Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-transit] NaPTAN - Time for the rest?

[Mark Williams]

Gregory wrote:
> Ah, I hadn't seen http://openbusmap.org/ / http://www.öpnvkarte.de/
>  before.
> It looks cool and I sometimes want to know the route the buses take (in
> a non-schematic way). Just a quick look of my parents place and I've
> spotted two routes that are slightly off.
> 

It does look a nice render - I was impressed that the IOW Steam Railway
shows as well as the 'main line' train. All the ferries too! This beats
several of the commercial maps, my car still refuses to believe in the
Southampton-Cowes fairy!

It only appears to go to Zoom 13 though - not quite big enough to read
the print, without getting out of my chair...

I shall show it to some folk & see what enthusiasm it can engender :)

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Basildon - Reminder

[Mark Williams]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Mark Williams wrote:
> So, 24 hours until the Basildon Mapping party.
> 
> Anyone know the ratio of miles of residential street:head of population?
> Basildon has about 100,000 population & at present 3 of us are going to
> map the whole town tomorrow ;)
[]

Just a quick note to thank those who did turn out at the weekend -
although numbers were very low (4.5 man-days, I think a quick look at
the map at http://osm.org/go/0EEzQRK (it's not all on there yet, either)
will show a surprisingly good result, with relatively few outstanding
areas left for another session.

Right now Osmarender shows 'before' & Mapnik 'after' views.

Thanks guys

Mark
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkrAuCcACgkQJfMmcSPNh95LTwCfUYQec+eL5OuuJ93yTqAR0xdU
3r4Anj/hnhXZfdLf5haArL3uRNb57Wbq
=RUUt
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Map of Trace data, was: Re: Stitching Aerial Photographs (John Robert Peterson)

[Mark Williams]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Phil James wrote:
> Thanks for that, but bearing in mind I am not a programmer, how does it 
> help me? :-\
> 
> I don't know the ID for any tracks there may or may not be in the area i 
> (may) want to map, and I can't find a way in OSM to reveal any GPS trace 
> ID other than a GPS Trace filename, (not even with my own traces).
> 
> if there is a way to reveal the ID, please let me know.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Phil James
> 
> OJ W wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Phil James  wrote:
>>   
>>> John Robert Peterson wrote:
>>>
>>> Do we have anything that will draw map tiles of the trace data? (I'd like
>>> this for another project anyway: checking whether traces exist for an area
>>> when out with a mobile device)
>>> 
>> if it's a public gpx, then look for it at 
>> http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~ojw/gpx

There was a Mapping party last November, and we all uploaded GPS public
traces tagged with Stratford-upon-avon, iirc, to OSM - so going to the
traces library & searching on that tag should net a good haul of GPS
data, and it covers the whole area.

You can then download them as gpx files & play with them.

Mark
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkq8cpAACgkQJfMmcSPNh94pvgCeM9JyUtvEoA4aBfRnxsTwEKfF
sewAn0lq/fgPGHCkYCHYBLOQ5sBQvRqf
=XjkG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

[Talk-GB] Basildon - Reminder

[Mark Williams]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

So, 24 hours until the Basildon Mapping party.

Anyone know the ratio of miles of residential street:head of population?
Basildon has about 100,000 population & at present 3 of us are going to
map the whole town tomorrow ;)

If anyone else fancies adding their name to the wiki
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Basildon_Mapping_Party), or just
turning up at the Quays, they'd be very welcome! The weather looks like
being good for both days (sunny / sunny intervals according to Auntie
Beeb's website) & it's a good opportunity to see some major blank bits
of map get filled in. Peter Reed's coverage map at
http://www.reedhome.org.uk/Documents/OSMCover.png shows the bulk of
Essex looking pale in-between Thurrock & Southend, and the NaPTAN import
is done, with hundreds of bus-stops in fields right now.

It's not hard to get to, on the C2C train between London & Southend &
easy access by car from the A13 and A127, or A130 from Chelmsford.

Here's hoping to see some folks tomorrow.

Mark
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkq8cacACgkQJfMmcSPNh954qQCgkpkYNeW7xOZizlxVBDHE0+yH
3O4An1utYcx5N6CCo19DGlc0Qcz4JaOd
=KsuU
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [Talk-GB] liam123 facts

[Mark Williams]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> []
> Also, I think I have found one place where liam123 actually did 
> something good (but I reverted it nonetheless). There is a footway that 
> goes right across Cumberland drive here in Landon:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/28277588
>
> Which liam123 had fixed by inserting a junction node into Cumberland drive.
>
> I hope my changes (changesets 2526266 and 2530162) have made things 
> better rather than worse on the whole.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
>   
I'm sure they have, Frederik, well done & thanks.

This particular way was one of mine - I never drew it across the road
like that though, it was a short path to Cumberland Drive & doesn't
cross it - I think Mr123's contribution was to continue it across to
another road, which is not correct at all. I'm fairly pedantic about
layer & bridge tags & even left a note to say it was an extrapolation
from one end of the path...

How happy would you be if someone came & made 3000+ malicious minor
feasible-looking edits within 30 miles of your house? I think he does
merit the nasty things said about him, and we can't just let this kind
of activity go unchecked.

Thanks, again.
Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East

[Mark Williams]

Peter Miller wrote:
> 
> On 10 Sep 2009, at 21:00, Mark Williams wrote:
[]
>> When I voted for Essex I had hoped that all of Essex might turn up, 
>> but as far as I can see it's excluded Thurrock, a little unitary 
>> authority in the S.W. corner - which is, naturally, the bit I wanted...
>>
> 
> To be clear, the import request log is by administrative county. 
> Thurrock unfortunately for you is only in the ceremonial county of 
> Essex, for administrative purposes it is a separately place. If you add 
> your signature to Thurrock in the list then I am sure it will be imported!

