Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary
On 14/12/2020 17:27, Edward Bainton wrote: Any thoughts on why when I enable "public GPS traces" in iD, I get one that near enough exactly tracks the LA boundary South Kesteven:Peterborough (at Deeping St James)? Someone took their tracker with them when "Beating the Bounds"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_the_bounds Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
I have now changed this from "driveway" to "service road" with access for motor vehicles as "destination", i.e. for access to properties only. I don't think it can be "private" because there are two properties along there, Noverton Cottage and Noverton Farm. I have also added the gate at the public road. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.28186/-2.42748 Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On 13/12/2020 13:45, Nick wrote: what do people think of Overlapping ways i.e. one is a road and a duplicate is a bridleway? Not elegant and something I would not normally suggest but... Hi Nick, When I've tried that in the past I've been jumped on for breaking a fundamental rule of OSM that one feature should have only one entry in the database. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Noverton Farm - driveway-becomes-track
On 13/12/2020 09:06, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm) sounded familiar. A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a long distance walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary footpaths (planned using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme Valley. It was very nice *but* the footpaths were in an appaling state of disrepair, I remember on several occasions that day having to scramble through dense shrub cover and attempt to negotiate barbed-wire fences. I seem to recall Noverton Farm as being the site of some particularly badly-maintained footpaths. Hi Nick, The footpaths in the area, or at least the ones walked by me, are now no worse than in other areas of Worcestershire. Here is Noverton Farm with stile: https://85a.uk/noverton_stile_1280x800.jpg The heavy lifting appears to have been done by the local Ramblers volunteers: https://85a.uk/noverton_ramblers_1280x800.jpg Others nearby have been replaced with galvanised kissing gates, again with the Ramblers doing the actual work. The state of the footpath between them tends to depend on the time of year and the state of the crops. Farmers tend not to regard their legal requirement to reinstate footpaths within 14 days as being at the top of their to-do list. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
As the OP on this, all I can say is that in this part of the world, which includes that farm, that roadway would be called a "farm drive" (not "driveway") with double gates and a nameboard where it leaves the public road. If you referred to the "track leading to the farm" the farmer might take offence after laying and rolling hardcore along it to make it suitable for all vehicles. A "track" is a narrow muddy lane between fields, and a farm at the end of one would typically be an old-time tumbledown affair, not one ready to receive delivery vans from Amazon. However, my post was not about the naming, but about the rendering on the standard OSM map. Where at zoom level 15 driveways are not rendered, but lower-grade tracks and bridleways are. It doesn't make sense to a user of that map, although I can see the intended logic behind it. The simplest solution would to remove the driveway tag and simply leave it as "service road". But that then causes it to be rendered on the standard map at the same width and colour as a minor public road, which is equally confusing to a map user. However, I notice that the entry gates have not been mapped, so adding those to a basic service road may be the best solution, and I will do that. thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On 12/12/2020 21:30, David Woolley wrote: Your first problem would be establishing a funding model for it; OSM, in general, is not funded to a level that would support large scale end user use. Hi David, Small-scale end use would be a start. But folks need to find it in the first place. Andy obviously already has some hosting on a server, and I do too. So funding for small-scale use would not be a problem. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On 12/12/2020 17:37, Andy Townsend wrote: That allows maps such as https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=16=52.28208=-2.42987 to display it as a public bridleway (in blue) Hi Andy, That's a great map! It seems you have already done what I would be interested in doing - to provide a better map for walkers and others showing footpaths, stiles and gates, etc. much more prominently. What I'm wondering is how the typical recreational country walker would find that map, or get it on their mobile phone app in place of the awful Google maps? It's a lot of work to create if no-one ever uses it? One thing I would ask for is more prominent rendering of benches. They appear only at maximum zoom on the OSM standard map, and only as a very small symbol. I don't suppose younger OSM mappers roam the countryside looking for somewhere to sit and eat their lunch, but at 72 years of age I do (cheese & pickle sandwich and a hard-boiled egg, since you ask)! Something I feel strongly about, and would be a prime motivation for doing something about