Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode centroids
A couple of points: * Admin. boundaries are not straightforward to verify, but there is plenty of suitable objective evidence : from Boundary Markers (e.g., http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/502944003), names on rubbish bins, or the bin lorries, asset identification numbers on street furniture, asking people in the street, out-of-copyright documentary evidence, style and appearance of street signs (and other street furniture), sticky labels saying report a problem, etc. Some areas even have local 'beating the bounds' events. ITO Analysis also show how useful boundaries are for analytical questions: not every interesting boundary will be available in a suitable data-set outwith OSM. * Postcode centroids are completely artificial, nothing tangible about them at all. The centroids are copyright to Royal Mail, and require an additional attribution statement. As may the data derived from them * Individually assigned postcodes (whether to a road, an address interpolation way or an individual house/flat) provide a much richer FREE dataset than that offered by the CodePoint Open set of centroids. The range of use cases for such a dataset is much larger, and not restricted to just enabling navigation to postcode in satnavs. An obvious application is 'PAFing' address lists: something which for charities and small businesses still costs significant sums of money. * If you want postcodes in your Garmin it is trivial to build a separate transparent layer using mkgmap. There is no need to import them into OSM for this purpose. * No one is asking you to add postcodes to 25,000 houses: they are just providing tools to assist you if that is what you want to do. Generally, adding postcodes is trivial compared with the leg work of collecting house numbers, adding buildings and verifying streetnames. Jerry From: Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com To: Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu Cc: Talk-GB Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Sent: Fri, 21 January, 2011 10:02:50 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode centroids So I should delete the various admin boundaries in the db then as they cannot be viewed on the ground? That's great for Nominatim but what if I want to find a postcode on my Garmin? Kevin On 21 January 2011 09:58, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Because postcode centroids are not real - they don't exist so fail the ground truth rule. As I understand things the new version of Nominatim that is coming up will search the OpenData postcode data (and various other postcode databases for other countries) directly anyway. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)
There are also long sections of the Grantham Canal which are Nature Reserves: there's a fantastic stretch in the Vale of Belvoir with masses of interesting aquatic vegetation and in late May, early June a remarkable range of dragonflies and damselflies. There are some conflicts in tagging between this sort of disused canal and its current use: although I haven't investigated them recently. I think the main one was that a disused canal full of water is very different from one which is dry: but from a naturalists perspective the fact that the water body is a canal rather than catch-all natural=water is significant. There are several other stretches of disused/abandoned canal also around Nottingham, these include: the disused Derby Canal (very apparent at its W end near Swarkestone, less apparent at its E end near Sandiacre), stretches of the Nottingham Canal (some of which is occupied by the culverted River Leen, and lock 6 (I think) is used by NCN 6 to pass under the ring-road), the Nutbush Canal, the E end of the Cromford Canal, and some very early canals serving collieries which have completely disappeared. I don't propose to map any of these in the near future, but there is plenty of remaining infrastructure for the observant to find. Certainly the Grantham Canal is a good place to clarify how to tag canals in various states of disuse: potentially to satisfy differing wants of, inter alia, the waterway map completists, waterway restoration types, cyclists, walkers, fishermen (not many in OSM I think) and naturalists. I'd also second TomH: there are lots of things showing as navigable which look odd: Cromford Canal from Cromford to Ambergate (now a nature reserve, and possibly an SSSI), the Loddon S of Twyford. The Trent appears to be unnavigable between Nottingham and Newark. There are several fast flowing rivers in Scotland deemed navigable, like the one to the W of Loch Tulla. I presume that we have a consensus that boat=yes does not included canoes, paper boats, pooh sticks, or even a small rowing boat or dingy? Anyway thanks to Chris for persistence in asking the question, and Graham for the visualisation: no doubt a few things will be fixed soon. Jerry From: Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu To: Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wed, 19 January, 2011 22:27:59 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible) The Grantham canal round here varies in quality from Being in a pipe under the road for a big stretch Looking like a normal canal but with all the locks missing/ damaged Drained of water and full of weeds Looking like a normal canal but full of algee and other stagnet strenches Oh, and most paths/roads cross on the level with nothing more than a pipe underneath. The tow paths are generally navigatable by foot, and from plunger ( I think) to the trent by bike in all weathers ( if you ignore the a46 Fosseway crossing which is closed to allow the construction of a dual carridgeway) On 19 Jan 2011 21:29, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you all for your comments. Dealing with 'disused' was nice and easy - I have deleted disused locks altogether and changed disused canals to a fainter, dotted line (see just north of Carnforth near Lancaster). I am not sure I have ever seen a 'disused' canal - does this mean a ditch, or just an overgrown, impassable canal? I have also prevented locks being shown until you zoom in to zoom level 10. Updated version now rendering at http://maps.webhop.net/canals, using the mapnik style http://maps.webhop.net/canals/canal2.xml.. Adding navigable rivers is a good idea, but will take more doing because my database does not include the 'boat=' tag - I will have to re-import the whole uk, which takes a few hours... Are there any other waterway specific tags that should be included? What points of interest should a waterways map highlight - I only have locks at the moment, because I remember these being the interesting part of canal boating, but I can add other things - especially if anyone would like to draw an icon for it - otherwise we will end up with another one of my dodgy drawings! Graham. On 19 January 2011 19:24, Chris Moss mosch...