Hmm. Done.. I wish I'd known earlier that it wasn't included though, 
because I'm going to have moved before it gets much attention. Oh well.

I was a bit confused by relations poking into Thurrock which made it 
look part-done, so there has been some misplaced patience happening!

Thanks.

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] More NaPTAN Counties Uploaded - Bristol and Cheshire East

[Mark Williams]

Peter Miller wrote:
> 
> On 7 Sep 2009, at 00:00, Frankie Roberto wrote:
> 
>> Thomas wrote:
>>
>> I'm following the Be Bold motto, and am now uploading the remaining
>> NaPTAN counties that have been requested.
>> I'll probably do two or three at a time, following the list
>> alphabetically, possibly trying to avoid importing counties next to
>> each other together.


This is all looking good.

But..

When I voted for Essex I had hoped that all of Essex might turn up, but 
as far as I can see it's excluded Thurrock, a little unitary authority 
in the S.W. corner - which is, naturally, the bit I wanted...

Hi Ho.

We did get Basildon for the mapping party there though, which is great.

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Liam123 back again - can we check if this is vandalism?

[Mark Williams]

David Earl wrote:
> On 03/09/2009 14:53, Peter Miller wrote:
>> This looks like messing with a street and yahoo photography shows it  
>> as going through a house. This appears to be straight forward vandalism
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/5215590
> 
> Yes, looking at the Yahoo images, I agree completely.
> 
> I'm going to revert these two changesets now.
> 
> I suggest we waste no more time on this guy - we revert all his future 
> changesets immediately until such time as he talks to us, and stop 
> worrying about the minutiae of whether he's doing valid edits or not.
> 
> David

+1

He has done loads & I have seen none with merit, lots of utter nonsense 
& some sneaky. If I could twit-list edits he'd have been there for months.

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] NAPTAN update?

[Mark Williams]

Thomas Wood wrote:
[]
> Regarding remaining counties, Essex is definitely a priority, we may
> as well just upload the remaining counties as and when we can.
> (Which'll probably be when the new dev server is up with a sane python
> environment)
> 

Good, thanks for that - I am hoping to go round my bit of the world & 
check them out as I didn't do them on my Grand GPS Survey 2 years ago, 
so having them as targets may provoke some activity :)

Also, yes they will be nice for the Basildon Mapping Party, it will be a 
strange experience to have residential areas, parks  & bus stops but no 
roads on the Garmin ;)

Mark


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

[Talk-GB] Proposed Basildon Mapping Party

[Mark Williams]

One month to go to the Basildon Mapping Party!

I've meant to do this for some time, and have now made plans to move 
away from the area, so it's now or never. The 26-27th September looks 
clear in the OSM diary.

Basildon is one major cause of Essex looking a bit short in the 
Completeness Map, with much residential road & hardly any of it done. I 
creep over & do a corner when I can, which isn't often at present.

Road & rail access is good, and NCN13 passes through some of the town's 
many parks to the west. The Holiday Inn is near the meeting venue as is 
Premier Inn, should anyone need accommodation.

I've picked a pub north of centre because it is near free parking  & I 
think it has WiFi - I haven't checked recently though. There is a slight 
risk of Morris Dancing. In general this is a pleasant new town, though a 
bit bland & some of the housing is, well, rough.

I have always liked Google's attempt at one of the local parks. Details 
are up at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Basildon_Mapping_Party#Mapping_party

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] A13 and NCN13 getting muddled?

[Mark Williams]

Peter Miller wrote:
> 
> On 7 Aug 2009, at 08:02, Shaun McDonald wrote:
> 
>>
>> On 7 Aug 2009, at 00:06, Mark Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Miller wrote:
>>>> This is the A13 and it in the  ncn13 relation which I think is wrong
>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/23406798
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts? Anyone fancy following it up?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually no, the NCN13 route _IS_ down the A13! Bizarre but true..
>>>
>>> It skips off for the flyover at Gallows Corner in Romford & maybe one or
>>> two other side jaunts, but basically you're on the A13 from quite well
>>> into London (East Ham or so) until Basildon, there are occasional red
>>> stickers to prove it & a marked cycle lane on the A13, complete with
>>> 3-lane dual carriageways & national speed limits.
>>>
>>> You get crossing places marked at the slip roads, not usually with NCN
>>> stickers just white paint.
>>>
>>> I have seen the occasional cyclist mad enough to use it too!
>>>
>>> I'm not absolutely certain of the routing onto the A13 at the Basildon
>>> end, as it just might go down Southend Road Corringham into Stanford, at
>>> least one way, but I think it doesn't. It does cross over the A13 to
>>> Southend road on a bridge, One Tree Hill, but then could back-track to
>>> 8-Bells roundabout, or do the Southend Road route, the signs peter out
>>> just where they might be useful.
>>>
>>> I wondered about this before I tagged it but I double-checked it,
>>> because it seemed so daft, and the signs, as they say, were there.
>>>
>>
>> I have cycled sections of the NCN13 from about Dagenham Dock into 
>> London. There is a cycle path on the side of the road (often 
>> segregated by a small bump kerb and the path is on both sides of the 
>> 2-4 lanes in each direction) and so in that way it is quite safe. Not 
>> cycled further west though. Where I have the data I have been trying 
>> to get the parallel cycle path added to OSM as whoever added the ncn 
>> 13 to begin with just added it to the trunk road's main carriage way 
>> and even I really wouldn't want to cycle along the A13 for any great 
>> distance! Also the way that you join from side roads can be a little 
>> different in many places.
> 
> The information on Sustrans mapping and OSM mapping is wildly different 
> for NCN13. I am of course not proposing that we use Sustrans mapping 
> information as a source, but as a 3rd party check it seems to through up 
> some significant questions about trunk road sections.
>

It's worth a check, I only found a few signs & miles of cycle lane. In 
particular I think it was Gallows Corner with a sign where the flyover 
has a no-cycling sign & there was a notice - they've just done a lot of 
work on that though.