myself, is to map and provide rendering for the area:highway tag: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway Country walkers often need to include a stretch of public road in a planned walk, and it is very difficult to discover whether a road will be safe to walk along. Sometimes there are wide verges, but sometimes high banks or close hedges with nowhere to leap to out of the way of approaching traffic. It's necessary to look on Google Streetview before setting out, but not all country roads are covered. At present even apps which do render it (I believe OsmAnd) can't do much because it is not commonly mapped between the hedgerows along country roads. Legally the entire area between the property boundaries on each side is the public highway. Having recently been very nearly taken out by a van while walking (legally!) along an A road, it's an omission I want to do something about. Local highway authorities are required by law to provide a "Public Footpath" sign where a public footpath joins a road. But they are not required to provide any safe means of reaching it. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote: Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it. Perhaps that someone is you? Hi Andy, Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus, Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory space and bandwidth. I have been thinking of making better use of it, possibly by hosting something from OSM. > I'd suggest setting up a copy of the > standard map rendering as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ > (just for Worcestershire would be fine) and start tinkering with the > logic that decides what sort of service road is what, such as > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b10aef3866bacf387581b8fea4eec265010b0d14/project.mml#L475 Thanks. I have been looking at https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ but I have a lot to learn. I can do Windows programming, but on stuff for the web I'm only a dabbler. I looked at Mapnik and saw interfaces only for Python and C. If that had been Pascal, I would have dived in by now. I will have another look and see where I might start. The idea of creating my own map does appeal to me. Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud: https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track" means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles. This is where the farm drive leaves the road - this is definitely more than a "track" - note the double gates: https://goo.gl/maps/XEs4XKs5UUHNBt8E8 cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On 12/12/2020 13:16, Mark Goodge wrote: Out in a rural area, nearly everybody would call that length of road, especially one that links a public highway with private farm tracks, a track or access road. Hi Mark, I'm not sure about that. In this part of the world, a roadway which links from a public road to a private residence is called a "drive" (not usually "driveway") irrespective of the length, or what other tracks or footpaths connect to it, and also irrespective of its legal status as a public byway or public bridleway. If it's a public highway for all, it's just called a "road" or "lane". cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
On 12/12/2020 13:03, Nick wrote: For this particular example it is clearly complex as it was shown as a 'permissive' footpath (other non vehicular access was along the designated bridleway). As this is in England and given that the driveway seems to have just been changed to 'designated', I assume the change made to the map allowing 'other access' along the private driveway could be contested by the landowner? Hi Nick, I'm not clear what you are saying there? The driveway is a public bridleway which subsequently passes through a farmyard. The farmer has provided a permissive by-pass footpath for walkers to avoid the farmyard. The driveway has been broken into 3 sections and given separate pro-ref numbers (not by me). cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Publishing a linked dataset
Hi everyone, I'm currently looking at a dataset with a view to it being published, that defines a set of routes (various streets and paths), not physically marked on the ground, i.e. they are subjective rather than objective. The aim is to publish this as a dataset that then other people using OSM could then easily use in routing engines to favour the specific paths. In other words, have some way of referencing the preferred ways easily, avoiding the need for any kind of GIS-based map-matching. The data is currently just an overlay manually drawn over a digital map background, but the underlying map hasn't actually been used in any way to decide on the network or check things back home. There are no IP issues in my view - it's just a set of route preferences. The lines can be redrawn from scratch if necessary. Do people have any tips on how best to create and maintained a linked dataset? I've been considering a few options: - Load all the data in the area in QGIS using a Geofabrik extract, and manually remove everything that isn't relevant, leaving the desired network only, from which the OSM IDs can be extracted - Use some kind of QGIS process to match the locations with some kind of key/value filtering, with some kind of 10-20m buffer. Do people think it's better to publish a list of OSM IDs or as GeoJSON, which would obviously contain the IDs but also have the benefit of visually showing the routes? I'm aware obviously the data could become unmatched over time, as OSM changes, e.g. a way is split or paths added that add more detail. Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