@googlemail.com wrote: Thanks Graham and Malcolm, Certainly I can see for the first time where the gaps are in the waterway coverage and it encourages me to explore mapnik and see how everything works. Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list
Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)
I note on the Natural England condition statement that they use the phrase Residual Waterway, so perhaps we can make use of something like canal=residual. Jonathan Briggs did a nice article on the ecology of the Montgomery Canal in British Wildlife a few years ago (BW, 17:401-410, 2006 IIRC). From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thu, 20 January, 2011 12:21:58 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible) Someoneelse wrote: I suspect that you could probably get a larger boat along the top bit (just south of Ambergate) without too many issues, but I think the bottom bit had signs suggesting not to disturb anything. From WW's most recent article on the Cromford: And indeed, since 2005 (WW January 2006), FCC do run occasional horse-drawn boat trips there. (Unpowered boats obviously create less disturbance to vegetation in the channel - similar reasoning is behind the 2mph limit on a stretch of the Montgomery IIRC.) So the correct way to tag the stretch from Ambergate to Cromford would be something indicating horse-drawn boats yes, powered boats no. I'll leave it to the wikifiddlers to decide what key/value pair works for that. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5943533.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] invisible
Written last night, so some of this goes over ground already covered. At one stage someone was doing a canal waterway map, but I think those involved have other time commitments, like maintaining OSM editors and doing the default cartography. Nick Whitelegg has Freemap which is aimed at walking. A number of maps cover Europe in the categories you mention, for instance Lonvia's hiking map, Hike and Bike map, OSMC Reitkarte (riding hiking, germany surroundings), OpenBusMap, and so on. There are postcode maps, POI overlay tools, etc. as well. Contours are not part of OSM for a range of reasons. So virtually all the things you would like to see exist, but each is done as a separate project by an individual or group with a particular interest. So invisible isn't really fair: but I would accept that these are not immediately obvious. A lot of these projects share common problems: hosting (costs, access etc), maintaining up-to-date data, development work. OpenBusMap for instance has not updated for several months for these reasons. The ever increasing volume of data in OSM doesn't make life easier for people running these projects. Not to forget that people have jobs, families, holidays, and like to go mapping too! Much of the leg-work that does happen tends to go into tools to help improve the quality of the data. So the most useful map renders tend to be one which help mappers to see things which have been missed, or errors in data entry. On the other hand, there is also a tendency for things that get rendered to get mapped. There are also tools like Maperitive Kosmos which allow rendering on the desktop of subsets of data, such as power, public transport etc: the rendering rules can be shared. Also the Cloudmade site allows customised rendering. Of course it would be nice to have dedicated hardware for serving a range of UK-based maps, as some of the more tedious aspects of maintaining current data could be shared. However, we don't have a UK umbrella organisation for OSM, and the folk who might be able to maintain such a server already spend lots of their free time keeping the worldwide OSM platform going. Jerry From: Chris Moss mosch...@googlemail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Mon, 17 January, 2011 23:05:56 Subject: [Talk-GB] invisible I'm interested in the GB waterways and it seems there's quite a bit of work done but it's totally invisible. Is anyone working on a layer like the cycle map, which leaps out from the overlays as the only minority interest yet developed? It's not the only layer I'd like to see. What about walking paths, railways, contours, points of interest, postcode areas, administrative boundaries, constituencies, bus routes, etc., etc. Shouldn't maps allow you to concentrate on whatever you're interested in? Can someone please explain to me how or if this can be done with openstreetmap? Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Derbyshire area unconnected
I think the following thread might be of interest: http://www.mail-archive.com/t...@openstreetmap.org/msg10077.html Try pressing 'u' in Potlatch edit view : http://osm.org/go/eu2Tbe8i. From: Ian Spencer ianmspen...@gmail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sat, 21 August, 2010 18:07:46 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Derbyshire area unconnected Dave F. wrote on 21/08/2010 13:29: On 21/08/2010 07:42, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: Sorry not to list. - Forwarded Message From: Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk To: Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk Sent: Sat, 21 August, 2010 7:42:00 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Derbyshire area unconnected http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=14lat=52.95432lon=-1.84354layers=B00Tdb=osm_EUch=0%2C50%2C231%2C232show_ign=1show_tmpign=1 seems to be one example User darren39 appears to be responsible. Has anyone contacted him before? Because as of this morning he appears to still be creating unjoined ways: http://osm.org/go/eu2C81oJu-- He's been mapping on OSM for almost two years so it's a bit disappointing he's not learnt the correct way. Cheers Dave F. I've done a friendly message to him, telling him why it is useful to me with my Garmin Satnav and also pointing him to the keepright site (with a relevant reference this time!). Spenny ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fw: Derbyshire area unconnected