It is however the case that most* of the A13 in Essex has a cycle lane 
clearly marked & yes, you'd be nuts, and yes, the council did it & they 
don't cycle.

More recently the Thurrock council have added a cycle path along the old 
A13 in Grays which would make a lot more sense to use, I did wonder 
about tagging it that way but there is no NCN signage & it felt very 
unilateral so I didn't.

Mark

* All the bit's I've looked at..


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

Re: [Talk-GB] A13 and NCN13 getting muddled?

[Mark Williams]

Peter Miller wrote:
> This is the A13 and it in the  ncn13 relation which I think is wrong
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/23406798
> 
> Any thoughts? Anyone fancy following it up?
> 

Actually no, the NCN13 route _IS_ down the A13! Bizarre but true..

It skips off for the flyover at Gallows Corner in Romford & maybe one or 
two other side jaunts, but basically you're on the A13 from quite well 
into London (East Ham or so) until Basildon, there are occasional red 
stickers to prove it & a marked cycle lane on the A13, complete with 
3-lane dual carriageways & national speed limits.

You get crossing places marked at the slip roads, not usually with NCN 
stickers just white paint.

I have seen the occasional cyclist mad enough to use it too!

I'm not absolutely certain of the routing onto the A13 at the Basildon 
end, as it just might go down Southend Road Corringham into Stanford, at 
least one way, but I think it doesn't. It does cross over the A13 to 
Southend road on a bridge, One Tree Hill, but then could back-track to 
8-Bells roundabout, or do the Southend Road route, the signs peter out 
just where they might be useful.

I wondered about this before I tagged it but I double-checked it, 
because it seemed so daft, and the signs, as they say, were there.

Mark


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

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

[Mark Williams]

Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Steve Hill wrote:
>> 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
> 
> 
> Fwiw even (1) isn't necessarily true. The Magic Roundabout famously
> has a counter-clockwise loop in the centre. And there are other such
> roundabouts where the central loop isn't even one-way.

The Basildon magic roundabout is a set of small roundabouts linked by 
dual-carriageway! It is legally bidirectional, except the roundabouts, 
but if you come & watch at rush-hour 95%[1] of motorists sit & queue in 
the conventional direction; whereas I just go the other way round it & 
save 10 minutes of clutch-pumping!

Mark


[95% of all statistics are made up on the spot..]


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

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

[Mark Williams]

Jon Burgess wrote:

> 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.
> 

And a very odd-looking bit at 1 O'Clock on the slip road - looks like 
somebody missed linking the node to the way?

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] New wiki page for GB reversion requests

[Mark Williams]

Peter Miller wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2009, at 15:18, Andy Allan wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Peter Miller>> wrote:
>>> Without going through every edit in the changeset it will be hard to
>>> determine. If we do have to go through every changeset then we  
>>> might as well
>>> revert them by hand. Possibly we need to leave this until better  
>>> tools are
>>> available or challenge some clever person to write the required  
>>> tool in the
>>> next day or two.
>> OK, I now have a tool that will revert all the components of a
>> changeset that haven't been reverted already, and ignore everything
>> that has been changed since. And now I have a good example of why it's
>> not that straightforward. Take this:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/242058267/history
>> The guy moved it (v3), and then deleted it (v4). So reverting it would
>> put it back to v2. But if it was deleted out of a way, and that way
>> has been moved since, it wouldn't put it back in the way again since
>> that way wouldn't be reverted. Which makes it a bit pointless. And
>> maybe someone has fixed the way (adding in a new node there, or
>> nearby, or similar) so this node isn't needed. So it's impossible to
>> tell what to do with the node.
>>
>> So after a few hours of investigating this, I'm back to where I
>> started* - reverting changesets is easy so long as nothing has changed
>> since. Anything else needs a graphical editor. Better such tools can
>> be created, and ideas/mockups/code is wanted.
>>
>> So for the future, if there's another changeset that needs sorting
>> out, please consider asking someone to revert it before anyone tries
>> to manually fix it. Manually fixing stuff is of course fine but it's
>> an all-or-nothing approach that can't be "finished off" with a script.
> 
> Ok, so I claimed 6 change-sets with the ones at the top of the list. I  
> checked all the nodes on the first page and then noticed that this was  
> page 1 of 42 of changed nodes - a total of 823 nodes to fix. Now that  
> is 823 nodes (and 39 ways) in one of 35 change-sets. That is  
> potentially a lot of work. Any ideas anyone?
> 

Have played. The changesets are not convenient, as I haven't found a 
good way to load one into JOSM & use it meaningfully.

However I do have a copy of S.E. England before this little pest was 
invented, so I can use that as a background & highlight a given user & 
'blink' layers, which shows up his evilness a treat, including 
deletions. That just leaves tagging changes to find, which again is 
easier with a 'known good' set of data from April. As my part of the 
world was OK back then it's only changed a little in detail, & obviously 
I can see the pests' work distinctly.

At 117Mb it's not quick to load, but very useable.