p.s. here's a screenshot of that. It looks silly: https://85a.uk/missing_driveway_zoom15.png Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
A common situation is that a service road/driveway continues as a track beyond the initial residential destination. This is common on farms. On the standard map at zoom level 15, driveways are not shown. But tracks and footpaths are. This seems counter-intuitive in that driveways are usually wider and more substantially surfaced than farm tracks. The result is that a track, and sometimes a footpath, appears to start in the middle of nowhere. An example of that is at: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.2816/-2.4320 What is the process for getting something done about this? thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths
On 10/12/2020 14:13, John Aldridge wrote: There'd be a whole lot less temptation to tag for the renderer, if the renderers rendered for the tags a bit better! Agreed, and while we are on the subject, please can we have *tracks* rendered on the standard map as a double line? As they are on most maps. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths
My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2) Many public bridleways have many more walkers and cyclists using it than actual horse-riders. But are still mapped as bridleways. Map it as a cycleway, unless it is a public bridleway, in which case map it as bridleway. You are mapping the status, not the actual usage. My feeling is that a highway should be mapped at the highest level of permitted usage. The assumption is that pedestrians can go almost anywhere anyway. Motorways excepted. Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field
What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical evidence You walk along them. There is then physical evidence, and you can map it. I've done that a lot. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] electric fences
There are several instances locally where a footpath across a field is crossed by an electric fence. The farmer usually fits a length of rubber hosepipe over the wire so that walkers can safely step over the fence. Sometimes with the aid of a couple of concrete blocks. How to map? Technically it is probably a form of stile. But the problem is that the location isn't fixed. Electric fences are moved about according to which area of the field the livestock are currently grazing. In a large field the position could change significantly. But walkers with restricted mobility do need to know that there is one somewhere in the field. The position might be important if there is an alternative gate or other access which could be used. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] featdesc & featcode
On 19/11/2020 16:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > > Anybody know what featdesc & featcode refer to? Local authority > references? Hi Dave, Sorry about poor formatting, copied from: https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/os-vectormap-district-product-guide.pdf OS VectorMap District technical specification feature codes v1.8 – 09/2016 © Crown copyright Page 51 of 56 Feature Codes Feature Codes represented in the vector product FeatureType classification featureCode Building25014 Glasshouse25016 Road Motorway 25710 Primary Road 25723 A Road 25729 B Road 25743 Minor Road 25750 Local Street 25760 Private Road Publicly Accessible 25780 Pedestrianised Street 25790 Motorway, Collapsed Dual Carriageway 25719 Primary Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway 25735 A Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway 25739 B Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway 25749 Minor Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway 25759 RoadTunnel25792 MotorwayJunction25796 Roundabout Primary Road 25703 A Road 25704 B Road 25705 Minor Road 25706 Local Street 25707 Private Road Publicly Accessible 25708 SurfaceWater_Line25600 SurfaceWater_Area25609 TidalWater High Water Mark 25608 TidalBoundary High Water Mark Low Water Mark 25604 Low Water Mark 25605 Foreshore25612 AdministrativeBoundary National 25204 Parish Or Community 25200 District Or London Borough 25201 County Or Region Or Island 25202 RailwayTrack Multi Track 25300 Single Track 25301 Narrow Gauge 25302 RailwayTunnel25303 RailwayStation Light Rapid Transit Station 25420 Railway Station 25422 London Underground Station 25423 Railway Station And London Underground Station 25424 OS VectorMap District technical specification feature codes v1.8 – 09/2016 © Crown copyright Page 52 of 56 Light Rapid Transit Station And Railway Station 25425 Light Rapid Transit Station And London Underground Station 25426 FunctionalSite Education Facility - School 25250 Police Station 25251 Medical Care 25252 Place Of Worship 25253 Leisure Or Sports Centre 25254 Air Transport 25255 Education Facility - Higher 25256 Water Transport 25257 Road Transport 25258 Road Services 25259 Woodland25999 Ornament25550 ElectricityTransmissionLine25102 NamedPlace Populated Place 25801 Landform 25802 Woodland Or Forest 25803 Hydrography 25804 Landcover 25805 SpotHeight25810 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Holes in modern England?