Sorry not to list. - Forwarded Message From: Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk To: Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk Sent: Sat, 21 August, 2010 7:42:00 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Derbyshire area unconnected http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=14lat=52.95432lon=-1.84354layers=B00Tdb=osm_EUch=0%2C50%2C231%2C232show_ign=1show_tmpign=1 seems to be one example From: Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk To: Ian Spencer ianmspen...@gmail.com Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sat, 21 August, 2010 1:05:07 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Derbyshire area unconnected Hi, I have come across a few mappers in the past who have put in a huge amount of effort to map their town, but were not aware of the connectivity or the importance of. When I have explained it to them and shown them some routing service that they hadn't come across before, they are generally happy to learn from their mistake, especially if you give some help with the editor and be very specific about how to make the adjustments. Maybe there is a specific tutorial or video that can now be linked to. I think your link is to the wrong location. Shaun On 20 Aug 2010, at 23:57, Ian Spencer wrote: I was checking why a bike route from near Derby to Alton Towers was really badly out and discovered that whoever has been mapping an area around Derbyshire has been cunningly disguising their ability to connect ways together. I've not come across such a consistently bad area before (naive I know). http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?zoom=14lat=48.20808lon=16.37221 Might give you an idea of the scale of the issue. While normally a local survey would be suggested, there are no sources quoted on the ways typically, and a very high number of ways simply do not join although keepright spots that they are very close. Anyone fancy checking through the area using an appropriate resource (he says, reluctant to suggest Open Street View for those who are OSV sensitive!). I've made a start. Spenny ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Marine Conservation Zone Project: Interactive Map and OSM Boundaries
Just followed a link from Mapperz to the MCZ Interactive Project and found this little snippet on the FAQ: The OpenStreetMap background mapping used by the interactive map has some legal boundaries built in (pale purple lines). These have some small discrepancies compared to the official boundary and shouldn't be used to locate yourself. We are trying to get the OpenStreetMap boundaries amended as soon as possible. I wondered if anyone was aware of how this process is occurring? Given that MCZ has DEFRA, JNCC, and Natural England as stakeholders, does this presage official interest in having accurate boundaries in OSM? Jerry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fw: Tagging roadside verge SSSIs
Sorry, not sent to list. - Forwarded Message From: Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk To: Glenn Proctor gl...@docproc.com Sent: Tue, 20 July, 2010 12:41:59 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging roadside verge SSSIs Verge side nature reserves are not uncommon: http://www.lifeontheverge.org.uk/naturalarea.php In most cases they protect flowers, usually orchids, which have been eliminated from adjoining fields by use of fertiliser or artificial drainage. I know of one in Nottinghamshire where the council received some 200+ complaints when it was mown before the Bee Orchids had set seed. Jerry From: Glenn Proctor gl...@docproc.com To: Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk Cc: OSM Talk-GB Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tue, 20 July, 2010 9:10:54 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging roadside verge SSSIs It's definitely the verge - there are orchids (according to my wife) growing there. The other side ofnthe hedge is just an arable field. The SSSI sign specifically refers to the verge as well. Glenn. On Tuesday, July 20, 2010, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Dave F wrote: Are you sure it's referring just to the verge not stretching further away from the road (into fields/woods ?) Near here we have verges between pavement and adjacent landuse (often fields) which are overgrown with signs at either end (with arrows) and sometimes in the middle denoting them as nature reserves (the sceptic in me read this as cost saving no mowing area), so I'd think it quite possible that there is a verge that is denoted as SSSI if something of interest has been noted growing there. Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] “Correcting” existing data wi th OS Opendata
This was me, but I know that Paul Sladen, Simon Halsey, and probably others, were also affected. Has anyone has sent the offending user a message? He/she is a relative newcomer, and has edited in Trowbridge as well as Carlton/Gedling. They have also edited in Germany, but no indication of traces or on-the-ground surveys. Some of my GPS ways unfortunately also had fixme=location approximate, which was probably as a result of over use of copying tags from one way to another. This may have invited editing, but other 'corrections' have been made so that now many streets are slightly misaligned from GPS traces. I, and I would guess other active contributors around Nottingham, have been avoiding using StreetView and Locator other than to add names on stuff mapped from aerial images. In particular the Carlton/Gedling area is one which my personal preference was to leave the current status as is until ground surveys were done. Obviously other contributors have different preferences, time-scales, needs etc., so