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] New wiki page for GB reversion requests

[Mark Williams]

Peter Miller wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2009, at 15:18, Andy Allan wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Peter Miller>> wrote:
>>> Without going through every edit in the changeset it will be hard to
>>> determine. If we do have to go through every changeset then we  
>>> might as well
>>> revert them by hand. Possibly we need to leave this until better  
>>> tools are
>>> available or challenge some clever person to write the required  
>>> tool in the
>>> next day or two.
>> OK, I now have a tool that will revert all the components of a
>> changeset that haven't been reverted already, and ignore everything
>> that has been changed since. And now I have a good example of why it's
>> not that straightforward. Take this:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/242058267/history
>> The guy moved it (v3), and then deleted it (v4). So reverting it would
>> put it back to v2. But if it was deleted out of a way, and that way
>> has been moved since, it wouldn't put it back in the way again since
>> that way wouldn't be reverted. Which makes it a bit pointless. And
>> maybe someone has fixed the way (adding in a new node there, or
>> nearby, or similar) so this node isn't needed. So it's impossible to
>> tell what to do with the node.
>>
>> So after a few hours of investigating this, I'm back to where I
>> started* - reverting changesets is easy so long as nothing has changed
>> since. Anything else needs a graphical editor. Better such tools can
>> be created, and ideas/mockups/code is wanted.
>>
>> So for the future, if there's another changeset that needs sorting
>> out, please consider asking someone to revert it before anyone tries
>> to manually fix it. Manually fixing stuff is of course fine but it's
>> an all-or-nothing approach that can't be "finished off" with a script.
> 
> Ok, so I claimed 6 change-sets with the ones at the top of the list. I  
> checked all the nodes on the first page and then noticed that this was  
> page 1 of 42 of changed nodes - a total of 823 nodes to fix. Now that  
> is 823 nodes (and 39 ways) in one of 35 change-sets. That is  
> potentially a lot of work. Any ideas anyone?
> 

My he has been a busy bunny hasn't he.

Virtual Mapping Meetup anyone?

[Goes off to investigate the Wiki now..]

BTW, it's all very well (and no doubt correct) saying not to change 
stuff like this, but if you come across an obvious grolly with a name to 
it you don't know, the natural thought is "Oh look a newbie let's be 
helpful" - it's only when you find the next few that you start to suspect.

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Reverting all Liam123's edits

[Mark Williams]

Chris Fleming wrote:
> On 21/07/09 16:39, Mark Williams wrote:
>> My 2p;
>>
>> He has been very active around "my" area and I have had to put in some
>> work righting wrongs; there are more out there than I have fixed&  I
>> believe the original was better than the fixed version in some cases.
>> Although some of my time has gone into re-edits, I would prefer to see
>> him reverted completely. If I lose an occasional addition, it will be
>> worth it.
>>
>> If he's a bored teenager in London, there's a Dartford mapping party
>> coming up next weekend; I'll even offer a lift&/or mentoring! It's the
>> summer holidays now so if he likes b*ggering about in OSM, the next 6
>> weeks could be problematic! If he's not interested in being
>> constructive, +1 for a ban.
>>
> I wonder if some kind of soft ban might be a good way to deal with this. 
> The idea being that the next time the user logs in they are presented 
> with a message to the extent that there has been some concern over their 
> edits, with some kind of explanation of what they have done and a offer 
> of assistance. And a warning that further unwarranted edits might lead 
> to further action and an Agree and Continue button.
> 
> If further edits are still not productive then we would have a clear 
> audit of a warning being issues and assistance being offered.
> 
> Cheers
> Chris
> 
> _

+1, nice idea if it's technically possible - otherwise a warning to his 
inbox will be emailed to him, but I gather he has already been contacted 
anyway.

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Amenities

[Mark Williams]

Jack Stringer wrote:
> Well I have got a few replies to my e-mails to a few places. One of
> which was Avon[1] & Somerset Police.

Good..

> If I was to gather a the lists of places that we should be making sure
> are mapped onto the maps. Should I gather these up and put them into a
> database for all to see/use. I have mySQL on my website hosting so I
> can put it there for now. But does anyone here able to offer me decent
> advice on how to do this.

What appears to have happened with all the successful external sites of 
this nature is that someone has built it, then announced its 
availability to the list(s) - eg Openstreetbugs, Keepright, among many 
others. If it's well liked, you could be up there...

> I was thinking of a table with the columns of
> id - unique id to keep the database happy
> amenity - the OSM amenity tag relevant to the business/location
> url - website if applicable
> source - so we can put that into the osm source tag
> addr - all the addr tags to keep the data
> node - OSM node number or what ever so we can link to it. Items
> without a node are items we are still looking for.

Fine I guess - so long as ypur system polls OSM periodically for those & 
adds them, as clearly some will be added independently so you absolutely 
can't rely on your users keeping your DB in date.

> I guess I could add all the tags that are normally tagged to an OSM
> building, or should I drop that and just have a text box in which as
> much info as possible can be put in.

TBH no, I'd keep it simple - If I could do an easy query on "what needs 
doing where I am next weekend" & take it with me, great. I wouldn't use 
it as an 'alternative editor' & if I was taking a printout, I wouldn't 
want clutter.

> Do I make it so if other people get data they can add it via the
> website or do I ask for the data to be mailed to me and I will do it
> myself?

Again, no, it sounds like a 'tell me what to look for so I can add it' 
utility. Also possibly another completeness marker? Not an editor 
though. What would you do if you got 15,000 e-mails on Monday?

Mark




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Reverting all Liam123's edits

[Mark Williams]

Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 21/07/09 14:02, Steve Hill wrote:
> 
>> Some thoughts on sensible protections which could be implemented in the
>> future:
>> 1. The ability to ban a user from editing.
> 
> This would be easy to add - at the moment we have to lock the account 
> completely.
> 
>> 2. The ability to ban an IP address or range of IP addresses from editing
>> (this is extreme).
> 
> This one would be easy to add but pointless when we can do (1) and (3).
> 
>> 3. The ability to ban user creation from an IP address or range of IP
>> addresses.
> 
> This one already exists, but has never been used to date.
> 
> Tom
> 

My 2p;

He has been very active around "my" area and I have had to put in some 
work righting wrongs; there are more out there than I have fixed & I 
believe the original was better than the fixed version in some cases.
Although some of my time has gone into re-edits, I would prefer to see 
him reverted completely. If I lose an occasional addition, it will be 
worth it.

If he's a bored teenager in London, there's a Dartford mapping party 
coming up next weekend; I'll even offer a lift &/or mentoring! It's the 
summer holidays now so if he likes b*ggering about in OSM, the next 6 
weeks could be problematic! If he's not interested in being 
constructive, +1 for a ban.