I think I have now worked this out. The NLS historic 25" georeferenced map first looks on the server for tiles from the County Series maps. If that returns a 404 Not Found error (presumably because the sheet wasn't available when the rest were scanned), it then looks on the server for the same tile from the "Holes England" map to fill in the gap. These appear to be from later OS revisions, but are available only for the locations shown as blank patches at: https://geo.nls.uk/mapdata3/os/25_inch/holes_england/#holes_england_new/ol3 Hopefully if/when they get enough of these scans, these later 25" revisions will become available as a separate map on the web site. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Holes in modern England?
One of the "holes" contains the town of Kidderminster. Looking at it on the full 25" map, that sheet is from the 1921 revision, the surrounding sheets are from the 1901 revision: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17=52.38277=-2.24342=168=7 Which may explain the holey map, as a record of which revision is where. Or not. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Holes in modern England?
On 30/10/2020 20:34, ipswichmap...@tutanota.com wrote: If this is referring to what I posted earlier, then you have chosen a different map to what I linked. Hi, No it's a separate issue. I was browsing the NLS site when Firefox threw an error. I clicked "Try again" and the holey map appeared. It seems to be an extract from the normal 25" georeferenced map, but to what end I can't fathom. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Holes in modern England?
p.s. I've now discovered an overlay slider top-right which makes a bit more sense. The slider is almost invisible over the map in Firefox. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Holes in modern England?
Anyone care to explain what's going on here: https://geo.nls.uk/mapdata3/os/25_inch/holes_england/#holes_england_new/ol3 It displays the OSM basic map (without attribution), with some random blank patches (see for example a large area north-west of Oxford). If you zoom in on the blank patches, they turn out to contain historic 25"/mile mapping from the NLS. Puzzled. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts
Surely OpenStreetMAP is about creating a MAP? The clue is in the name. So you map what's on the ground: 1. Put the flares in the right place (often they are wildly out). 2. If there is a "No U-turn" sign you add it, otherwise you don't. Making a router work properly is a job for the person making the router, not the person making the MAP. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Jewson - is it shop=doityourself or shop=trade?
shop=builders_merchant ? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Using OSM as a base for my own fictional map?
On 25/07/2020 00:36, David Woolley wrote: Also, generating a PDF server side is a relatively expensive, so don't expect to welcomed if you start doing this on the fly. Hi David, Can you clarify what you mean by "on the fly"? I anticipate clicking the PDF download button, and then working locally on the downloaded file. Maybe doing a dozen or so in an evening, once or twice a week. The modified images would then be distributed to others via my own server. Which would have no effect on the OSM server. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Using OSM as a base for my own fictional map?
On 24/07/2020 23:18, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote: "OpenStreetMap data is free for everyone to use. Our tile servers are not." See https://operations.osmfoundation.org/policies/tiles/ for more "In particular, downloading an area of over 250 tiles at zoom level 13 or higher for offline or later usage is forbidden." is the most limiting part Thanks Mateusz. However, I would not be using any OSM tiles at all. I would be using this PDF download function instead: https://85a.uk/osm_pdf_download.png and once only for any given map area. Though I suspect that rendering map (raster tiles with Mapnik, client-side rendered vector tiles, rendering on client side from raw OSM data etc) will be better than fetching raster tiles and modifying them I agree that modifying a raster image, whether from a tile or any other, would give very poor results, especially when zoomed in. But I'm not planning to fetch or modify any raster tiles. The downloaded PDF files are vector files which can be zoomed to any level without pixelating, and can have the internal records modified as required. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Using OSM as a base for my own fictional map?
Many thanks for the suggestions and links. A lot to take in there. Zooming the tiles far enough to see the track detail is essential, so I'm wondering if I'm looking at doing this the wrong way. It's not intended that the tiles would be viewed on a slippy map in a web browser. I'm writing a Windows executable to fetch them from the server and display them. I have discovered that from the standard OSM map it is possible to download a vector file as a PDF of a selected area. An EMF metafile would be preferable, but the PDF format is essentially a wrapper for metafiles, so it's not too difficult to convert PDF to EMF. Which means I can programmatically remove the railway tracks by searching the metafile records for the relevant line styles and colours. And then programmatically draw in the required new railway track. From the modified EMF I can generate the image tiles and upload them to my server. Here's a quick test of that idea, showing the platforms and footbridge at the north end of Bewdley station on the SVR, with the OSM tracks replaced with detailed track: https://85a.uk/bewdley_osm_test.png Here's the OSM map from which it was derived: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.37590/-2.30719=N I need to work out how to do the attribution and any copyright issues. I can easily add the usual © OpenStreetMap Contributors caption on the corner of each tile. But is it permitted to modify and re-use the standard OSM map image in this way? What indication is required that it has been modified? The project will be free and open-source, there is no financial gain involved. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Using OSM as a base for my own fictional map?