I recognise that this might not be possible. I would hope thought that some contact with active local mappers would be made before bulk in-fill with StreetView or similar sources, particularly as it cannot have escaped their attention that this was possible. Last Summer I mapped a tiny part of Middlesbrough over 2.5 hours. When StreetView became available an area about 25 times larger was mapped in a similar timescale. The 'productivity' difference is so huge that a single armchair mapper can swamp contributions from people doing ground survey. On the other hand, places like Oldham, Rochdale, Darlington, Middlesbrough are now so much more usable in OSM. So we still have the trade-off between usability of the map data, contributor 'happiness', mapping from an armchair versus on-the-ground. The use of StreetView exemplifies all these issues. Jerry From: Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sun, 18 July, 2010 13:54:30 Subject: [Talk-GB] “Correcting” existing data with OS Opendata I just added a comment to the talk page about OS Opendata[1]: It seems that some people have been using OS Opendata to “correct” existing data, moving ways to match OS Opendata, and in some cases removing attributes (such as surface=paved). Please, please, please, pretty please don’t just assume your data is better than the existing data, especially if yours is derived from another source and the existing data is from a ground survey. [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Modifying_Existing_Data Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
I like the idea for a project of the week using OS OpenData StreetView, but would suggest that before we add lots of new roads we work hard to get roads which are already in OSM properly named. Firstly it is improving data which is already there, secondly it using a second, independent, data source. Not a patch on ground survey, but at least it means that editors of the data have to engage with the data sources and their discrepancies. I would not be happy at OSM becoming a largely a subset of Ordnance Survey data without more thought (but also see below). As for the status of noname roads, I have named perhaps 2000 or so in West London and Merseyside in the past few weeks. There are still substantial parts of the South East and North West with many unnamed roads. I have not estimated the number, but its still in the thousands. Unfortunately the noname map layer on the website has not been updated (along with other Cloudmade maps), so I'd suggest using beta.letuffe.org which has a noname overlay (link is to Wigan area). It is important not to forget that a mass import of the VectorMap District roads named from Locator will become possible within the next six months. I'm sure several people are looking at a) how to accurately name the VMD roads from Locator ; and b) how to find only those roads which are not already in OSM (e.g., by using the techniques of the French CORINE project). Once viable technical solutions to these issues are available we will be able to import ALL the missing roads SHOULD we wish to. Manual tracing of StreetView data should be considered in this context. Personally, I don't think mass imports of VectorMap District road data should be contemplated, at least for 6 months or so, for all the usual reasons (Pottery, Imports and the Community). However, availability outwith the planet database of those roads in VectorMap District and not in OSM could be used to enhance downstream applications, such as Garmin extracts, and specific map renders. In other words we should be able to generate GB road-complete products without risking some of the known effects on community building of armchair mapping. I think there is plenty of scope to think of other 'added-value' projects with the StreetView data, these are some off the top of my head: * Getting all schools in to coincide with publication of league tables (its another data source to cross-check) * Mapping all professional football grounds (see for instance Blundell Park) * Ditto for other sports (e.g., crags used for climbing, horse racecourses, ...). * Mapping landuse=residential for areas without streets (shapes can be used as a guide to poorly mapped areas) * Get all churches tagged with man_made=tower or man_made=spire if applicable so that we can do OSGB like renders * Get all bridges tagged and marked for major waterways. Bridges across large rivers are surprisingly poorly mapped. It ought to be possible to identify these and make our existing data better. * Replace larger expanses of water mapped from NPE or Yahoo with OSSV or OS VDM.I hope these thoughts are not too controversial. I must add that I am not a zealot for the no import cause, but I do recognise that there is a reasonable case for it. Regards, Jerry Clough From: Kai Krueger kakrue...@gmail.com To: talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sun, 6 June, 2010 12:07:33 Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV? Hello everyone, I would like to suggest as a sort of Project of the week for the UK for people to pick a random town or village somewhere in the UK that so far has poor coverage and trace it's roads from OS OpenData StreetView. Despite the various claims over the years that the UK road will be road complete by the end of the year, the UK is still a far distance off of that target. I have heard the numbers that so far we have on the order of 50% of named roads (people who are working on OS - OSM comparisons please correct me if I am wrong). Which is by no means a small feat of achieving, but also not as high as one would like it to be. So let us try and accelerate this a bit by everyone picking a small random town or village somewhere in the UK and trace the roads from StreetView. It probably only takes about 10 - 20 minutes for a small village and even a small town isn't too bad to do (if the weather is bad and you can't go out). So with the help of OS data, we can get a big step closer to where we would like to be and use it as a basis to continue to improve beyond the quality of OS data or any other commercial map provider. (If you are convinced already, then no need to read the rest of the email) I know that many people are opposed to armchair mapping or imports (and btw I am not proposing a full scale import here, but manual tracing instead) and so I'd like to counter some