Mark
S.W.Essex


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Liam123 is still active unfortunately

[Mark Williams]

Peter Miller wrote:
> On 19 Jul 2009, at 23:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Peter Miller wrote:
>>> We really need some better tools for reverting this sort of  
>>> nonsense  and a way of patrolling the edits of new contributors .  
>>> This isn't a  discussion for talk-gb really, but possibly it is a  
>>> good place to start.
>> See also the recent discussion on talk that started with this:
>>
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/038575.html
>>
>> where the author asked
>>
>> "Now we have the changesets like
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1815935 ... Is it  
>> possible to add an "undo request button" or "spam button" to this
>> page?"
> 
> Thanks Frederik. I have read the thread, but there doesn't seem to be  
> a conclusion yet? I will continue the discussion about this problem  
> there.

Surely this is a Blacklisting issue as well, in this case?

I found myself looking at an un-named Public Building round the corner 
from my house yesterday, scratching my head, 'til I saw the author.

I haven't seen any constructive effort from him - have you?

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Freemap (OSM for walkers) - increased coverage

[Mark Williams]

Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>> For example, for public footpaths are you including all
>> highway=footway/footway=yes ways, or are you using the slowly
>> increasingly used tag that I read about somewhere of
>> designation=public_footpath? 
> 
> As stated in my original message, highway=footway/foot=yes are *not* 
> recognised as public footpaths by the renderer, because there are too many 
> instances of usage of this combination for things which are *not* public 
> footpaths.
> 
> To match a public footpath it has to be either foot=designated and hor
> not equal to designated, or designation=public_footpath.
> 
> Nick

Would it be sensible to also render those with a ref - If it has a ref, 
then it has to be a proper footpath - no?

It's how I've always distinguished them, and I've done quite a lot of 
footpaths :)

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Isle of Wight 2

[Mark Williams]

Peter Childs wrote:
> 2009/6/1 SteveC :
>> I'm tempted, but half the point is that we need to stop thinking that
>> the IoW is mapped, without addresses or turn restrictions there's a
>> long way to go.
>>
>> On 1 Jun 2009, at 10:53, Steve Chilton wrote:
>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> I would be very interested.
>>> Would you consider pitching at somewhere "less mapped".
>>> Parts of Devon/Cornwall spring to mind.
>>>
> 
> Mapping is NEVER finished, You can always fill in more gaps make some
> updates etc etc. I think the point is that some places need more work
> than others,  Is it better to map everywhere a bit or a few places
> perfectly?
> 
> Peter

+1

I spend a lot of weekends on the IOW.
I still occasionally find a 'new' road - 2 in the last year - as well as 
loads of POI's. I wanted an ATM at the weekend - the nearest to Sandown 
is, allegedly, the TSB in Newport (which I placed some time ago).

I think a showcase or two is important, and although I have had some 
impressive usage back from OSM there are always a few lacks anywhere, 
and the IOW is our 'first' big hit. Getting it modernised & filled in to 
what we might like to think of as a good up-to-date standard would help 
keep that position from looking a bit sad. I wouldn't like to find one 
of our flagships getting to look, well, poorly done, by comparison with 
any other mapping, or even our own elsewhere.

BTW well done whoever caught up on the footpaths - I noticed a recent 
leap forward.

Mark



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Isle of Wight 2

[Mark Williams]

I'm in if the date suits.

Mark

Shaun McDonald wrote:
> Yay, that'd be a great idea.
> 
> Shaun
> 
> On 30 May 2009, at 15:53, SteveC wrote:
> 
>> Remember how awesome the wales mapping weekend was last year?
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Welsh_Mapping_Party_Weekend
>>
>> Remember the Isle of Wight mapping weekend 3 years ago? It was super
>> awesome, we had 30 odd people, local TV, press and stuff
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Isle_of_Wight_workshop_2006
>>
>>
>> How about a weekend again and rent a cottage in the Isle of Wight?
>> This time concentrating on maintenance of the map, detecting new
>> changes and augmenting it with more PoIs and things like addressing?
>>
>> I can organise it all if there is a show of hands for people who'd come.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Route planner using UK OSM data

[Mark Williams]

Shaun McDonald wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2009, at 19:14, Andrew M. Bishop wrote:
> 
>> a...@gedanken.demon.co.uk (Andrew M. Bishop) writes:
>>
>>> I decided that what would be fun to implement is a routing algorithm
>>> that can find the best (shortest or quickest) route between any two
>>> OSM highway nodes.  I know that there are other routing algorithms
>>> available but this started as an intellectual exercise so I developed
>>> my own.  It seemed to work so I added a fancy web front end to it and
>>> put it on a server.
>>> The router itself (requires JavaScript for the map etc):
>>>
>>> http://www.gedanken.org.uk/mapping/router/router.html
>>
>> On a topic related to the other ongoing discussion about tagging
>> footway and cycleway it is obviously important for a router that
>> things are tagged consistently.
>>
>> The router is currently mapping highway=path to be identical to
>> highway=footway so that foot=yes is implied.  This will cause a
>> problem with the router if the path is also bicycle=designated.  When
>> you run the router with bicycle as your mode of transport and disable
>> using footways (which is the default state for bicycles) then it won't
>> take the path.
> 
> Obviously the tagging is too complex. My definition of a highway=path  
> is a worn line in some grass. If it is something that is maintained  
> for cyclists then it is a highway=cycleway, with an option foot=yes,  
> cycleway=shared or cycleway=segregated. This is the reason why you  
> need as few tags as possible to tag something, rather than having a  
> lot of modifier tags.
> 
> Shaun
> 
> __

Firstly, I've now had a play with this - excellent work!

Secondly, I have a residence on the Isle of Wight - but there's a ferry
- and it doesn't have ferries. Yet.