I'm looking for some pointers. I have a dedicated server (located in Ohio, I'm in UK) with full controls. I'm fairly confident with web sites and javascript (and geometry), but I'm entirely new to online mapping (apart from editing OSM in the iD editor). What I want to do is use OSM as a base map for small areas of the UK, but remove entirely all the OSM-derived railway tracks, and replace them with my own data. This data would be essentially fictional, not based on or derived from anything which is there now. I want to be able to create tiles zoomed in far enough to see individual rails and sleepers, with each rail as two separate rail edges. Where would I start to do that? How would I deal with attribution, warning unsuspecting users that everything is derived from OSM (and can be relied on to the same extent, if any, as any other OSM) EXCEPT the railway tracks, which can't? Many thanks for any help/ideas/suggestions. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Surveying rural buildings
> but most people I know aren't aware of OSM. I've been trying to persuade country-walking groups to use OSM. There is a lot of useful stuff there not shown on OS Explorer -- stiles, kissing gates, benches, bus stops, all pubs, cafes, etc. It's a lot more up-to-date, and if they find anything missing they can add it themselves for the benefit of others. Most of them go back to OS Explorer when they find UK public rights of way are not shown in different colours on the OSM standard map. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure
Mike Baggaley wrote: There should be no need for a tag to indicate whether a cycleway is separated from the road, as if the cycleway is part of the road it should not be tagged as highway=cycleway at all - it should be tagged as highway=(something else) + cycleway=*. The https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle page in the wiki is quite clear that there is only one way to map cycle lanes (i.e. not separated from road) whereas there are two ways to map cycle tracks (separated from a road). Agreed; a painted lane on the road should always be an attribute of the road. It's a lane by definition. The problem arises with 'hybrid' cycle lane/track stuff, for which a discussion was started at: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-June/024612.html Are these lanes or tracks? : https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/108979/ https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/143810/ https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/143794/ My general view is that where there is such partial physical segregation, but it is part of the road, it is probably best to use cycleway=track, oneway=yes as attributes on the main highway, but the stronger the segregation, the more I would lean to using a separate highway=cycleway, not least because it's easier then to put proper metadata on it. Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Adam Snape wrote: I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does seem garbled at points Apologies; I think I was very tired when I wrote it. It was mainly intended as a starting point, to set out the ideal case of having those metadata tags present, but things like surface should have been better written. I've fixed up the points noted, which I agree with. Obviously I hope others can enhance the section too. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure#Checklist_of_attributes_to_tag_for_good_cycle_routing Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather than the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway? Sorry, yes, fixed. Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway... Have fixed this also. The intention was to ensure that the surface is considered when tagging - which is suprisingly still poor data in some places. A fair proportion of route feedback we get comes down to cases where routing has gone over a 'cycleway' that turns out to be some kind of muddy or badly-surfaced track. These are obviously easy to fix in OSM once the value is known. My general feeling on surface is that, while asphalt is of course assumed by all routing engines I'm aware of, the amount of stuff in the UK that isn't asphalt makes it worthwhile putting the surface in explicitly. This demonstrates to future mappers that the value is actually known (rather than assumed/unknown/ambiguous). Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
It is just possible (sight unseen) that it is an Easter Egg. We could do the same. If we don't know whether it is permissible to tag it Fairfield Road in OSM, and there is no actual sign on it, we could call it Fairfields Road. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Some of it can go into OSM in a more-or-less automated fashion. This is particularly true of the cycle parking, and of most speed bumps. Richard and I would welcome views on this. We think in particular that a significant part of the cycle parking data (generally the residential areas, where there is little parking presently) and the speed bumps data are ripe for automated conversion. These form tens of thousands of locations which we feel are very low risk, useful data, and eminently suitable for import. Speed bumps: https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=bumps_road/#14.98/51.47101/-0.02755 Cycle parking: https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm:type=parking_new/#14.98/51.46059/-0.05586 (Note that Richard is shortly aiming to split out the parking_new dataset into two, one with no existing cycle parking nearby, making it very safe to ensure these would be safe to import.) Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database - matching against OSM
