Re: [Talk-GB] The Chilterns AONB boundary

[Jon Burgess]

On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 15:36 +, Bob Hawkins wrote:
> Neither of these sites seem to offer the opportunity to download a
> digital file.  I wonder if an OSM user here can help?

There is a download option for the AONB data in this list of files:

http://www.geostore.com/environment-agency/WebStore?xml=environment-agency/xml/ogcDataDownload.xml

I haven't checked the licensing so cannot make any comment about its
suitability for use in OSM.

Jon


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

Re: [Talk-GB] This one is driving me potty

[Jon Burgess]

On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 17:43 +0100, Ed Loach wrote:
> It’s almost as though the rendering database is missing a changeset
> (or a replication diff containing that changeset), possibly
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/9728130
> 

We just had a similar data error reported via trac where another change
was dropped within the same hour as this changeset:

https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4591 

I looked back through various logs and it seems the machine holding the
rendering database was rebooted at this time. There was an error
applying the first 30 minutely replication diffs when it came back up.
It is not clear why this happened.

There is an intention to reload the Mapnik rendering database with the
ODBL planet file and this will fix these inconsistencies. I don't have
an estimate of when this will be done.

Jon




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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS LandForm Panorama (contour data) parsing tools?

[Jon Burgess]

On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 16:15 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> To save effort, are there any open source scripts available for
> parsing the LandForm Panorama data out there? e.g. converting the DXF
> format into shapefiles, or populating a database?

DXF is supported by the gdal (ogr) tools since version 1.7.0. The
contour information can be extracted into a shapefile by converting the
G8040201 layer:

$ ogr2ogr sy08.shp sy08.dxf -where Layer=G8040201

The resulting shapefile will be in OSGB projection like the rest of the
OS data. Information on the other available layers can be found in the
"Landform Panorama user guide", linked from [1]. 

Jon

1: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#Land-Form_PANORAMA



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

[Talk-GB] Article on BBC web site about errors on street signs

[Jon Burgess]

The BBC web site has an article about the errors which councils have
made on street signs and the money it has cost to fix them. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8489894.stm

They are asking for people to submit photos of any errors.

Jon



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Funny with Mapnik?

[Jon Burgess]

On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 15:21 +0100, Ian Caldwell wrote:
> I put a few roads in last night and when I checked them this morning
> they were missing from the level 14,15,16 in Maplink. I then added a
> turning circle I had missed. About 1/2 hour ago they were missing from
> levels 14-18.
> 
> They are all there in Osmarender.
> 
> location is 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.11225&lon=-2.29763&zoom=17&layers=0B00FTF
> Streets Moatway Moat Cresent and Five Oaks Close.
> 
> As I check for this mail parts of them have appeared in level 18. but
> when I do a status on the showing bit I get
> http://tile.openstreetmap.org/18/129396/86455.png/status "Tile is
> clean. Last rendered at Thu Oct 22 22:38:30 2009"
> 
> but were it is missing status shows
> http://tile.openstreetmap.org/18/129396/86456.png/status "Tile is
> clean. Last rendered at Fri Oct 23 14:16:29 2009"
> 
> So the later tile has the streets missing
> 
> Have I done anything wrong or is it Mapnik?

That was my fault. I started importing this weeks planet dump on
Thursday evening. The DB is in the process of applying the updates from
Wednesday to now in order to catch up with the recent changes. When I
started this diff process I initially forgot to turn off the tile
invalidation so it ended up rendering tiles with data which could have
been older than that available previously.

That is why the tiles from Thursday show the recent data but the tiles
rendered today do not. The diffs have currently got as far as Thursday
midday and probably will not catch up until some time in the early hours
tomorrow morning.

Jon



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies

[Jon Burgess]

2009/7/23 Donald Allwright :
>
>>I'm just trying to think what makes a roundabout a roundabout instead of
>>just a one-way system.  So far I've come up with:
>
>>1. It is one way in the appropriate direction (clockwise in the UK)
>>2. All the roads leave/join the outside of the loop (*)
>>3. It generally isn't very built-up in the middle (**)
>>4. It has a reasonably circular shape (***)
>>5. It is signposted as such
>>
>>Of course, there are sadly lots of exceptions...
>>
>>* Increasingly there are roundabouts with roads running through the
>>middle:
>>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.936219&lon=-1.24996&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF
>>The road through the middle is generally one-way though, and usually just
>>one road.
>>
>>**
>>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.910579&lon=-1.400756&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF
>>(The Charlot Place roundabout in Southampton now has the reasonably tall
>>Jury's Inn hotel in the middle of it - I'm sure people can think of many
>>others)
>>
>>*** Can't think of any oddly shaped roundabouts off the top of my head,
>>but I'm pretty certain that there are plenty. :)
>
> How about this one:
> 
>
> which fulfills all of the above 5 criteria, but just has a 'short-cut'
> across one side. In this case, each 'junction' on the roundabout is
> controlled by traffic lights and has between 2 and 5 lanes. I have to
> navigate it frequently and I can't say it's one of my favourite ones!

The roundabout I really dislike is at Winnersh Triangle, UK:
http://osm.org/go/eusmtxB_j-
If you look on some satellite imagery you will see it really does have
a dual carriage way going right through the middle of the roundabout.

-- 
Jon

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

Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Corporate Cartographers accused of demolishing history. (make press release?)

[Jon Burgess]

On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 12:31 +0100, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> Tim Dobson wrote:
> > "Whereas Ordnance Survey maps were designed for the military, and 
> > churches were added simply as useful landmarks,
> 
> No one here seems to have mentioned that the reason that on-line maps
> aren't as good as OS maps is that OS won't give out the information
> (at
> least not at a reasonable price), so TeleAtlas, NavTeq, AND etc. have
> to
> spend millions of man hours collecting it all again, and they don't
> have
> the need to add all the bits and pieces. Hopefully once we (i.e. OSM)
> collect the data, it won't need to be collected again.

The point was raised in the BBC TV report (watch the iPlayer video
embedded in the BBC article).

Jon



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