If you can get all 3 car ferries you'll be ahead of Navteq who can't
find the Red Funnel from Southampton at all, and will in fact route from
the ferry terminal to the far terminal via the rival company...

Hopefully it's just another tickbox?

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping the unloved and unwashed

[Mark Williams]

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
> A quick scoot around our green and pleasant land reveals a number of really
> unloved places (Why are so many in Lincolnshire!). We need ideas on how to
> get these places on the map, whether it be motivating the natives or sending
> in the OSM swat teams to raise the profile. I'd like to hear your crazy as
> well as sensible ideas :-)
> 
> In no particular order:
> 
> Scunthorpe
> Grimsby
> Lincoln
> Doncaster
> Darlington
> Middlesbrough
> Sunderland
> Perth
> Bolton
> Northampton
> Newport
> Plymouth
> Weymouth
> 
> I'm sure you can spot plenty of others too.
> 
> Cheers

Basildon, in Essex.

I can't think of many reasons anyone would go there, other than perhaps
bowling at Bas Vegas or walking round, well, the bits I've already
walked round... It's all a bit chavvish with added drug users.

It needs a mapping party sometime - I think I'll look at that when the
weather picks up though, Basildon in the rain is just too awful :)

Although I did see on Ito-world that someone's done a bit recently.

We could do a mapping party with 10-pin bowling after; there may well be
somewhere amenable to accommodating us for the day.

Has anyone tried a geocaching event with mapping included? Sort of
'cache in maps out' as it were... it should pick up some GPS owners.
I've never understood why there's so little crossover with that. There
are really quite a lot [of geocaches] in & around Essex.

Can we convince one of the pub listing or similar websites to take on
our mapping? This would give some fairly public places an incentive to
get their area done, at least. Things like WI & religious groups often
have a website & don't want ads all over it as well, and could use clean
maps, and have lots of activists - mostly without GPS in my experience,
though.

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OpenStreetMap street types

[Mark Williams]

Mike Paley wrote:
> Can someone remind me what details I need to enter as username 'pmailkeey' 
> on OSM please.
> 
> I now have a list of OS grid refs
> 
> ...
> SD 17898 84329
> SD 17895 84379
> SD 17887 84428
> SD 17876 84475
> SD 17853 84551
> SD 17841 84602
> ...
> 
> For the entire length of the A5093 including two level crossings and a 
> suggested location for the town of Millom.
> 
> What's the best way of getting this onto OSM ?
> 
> Mike 
> 
> 

It rather depends on how you acquired that list. Usually OS grid refs
mean you got it from OS based maps, which means you don't get to enter
it in OSM at all...

If you converted it from your own readings, then go back to the
pre-conversion data, & use that. OSM is very much based on Lat / Long &
emphatically _NOT_ OS references - whilst it is possible to convert back
& forth, that's not how it's done.

The Newbies list might be a good place to check for this kind of info, BTW.

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] London to Brighton Bike Ride - registration

[Mark Williams]

Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> Gregory Williams wrote:
>> Sent: 29 February 2008 3:55 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] London to Brighton Bike Ride - registration
>>
>> Don't worry! I took a trace last year:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Gregory%20Williams/traces/27079
>>
>> Gregory
> 
> Thanks for the link Gregory. I turned the trace into an elevation profile,
> that won't change much even if the route is altered this year.
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Image:2007LondonToBrighton.jpg
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Andy
> 
V. nice - I wish they'd invented GPS (well, affordable ones..) last time
I did this.
My bike speedo recorded 74.5 kmh on that last downhill bit & I said a
bad word there's no lasting record of it though :(

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: [CARTO-SoC] Priced out...

[Mark Williams]

I presume someone's told him... Was it in time?

Or have we not done his area yet, I wonder?

Mark

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Interesting comment on the CARTO-SoC list.
> 
> Richard
> 
> - Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
>  Date: Tue,  4 Dec 2007 13:25:43 GMT
>  From: Gary Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Subject: [CARTO-SoC] Priced out...
>To: Multiple recipients of list CARTO-SOC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[]
> There doesn't seem to be any way of getting a
> better quote from OS so needless to say we won't
> be using any map products on this occasion.
> 
> This episode has made me wonder how many other
> products are being produced in the UK each year
> without maps where the use of a map would add
> considerably to the readability of the product.
> 
> I reckon this is a missed opportunity at best and
> at worst contributes to the demise of print-based
> cartography in the UK.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK administrative subdivisions

[Mark Williams]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>I'm a guest only on this list, having subscribed for the sole
> purpose of asking this question but I thought it was not really
> something for [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;-)
> 
> I have extracted the following list of "second-level administrative
> areas" for the UK from a data source named GADM. Each of these comes
> with a bounding polygon, the license of which is a bit unclear to me
> so I'd rather not import them into OSM right away, but I think it
> would be ok for me to use these polygons to extract "mini planets" for
> each of the areas.
> 
> My question to you is, (a) would such "mini planets" be useful to
> folks in the UK (does somebody else already do it, or does somebody
> want to do it if I hand him Osmosis-compatible polygon definitions for
> each of the areas?), and (b) is the list of administrative areas
> below halfway sensible, or is it a mix of various levels that would
> only confuse people and nobody would know where to look for his area?

Bet you're glad you asked now!

Going back to the original post, No  I wouldn't want all of these split
out as pico-planets, but yes I would find a split-out set of counties
handy; being in Essex my concept of this is a useful sized chunk, but
t.b.h. I use a pretty arbitrary polygon to take out southern UK to use
[on a Garmin, Vista Cx so size no object but mkgmap has a limit]. I
would quite like to d/l less than the entire planet to this!

I'd cheerfully take uk.osm as opposed to planet.osm & work from that.

A set of county_or_other_area.poly files might be handy, also this might
be useful to work on to define the boundaries in the map, as these are
very awkward to map otherwise.