Re: [Talk-GB] - Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO
I prefer the elephant contour line on a map of Ghana (in Gold Coast days), which I remember seeing at a British Library exhibition many years ago. I think it featured in QI at some stage, but cant find an image on the web. From: Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk To: SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Fri, 4 June, 2010 8:47:59 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] - Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO SomeoneElse wrote: The recent radio 4 map series mentioned that BILL was drawn into the cliffs on the south of the Isle of Wight (it's southeast of Blackgang Chine; due west of Niton if you're interested). It's been there a few years and is not particularly subtle. Thanks for that: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=448572y=76655z=120searchp=ids.srfmapp=map.srf Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Offsets between OS and OSM data (was Building with mapseg)
Hi Tim, Yes there is, at least with the version of GDAL I use. Chillly has written about this on his blog, and the changes needed (adding Helmert transformations - -sound fancy doesn't it) to the standard projection are noted in previous messages here in talk-gb. I think the divergence is much greater on the E of the country: probably why Chilly and I worried most about it. Even with these the accuracy compared with the OSGB02 will be upto 5 metres out. See OS Coordinate Systems Guide. Jerry PS. StreetView and OSM seem to match up quite well for Nottingham. I've just rendered a set of tiles in OSGB36 of the same scale and boundaries as StreetView which at least removes some of the projection transformation artefacts. From: Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org; Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net Sent: Sun, 30 May, 2010 12:16:33 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Offsets between OS and OSM data (was Building with mapseg) By the way, which method are people using to re-project the VectorDistrict data? I'm using the inbuilt datum in gdal - is anyone using the correct *.prj file, and is there a difference? Tim --- On Sun, 30/5/10, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: From: Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Offsets between OS and OSM data (was Building with mapseg) To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Date: Sunday, 30 May, 2010, 11:53 I believe the StreetView tiles are offset south(ish) by a few metres in East Yorkshire too. Reprojected shape files line up well with surveyed data. I have traced a few buildings from StreetView but I've stopped until I had worked out what was wrong. Now given other people's comments I do think there may be some discrepancy. Would a few carefully surveyed road junctions with many GPS traces to work from help to identify any discrepancy? Or is there a better way? Cheers, Chris Kevin Peat wrote: I'm in Devon and I see the same thing although whether it is just the SW I don't know. The Streetview tiles (as I see them in JOSM) are all offset to the SE by 5-10 metres. I've converted some woods in my area from the VectorDistrict data using this process, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Shapefiles and the converted data looks good to me compared to my previous surveys but comes out different to the tiles, so I'm thinking that the tiles are wrong. Kevin On 30 May 2010 09:08, Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk mailto:sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On a side note, has anybody noticed a consistent tendency for existing independently surveyed roads to be offset northwards (by around 5-10 metres) from the OS data (vectormap and streetview)? I've seen various cases of existing roads being edited to be consistent with OS data, but I'm not convinced this is a good idea since the problem seems to be consistent in one direction. Glad I'm not the only one. Here in the SW I see the same offsets, although I find the VectorDistrict data to be more like the GPS surveyed data. This means that the StreetView tiles do not match up with the VectorDistrict either: I've been importing some rivers and reservoirs from the VectorDistrict data (namely the River Chew and Chew Valley Lake) and I've found that the polygons seem to be shifted compared to the equivalent positions in StreetView by about 10 metres. I guess this is an expected artifact of the reprojection methods? Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code
Potlatch's b option will place source=OS OpenData StreetView (note no underscores) if you have OS SV in the background. I use this as I prefer 1 keystroke to 20 or so. From: TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Fri, 28 May, 2010 10:57:25 Subject: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code Ah yes, the recommended tag is good. I didn't notice one had been chosen (but it is a bit long for my taste). So use source=OS_OpenData_StreetView for verified buildings. And I will probably change to source=Auto_OS_OpenData_StreetView for automatic tracing in the code. 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
Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code
Ask Richard F! From: Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org; Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Fri, 28 May, 2010 11:20:10 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code ...any reason why no underscores with Potlatch? --- On Fri, 28/5/10, Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: From: Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Friday, 28 May, 2010, 11:15 Potlatch's b option will place source=OS OpenData StreetView (note no underscores) if you have OS SV in the background. I use this as I prefer 1 keystroke to 20 or so. From: TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Fri, 28 May, 2010 10:57:25 Subject: [Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View, with code Ah yes, the recommended tag is good. I didn't notice one had been chosen (but it is a bit long for my taste). So use source=OS_OpenData_StreetView for verified buildings. And I will probably change to source=Auto_OS_OpenData_StreetView for automatic tracing in the code. TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible