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020, Richard Fairhurst wrote: You’ll remember that a couple of weeks ago I posted about the work I’m doing to look at getting the relevant bits of Transport for London’s openly licensed Cycle Infrastructure Database into OSM. https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion It takes the TfL CID files, compares them against OSM (by making queries against a freshly loaded Postgres database), and outputs a series of files for each datatype, all categorised by the type of editing that will be required to get them into OSM. You can now view this converted data as an interactive visualisation at: https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid2osm/#13.12/51.50426/-0.08725 Use the "Feature type" drop-down to change the type. This shows the results of Richard's excellent scripting to convert the TfL CID data to OSM tagging. It hopefully demonstrates the correctness of Richard's conversion and the extensiveness of the data. I have also included the two TfL photos of each asset. NB You can see the original TfL data using the "TfL CID" layer button, and OSM data using "OSM" layer button. These are both in the main list of cycling data layer buttons on the right-hand side. Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
Is a "public right of way" a highway? I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line. Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes with a physical highway, sometimes not. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] underfoot art
What is this stuff called? https://goo.gl/maps/uVVfLbicFhT25TM5A https://goo.gl/maps/5g1yJnsAGEHzpqqY6 I got as far as tourism=artwork but then artwork_type= ? thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
On 03/04/2020 13:40, nathan case wrote: I ruled it out because, from the same wiki: "This tag is intended for (usually urban) parks with managed greenery" and "parks not so designed and manicured, but rather left in a more wild and natural state should not get this tag, instead, use another tag like boundary=national_park" But village greens and public open green spaces are normally managed, or at least mown, by the local authority. They are not left in a wild or natural state. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Town Greens
What is wrong with Park? From the wiki: "A park is an area of open space for recreational use, usually designed and in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and bushes. Parks are usually urban" Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding missing roads using Facebook detections
What missing roads? In this area of the UK at least, there are no *public* roads missing from OSM, apart maybe from a few very new ones on new residential developments, which are very quickly added by human mappers, no AI needed. A few private driveways are missing, but are they all strictly "roads"? A hundred yards from the gate to a residence doesn't strike me as a road in the usual sense. Is there a minimum length for a vehicular residential access to be classed as a road? Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] TfL Cycling Infrastructure Database - conflation
Dear all, As you may recall, Transport for London (TfL) released as open data a major new cycling infrastructure dataset. Various people within the OSM UK community met TfL in the run-up to its release, and it was well-received. The OSM wiki has a project page here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database and you can browse the data here: https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/ I'm pleased to say that TfL, through a project with London Cycling Campaign, has allocated resources to enable conversion of the data as well as officer time within TfL to help conflate what is a huge dataset. CycleStreets is working with Richard Fairhurst (cycle.travel, and of course well-known as a long-standing member of the community) to get this conversion work done. Richard will be doing the bulk of the scripting work, and is working on converting each of the sections of data. This will naturally be published on Github openly, as will the outputted data. This is reasonably complex work given the number of attributes and the data extent. We are keen to ensure the OSM community is able to scrutinise the conversion easily and have input. Richard will post to this list about the work, as it proceeds. We will be using the previously-discussed conversion table: https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/ https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion and the remaining issues will be mopped up during the work. The aim of the scripting is to get as much of the data conversion automated as possible, and matching of assets very reliable, so that the conflation (tool yet to be determined) can then be done with a high degree of confidence and as easily as possible. The conflation itself, using the output of the script, will be started by TfL personnel, with training from Richard/myself about both process and norms and quality expectations of the community. TfL only have a certain amount of time resource for this, so it is hoped the OSM community will also contribute time as we refine and document the process. As noted above, the converted data will be published along the script itself. Every asset also has two images (already publicly available) which will be useful for verification. Richard and I hope this news will be well-received within the OSM community - this is a great opportunity to enhance OSM data in London. For instance, cycle parking coverage and detail can be considerably enhanced as a result of this data. If you have feedback for TfL on the CID outside of this conflation task then they can be contacted via c...@tfl.gov.uk. Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] 'Freemap' - partial reprieve
On 23/03/2020 13:57, Nick Whitelegg wrote: You can access it via http:///www.mapthepaths.org.uk/freemap Hi Nick, the extra / makes that link invalid. :) Should be: http://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/freemap cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] railway=halt
The traditional distinction was that Halts were unstaffed. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?