Mark


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHVCPDJfMmcSPNh94RAo/kAJ9Q0ckhpAFnTonYrUCCg5DXdDkTCACfUOgq
mfZFCn66ZurUAIFVqoPdFLA=
=0p3W
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM gets a plug on the register.

[Mark Williams]

Alexander Wright wrote:
> The register published a story on how Google are to be offering the ability 
> to 
> edit their maps. Following reader comments, they have also published a story 
> on OSM:
> 
> http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/11/22/blognation_os_maps/
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
Read and enjoyed..

I followed their link to the Guardian Free Our Data campaign, which says
lots about the OS licence, but doesn't mention OSM.

Editors emailed..

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] mapping tunnels

[Mark Williams]

My car (Fiat Stilo) uses wheel rotation data to calculate turns & distance.
It goes horribly wrong if you reverse round a corner while it's getting 
a GPS lock, but works well in tunnels. For what that's worth...
Unfortunately there's no way to save tracks (I haven't tried opening the 
box!) & it does a 'lock to Navtech map' so it's no use for OSM & I drive 
with 2 sat-nav devices. Isn't that sad..

Mark

tim wrote:
> Navigating whilst driving through tunnels can be helped by reading the
> cars computer, connecting to its OBD / ECU - you can get at least rpm
> and speed, along with a whole load of other stuff - You can also tie
> into the indicator lights (useful if there's a junction underground)
>
>
> Its what the navtech vans use when they go underground (with a gyroscope)
>
> On 9/28/07, Robert (Jamie) Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
>> 
>>> Thom Shannon wrote:
>>>   
 actually ASN looks a bit smarter than that.
 
 Here's another crazy idea. Use a video camera close to the road (I have
 a bullet cam that can be mounted on a car) then pattern match the images
 to track motion (like an optical mouse does) then combine that with a
 trace from a digital compass. Then by taking gps readings at either end
 of the tunnel you can calibrate those traces to counter cumulative
 error. You should then be able to get a really accurate trace.
 
>>> You might be better off using a ordinary forwards facing camera, and
>>> match-mover software (like boujou) that the use in movie effects to work
>>> out the camera movement and add virtual elements. There seems to be a
>>> free match-mover (camera tracker) package at
>>> http://digilab.uni-hannover.de/docs/manual.html
>>> that's probably worth a try.
>>>   
>> Sorry, that should be
>>
>> http://www.digilab.uni-hannover.de/docs/manual.html
>>
>> 



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

[Talk-GB] [Fwd: Re: Speed limits]

[Mark Williams]

 Original Message 
Subject:Re: [Talk-GB] Speed limits
Date:   Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:04:07 +0100
From:   Mark Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



I read the thread; I really don't understand why we have to be difficult 
here, I use the kph values often;  we have a lot of odd limits round 
here (Thurrock) & so it needed doing. I had no great problem working out 
the metric...

Looking to map uses, we're going to be wanting routing, to know how fast 
a given route is; or a warning if over speed, from GPS (as nothing else 
knows our location..). So we will have software using it. Is someone in 
'foreign parts' going to know / care about us using mph? No, so we'll be 
the only people in the world who can't use their products! Does it 
matter if we get the speed warning in error at 29.825817mph instead of 
30? Really? Does it matter if it misreads it silently, and doesn't beep 
'til 48? Yup. What if the mph has a typo, does the s/w have to interpret 
pmh or kmph? It's worse for a maxspeeed_units=mph tag :)

I'm definitely against this idea!

For the record, I have no great urge to go metric ourselves; I just want 
things to work, and perceive a  point of failure in this. I realise that 
programmers can easily add a comversion routine - but why cause the 
problem? It's like the Millenium Bug - a bit of forethought would have 
prevented all the hoohah, and work to make it all OK - & we coped with 
that too, but can't we learn a lesson??

We could, I suppose, have an agreement that Planet gets parsed from time 
to time & converted to kph, so mappers can enter it as mph, if we really 
must..

Mark




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

[Talk-GB] [Fwd: Re: Conflicting tagging of london undergound stations]

[Mark Williams]

 Original Message 
Subject:Re: [Talk-GB] Conflicting tagging of london undergound stations
Date:   Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:14:50 +0100
From:   Mark Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Nick Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



Nick Black wrote:
> There seems to be no agreed way to tag the London Underground, 
> resulting in:
>
>
> http://openstreetmap.org/api/0.4/way/4008385
> &
> http://openstreetmap.org/api/0.4/way/4008533
>
> If I change all occurrences of tube= to line= , is this going to ruin 
> anyone's day?  We could then additionally add something like this to 
> identify London Underground stations:
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> My thinking here is that k='line' is generic/international and can 
> equally be applied to other rail networks.  How does this sound?
Go for it!

Mark




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

[Talk-GB] [Fwd: Re: Conflicting tagging of london undergound stations]

[Mark Williams]

 Original Message 
Subject:Re: [Talk-GB] Conflicting tagging of london undergound stations
Date:   Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:13:30 +0100
From:   Mark Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Robert (Jamie) Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Alex Mauer wrote:
>   
>> I'm assuming that the vast majority of railway=subway in the world is
>> below ground,
>> 
>
> You're assuming wrong. Only 45% of the London Underground is actually
> tunnels. The other 55% is above ground. I expect other cities are similar.
>
>   
>> and therefore that requiring an additional tunnel=yes tag
>> on 90% or more of the subway ways, is not as good as treating the
>> below-ground portions as a lower layer (whether it's -1 or -2 or -1
>> is beside the point)
>> 
>
> It might be better to abolish rail=subway and just use rail=metro. It's
> then obvious that you only put tunnel=yes when it is in a tunnel.
>
> Robert (Jamie) Munro
>
>   
For what it's worth, London underground is of course on many layers - to 
some extent, each line wants a different layer tag as they cross at 
varying depths.
OTOH I'm not sure how relevant it is, as the layer tag is largely for 
rendering & how important is it to render the levels right on a map?
I personally would want it right, because it's there.