An interesting set of points. I've been puzzling over three particular cases related to this. In each case I'm aware that the tagging is incomplete: 1. The Park Estate in Nottingham. This is emphatically a private estate, with, these days, electronically controlled bollards gates etc for motor access. The private maintenance extends to retaining gas lighting and it doesn't even appear in the OS meridian road dataset. However, there has never been any objection to people walking through the area. On the other hand it is not at all clear that there are any public rights of way, other than one which the council is currently in the process of designating. Although I am not sure that permissive is strictly accurate for walkers and cyclists, this is probably the best match, unless we have access=tolerated. 2. Hospital, University campus area etc. Not at all sure about the status of roads and footpaths in these: other than I assume that they are owned and maintained by the hospital or university. Again motor access may be controlled or there may be gates giving this possibility, but foot and cycle traffic are generally universally tolerated. 3. Unadopted roads. I currently ignore these, but would like some means of recording them. Whereas if the road has a private sign I will usually set access=private. In the first two cases around Nottingham, roads have been tagged highway=tertiary. This is, to my mind wrong, particularly as such roads are often heavily traffic calmed. I also probably tend to use access=private in a fairly English way, meaning that if you're told to leave you have to go, rather than access is impossible. In conclusion I'd like to iron out some of the nuances of the access tags. Cheers, Jerry Clough SK53 From: Ian Spencer ianmspen...@gmail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wed, 26 May, 2010 12:12:05 Subject: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible Hi I noticed that a local road which is private is designated as access::private on OSM. My reading of that tag is that it implies users need permission to use the road. However, in common with many private roads, it is in private maintenance, but it is public access - they have never tried to restrict public access, nor is the private sign anything other than a statement that the road is private, it does not say, for example :Private, no entry. As far as any user is concerned, they can treat it as a normal road. I suppose the appropriate thing is to change access yes (or whatever the normal state is), and then add a note to ensure it is not re-instated. Does that sound right? Spenny ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible
The current issue with the Park Estate is about pedestrian access. The position with cars has always been clearly stated. Recently Nottingham City Council has started the process of designating public rights of way (the former County Boroughs had derogation from the original PRoW recording). It all looks pretty complicated, from the minutes of the Nottingham Local Access Forum: The Nottingham Park Estate Ltd has served notice on Nottingham City Council under section 14(2)(a) of the Nottingham Park Estate Act 1990 to restrict public access along the footpath known as Park Road / Lenton Road between the hours of 23.00 hrs and 05.00hrs. This route is also subject to an opposed modification order published in January 2009 under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Nottingham City Council believes it is a right of way. Debate surrounds which Act of Parliament may take precedence; Nottingham Park Estate Act 1990 or the Highways Act 1980. Most likely this case will need to be resolved at the High Court following the initial decision on the opposed order by the Planning Inspectorate. Agreed that Forum should make formal objection. More information on Robert Howard's blog. Seems I'm not the only one confused by access status here. ;-) From: Ian Spencer ianmspen...@gmail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wed, 26 May, 2010 17:43:50 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Private roads that are private for maintenance but are publicly accessible Jerry Clough - OSM wrote on 26/05/2010 16:21: An interesting set of points. I've been puzzling over three particular cases related to this. In each case I'm aware that the tagging is incomplete: lots snipped ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator / OSM correspondence list generation
Further playing around with the first set of data (PostGIS learning improving): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SK53/Missing_Names_by_District http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SK53/Missing_Nottingham_Names (big, but using PostGIS allocated to cake slices) Jerry From: Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thu, 13 May, 2010 21:53:40 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator / OSM correspondence list generation On Thursday 13 May 2010, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: Thanks very much for this Robert. I'd made a start trying to do this myself, but had a steep learning curve with PostGIS. My main suggestions (which will make the file bigger) are: a) retain the original centroid values (these are near as dammit a primary key); Mmm - I think line numbers are fine for now - the issue comes when (if) OS release the next OS Locator and we need to track differences. In this situation, tiny changes in the centroid would change the primary key anyway. and b) keep one or more of the district authority columns. In particular the latter will make it very much easier to filter for people interested in a particular district, rather than having to fiddle with bounding boxes. I was intending this to be used alongside the original OS Locator file - in fact I was going to just put the two id columns and an ldist column and let people do the join themselves. I've got another file baking at the moment with a newer planet and slightly stricter normalization. robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ward Boundaries
