g. tesco.com list of their stores, beerintheevening.com list of
pubs, etc.), then don't do it.

If not (e.g. an individual 'contact us' page on a one-off shop), you'll be
fine.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Copyright-issues-of-checking-details-on-other-websites-tp6545632p6549071.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
I have a rule of thumb about this: if I've checked against the website 
of the business/church/organisation I add this link in a tag in addition 
to any address/name info. I hope this a) offers a degree of reciprocity; 
and b) enables other mappers to find the same details for verification. 
In general I do this to check some specific details, working out the 
denomination of inner city churches is often a bit tricky, and I might 
check things like the postcode against my deduction from CodePoint Open.


Other times I'll do this are when photomapping is inappropriate, so the 
website is giving what the ad-men call 'prompted recall'.


Jerry

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