Both tunnel & layer have their place, I would agree with the idea of the 
default for rail=subway/metro being tunnel=yes, even for London at 45% 
correct! I think I'd default layer as -3 though as not much goes under 
the Tube, but covered rivers go above it & I bet they're all -1 at least.

Mark




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hindhead Tunnel

[Mark Williams]

Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> 80n wrote:
>   
>> It was me.
>>
>> Yes, it really was surveyed, on foot, up to the point where there road 
>> will enter a tunnel (which hasn't been built yet).
>> 
>
> :-O Bloody hell! Was this before or after they brought in the Heavy 
> Plant, and started removing heavy plants? I admire your dedication to 
> the cause!
>
>   
>> My current thoughts are that we need a tag like highway=construction 
>> which can then be qualified with the ultimate class of the road if it is 
>> known, producing highway=construction:trunk.  This would not get 
>> misinterpreted by renderers or other clients but still provide all the 
>> information required.
>> 
>
> Indeed. You could also do the same with highway=planned: to show 
> projects that have approval, but where construction hasn't yet started.
>
>   
>> Any other ideas or suggestions?
>> 
>
> Do we need to restrict which zoom levels roads under construction are 
> shown on? They might not be very useful at lower zoom.
>
> J.
They might not be that useful at all :)

That said, I went off & entered a 1/2 built roundabout this week - it's 
almost done, & will be the 'mount point' for a huge amount of building 
work soon.  I figured it won't get anyone lost if they find a 2-exit 
roundabout that almost exists :)

I quite like the highway=construction:xxx idea, but perhaps using it 
implies a commitment for monitoring it?
Sort of like FIXME tags..
It might also be useful for routing software, along the lines of 'best 
avoided' at the junctions.

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] dangerous cycling lanes (was Re: A new highway tagging scheme - thinking about)

[Mark Williams]

graham wrote:
> Or more dangerous. I won't mark some roads with cycle lanes where I 
> think they are really unsafe (ridiculously narrow and over drains; 
> jumping off road onto pavement and back again at dangerous points; 
> stopping suddenly where roads narrow leaving you in an unsafe position 
> to continue; crossing roads at points where the traffic signals are not 
> visible; etc). I also won't map footpaths as for cycling where our local 
> council has recently started putting up signs showing pictures of 
> parents with small toddlers and bicycles, after nearly hitting mothers 
> with children in buggies a couple of times: I don't think mapping 
> includes making councils look as though they have a real policy when all 
> they are doing is taking the cheapest route that technically satisfies 
> targets.
>
>   

We have a local area (Chafford Hundred)where these signs are common -
this is in fact a 2-level way with a distinct step/kerb to segregate
foot/cycle lanes, and purpose-built in a new (20 years) development. I
have a bit of it mapped at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.49369594708108&lon=0.3169588268851326&zoom=14&layers=B0T
(lots to do).
This is however a net of cycleways in a residential area, not
through-ways for serious long-distance travel. I wouldn't go fast here
as it crosses roads frequently, and toddlers don't read the signs. I
have them in the maps as highway=cycleway, foot=yes, bicycle=yes which
brings them up green in Osmarender, as opposed to highway=footway,
bicycle=yes, foot=yes which is brown.
Perhaps the route itself speaks volumes on the speed of these paths? The
main cycle route is a separate lane alongside the old A13 (now A1306),
which is clearly straight past the area but short of adding a separate
way, doesn't show on a map. Or perhaps a better method would be
maxspeed=10, which on a no-car route tells you it's a bit slow... When
TomTom for pushbikes comes out, it would tend to avoid these!

Mark



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: designated cycleway, designated bridleway, designated footway

[Mark Williams]

Rik van der Helm wrote:
>> The "designated" refers to their legal status, but in practise this is
>> pretty much impossible to find out with copyright violations from the
>> national mapping agency (the Ordinance Survey). Instead, we use
>> signposts to determine the legal status of a particular route.
>> 
>
> Ah thanks, that's a different meaning than I thought. So in UK the legal
> status of ways are registered on a map which you are not allowed to use.
> Sounds like proving your innocence in court without using lawbooks.
>
>   
Well, no, you have to _buy_ both lawbooks & maps.

Until now, hehehe

Mark



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

Re: [Talk-GB] affixing a GPS to a dashboard

[Mark Williams]

Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> Steve Coast wrote:
>   
>> That burning question - if you have a GPS and a dashboard which lets  
>> it slide off when you turn a corner - what do you do?
>>
>> Maybe blu tak?
>>   
>> 
> Works perfectly for me. Use many small blobs rather than one big one,
> though.
>
>
> Jono
>   

Be aware that Garmin's with a rubber edge grip will go funny in hot sun 
on a dashboard. The glue melts & turns into sticky yuk on a 
semi-permanent basis. Mr Garmin is re-gluing mine as we speak; I'm told 
that's what happened, though I never leave it unattended on the dash, so 
I think it did it driving (with air-con, too!).

I'm 'going to' update the wiki 'soon'

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Online POI editor for placemappingparty-usabilityenhancements

[Mark Williams]

On Monday 28 May 2007 19:30, David Earl wrote:
> Nick,
>
> There seems to be a problem whereby the POI editor gets 500 errors from the
> server whenever a place name (and presumably other tag values as well) has
> a single quote in the name:
>   name=Bishop's Castle always fails
>   name=Bishops Castle works
>
> David

This is a problem?
Surely option b) is correct anyway

Mark


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Open Street map servers and [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[Mark Williams]

On Sunday 29 Apr 2007 12:17, Alexander Wright wrote:
> Is it just me, or are all the dev servers and [EMAIL PROTECTED] not working?
>
> Anything to do with the new proxies that have been installed?

It's just you (4 hours later, so maybe it wasn't..) as it's OK now.

They have been slow though.

Mark


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