AFAIK ward boundaries have been done in two places: Ipswich by Peter Miller pre OS data availability (e.g., http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/164654) Broxtowe by will in the last few weeks importing OS Boundary Line data. In the latter case data were imported and merged with existing OSM ways. I dont know how this was done, but I imagine it was a manual process. (e.g., http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/545299) Both started with ways tagged as boundary=administrative admin_level=10, but I changed at least some of the Broxtowe ones to boundary=political as I know of at least some ward boundaries which are NOT contiguous with Civil Parish boundaries. I would strongly advise using relations enabling ways which make up boundaries to be shared. This also obviates the old tag:left, tag:right procedure. Where ward boundaries make use of roads etc, we should replace any OS sourced way with the relevant way(s) from OSM. Having access to textual descriptions of the boundaries is of course really helpful. Equally many ward boundaries will need to make use of existing OSM boundary ways (Civil Parish, District etc), some of which may be of poor quality having been based on NPE as the best available non-copyright data source. I would think a district is about the right size unit of work, any larger and merging with existing ways will be tedious, any smaller and the work will increase hugely with each additional boundary added. The 3000 US counties have not been sorted out at all yet, and I think there are more than 14000 civil parishes and easily 3000+ ward boundaries for GB. EdLoach (mainly), myself and others spent a lot of time sorting out some 200 odd boundaries in Haiti where a crude import was necessary to assist with geolocation of places in the countryside: it did teach us that starting with boundaries as individual polygons (whether drawn or imported) just makes for more work. Advice from someone in the know as to how wards are regarded within councils may help in deciding the appropriate tagging. Hope these notes are of some use. Cheers, Jerry From: James Rutter jrrut...@gmail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tue, 4 May, 2010 17:34:46 Subject: [Talk-GB] Ward Boundaries ...been tidying up the Surrey Heath district boundary now that we can do what we want with Boundaryline. Anyone got any advice for ward boundaries...can't find much at all on the wiki? What's the admin_level for ward or has it not been defined yet? What's the deal with the left and right tags I'm seeing...does this mean linework is 'handed' and if so how do we know which way round the lines aredoes a tag like left:ward=Chobham do anything...will it render?? James ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Surrey County Air Survey
Apologies, again, for top-posting. I'd echo Wilf's comments. There is a huge amount of detail which can be added without worrying over much about the precision of the alignment. It's possible to identify pedestrian crossings, traffic lit junctions, one-way signs on roads ( in car parks) etc., etc. I was even able to check that the road I used to live on does indeed now have a paved surface: the Yahoo images just weren't clear enough. My one plea is for more assiduous use of the source tag. Surrey now has some of the densest mapping created over several OSM eras, and now has probably the richest source of imagery (Yahoo, this, OS StreetView, NPE, some Provisional edition maps...) anywhere. Its hard to make even minor changes when detective work is required to know the derivation of existing map elements. Jerry From: Graeme Wilford gwilf...@gmail.com To: talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sun, 2 May, 2010 16:27:39 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Surrey County Air Survey On 1 May 2010 17:47, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: [...] The imagery is fantastic. I've already been able to draw some complex road junctions far better than I could with traces alone. You and all the other people who have made this available have done an amazing job, and it will put OSM data in Surrey level with, and in some places ahead of Ordnance Survey. Let's just not pretend that it's impossible for there to be positional errors in it. This does look a good source and I've been using it to tidy up and add detail to many of my previous edits. Anyone know it's vintage? Looks to me like it's a couple years old; sometime mid 2008? Cheers, Wilf. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes to Shapefile
GRASS seems to have some kind of Voronoi algorithm, but I find its interface very non-intuitive, so have not found it to try it out. This may be worth pursuing as an alternative route. As an aside: I notice that virtually all postcode boundaries are obviously created in this way. For instance the Philips Street Atlas shows totally implausible boundaries along the River Trent in S. Notts. Given that postcode boundaries are ultimately determined by logistically sensible walks for postmen, in this case it's pretty safe to assume that the boundary is actually the river. What this means is that by applying a bit of local knowledge and the existing points it is possible to create better delineating zones in OSM than appear in current mapping. Whether this is a good thing to do, or not, I leave for others to decide. From: Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu To: OSM - Talk GB talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Mon, 26 April, 2010 12:24:26 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes to Shapefile On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote: I am currently trying to create a series of shapefiles from postcodes (using OS Open Geo Data) using the code from Random Junk (http://random.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodes/#) running on Ubuntu 9.10 but I can't get it working. lots of blah blah about what I did... Think i've sussed most of it... I zapped my pyshapelib folder and downloaded both it and shapelib again With the shapelib and pyshapelib tar gzs inside my osm folder I then issued the following commands tar -xvzf shapelib-1.2.10.tar.gz mv shapelib-1.2.10 shapelib tar -xvzf pyshapelib-0.3.tar.gz mv pyshapelib-0.3 shapelib/pyshapelib/ cd shapelib make cd pyshapelib python setup.py build sudo python setup.py install cd ../../ # The next line is really important if you want python to think this folder has python scripts touch shapelib/__init__.py cp shapelib/pyshapelib/* shapelib/ This seamed to get over the original problem Then you need to ensure you input file has no trailing lines And now to work out why I'm getting Traceback (most recent call last): File makeShapeColoured.py, line 349, in module result = voronoi.computeVoronoiDiagram(pts) File /home/kev/osm/voronoi.py, line 746, in computeVoronoiDiagram voronoi(siteList,context) File /home/kev/osm/voronoi.py, line 206, in voronoi edge = Edge.bisect(bot,newsite) File /home/kev/osm/voronoi.py, line 404, in bisect newedge.a = dx/dy ZeroDivisionError: float division ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS Boundaries
Apologies for top posting. I've been experimenting with the Civil Parish boundaries with QGIS and ogr2osm.py (modified to keep ways below 500 nodes). QGIS seems rather temperamental about reprojecting shape files: there are a huge number of settings which seem to affect the base projection. However, I have managed to use QGIS to select sub-sets of civil parishes and save them using the same projection as the source data. These smaller data sets are much easier to use for testing. The standard projection information for the OSGB shape files is contained in .prj and is in Well-known Text format. However, it lacks the Helmert data transformation parameters recommended by the OS at http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/gps/information/coordinatesystemsinfo/guidecontents/guide6.html. Editing the .prj file to add these (see the example on the wikipedia link, but the parameters given there are incorrect), makes a big difference to the .OSM output. Note these parameters still only give an accuracy in the order of 5m, but they do seem to allow GDAL-based utilities to be used. Here's the format used, the addition being the TOWGS84 section: PROJCS[British National Grid (ORD SURV GB), GEOGCS[unnamed, DATUM[D_OSGB_1936, SPHEROID[Airy - 1848,6377563,299.319997677743], TOWGS84[446.448,-125.157,542.060,0.1502,0.2470,0.8421,-20.4894]], PRIMEM[Greenwich,0],UNIT[degree,0.0174532925199433]], PROJECTION[Transverse_Mercator], PARAMETER[latitude_of_origin,49], PARAMETER[central_meridian,-2], PARAMETER[scale_factor,0.9996012717], PARAMETER[false_easting,40], PARAMETER[false_northing,-10], UNIT[METER,1]] Jerry From: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tue, 20 April, 2010 10:33:51 Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS Boundaries Andrew Chadwick wrote: I've had a degree of success with http://search.cpan.org/~toby/Geo-Coordinates-OSGB-2.04/ - I've used these packages in the past for rectification of OOC OS stuff and conversion of many-figure OS grid refs with a good degree of success. Chris knows this already (because we talked about it on IRC last night) but Matthew Somerville's proviso at http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=182cpage=1#comment-971 is worth taking into account. cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Garmin maps no larger than 24MB
I have an etrex Summit HC (i.e., with no external card, and (in practice 22Mb internal storage). I load relevant tiles from the set of .IMG tiles hosted by the SMC (http://www.smc.org.uk/ContourMaps.php). I use MapSource for selecting and loading relevant tiles. There are several pre-built sets of tiles small enough for the 24 Mb limit, although the compressed MapSource distribution of Computerteddy seems to be stuck at April 2009. See the wiki page on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin/Download. for what is available. Tiles in the range of 1-3 Mb offer the best flexibility, larger tile sizes always seem to leave one on the edge of the map! At any one time I usually have 4 SMC contour tiles, a reasonable area of OSM mapping around where I'm located, and several transparent overlays of OSM features which I am surveying (e.g., NaPTAN bus stops, noname streets) loaded on the Garmin. HTH, Jerry Clough SK53 . From: Russ Phillips r...@phillipsuk.org To: OSM Talk-GB Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wed, 30 December, 2009 13:51:04 Subject: [Talk-GB] Garmin maps no larger than 24MB My father-in-law has a Garmin eTrex Legend C, and we'd like to put some OSM maps on it for use when walking up hills in Scotland and the Lake District. As he's a hillwalker, contours are important, but it only has 24MB of storage. All the UK maps with contours are far too big to fit. Does anyone know of anywhere that I can get maps of regions, that would be small enough to fit? Russ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS 7th series, accuracy update, request for calibration help
I wouldn't be surprised if Kintyre other than NR71 NR72 (Campbeltown) is derived from much earlier mapping. Those two octads are the only ones published for Kintyre in the 25k provisional/first series. Certainly for other parts of highland Scotland serious errors existed until the 50k 2nd series (one reason why this appeared for the Highlands first). If I'm right there may also be errors on Arran, which also only had 2 10km squares published. On the other hand, Arran may have been much better surveyed in the 19th century because of its geological interest. Jerry Clough SK53 From: TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, 18 October, 2009 16:11:08 Subject: [Talk-GB] OS 7th series, accuracy update, request for calibration help Hi all, I have updated the 7th series layer with improved accuracy. It seems as if the Helmert approximation of the OS grid reference to WGS84 was not accurate enough; I was getting transform errors of approximately 20m. Also, to my surprise the next biggest error seems to be surveying errors. For example, see around the Mull of Kintyre where the survey errors are around 40m (near NR730100). http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=55.3339lon=-5.5737zoom=14layers=B000FTF ..snip Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 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