On 31/01/2020 20:07, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: But that's not a parking spot. Because a vehicle just happens to be there, it doesn't make it one. By your logic we should be tagging pavements as such, because lazy drivers think they're entitled to break the law. But that was my whole point. No it's not a designated car park or a layby so it shouldn't be tagged as one. But it is something. What? Physically it could be described as highway=passing_place but those are not intended to be blocked with parked vehicles. There is also highway=yes verge=yes The wiki says "Existence of verges may indicate scope for informal parking of cars in rural areas." How to tag that there is in fact sufficient space to leave a car? It's not illegal to leave a vehicle on the highway provided it is not causing an obstruction and there are no parking restrictions. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?
On 31/01/2020 12:24, Andy G Wood wrote: For me the most logical is amenity=parking as a node. But "amenity" suggests something specifically provided for the purpose? Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?
On 31/01/2020 11:13, ael wrote: OK. I agree that parking=layby is much better. Thanks for the comments. But the places I was asking about can't really be called laybys, or car parks. Somewhere that a car could be left for a few hours out of anyone's way on an otherwise long narrow lane: https://goo.gl/maps/nSTAbnE4nYXTBAz59 It would be very helpful for country walkers to be able to locate such places from a map in advance of a visit. But how to tag them? Thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Tagging ad hoc parking places?
If you enjoy country walking off the beaten track, it's often difficult to find somewhere to leave the car for several hours without it getting in anyone's way. Country lanes can be narrow with passing places or field gates which would be obstructed if a car is left there for long periods. So it's great to find unofficial parking places such as these -- wide verges with solid ground, unused corners at junctions, odd bits of unused land, etc. https://goo.gl/maps/XrjmrV8eSgRr76U49 https://goo.gl/maps/cM4HZycSEvWiCHCNA It would be even better to be able to locate them on a map in advance. But how to tag them? It's hardly a Car Park. Nor a Lay-By in the usual sense -- even if it is, highway=layby appears to be an abandoned proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lay-by Thanks. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon pickup lockers - how to represent (if at all)?
Hi Dan, See also man_made=street_cabinet. The wiki page invites us to add additional usage tags: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstreet_cabinet perhaps street_cabinet=pickup_locker cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
On 01/01/2020 11:00, David Woolley wrote: The standard map doesn't claim to be a definitive specification of what is allowable. So where is the definitive specification? The only practical way to discover if something is valid seems to be to see how the standard map renders it. If it renders ok, the assumption must be that it is acceptable mapping. Otherwise, why call it the "Standard" map? It is rather more than a demonstrator, it is used in many places for actual use, see for example: https://www.plotaroute.com/routeplanner Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
On 01/01/2020 09:21, Warin wrote: OSM - any tags you like. (that includes landuse=highway, sport=cricket_nets etc) So what is the significance of having proposed changes, voting, etc.? There must be a set of accepted tags somewhere? As opposed to any tags I care to invent as I go along? One I could use a lot is barrier=broken_stile. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
On 01/01/2020 05:11, Warin wrote: I would map the area around the road as landuse=highway. I would do the same for the lane/track between farm fields, while it supports the use of the farm it is not a field. Thanks, but the problem is that landuse=highway is not a valid tag. Voting on it was suspended in 2013 after several votes against, see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dhighway However, I have discovered that highway=track, *area=yes* is valid - as evidence of that it is rendered on the standard map as a light brown infill between the fences with the existing highway=track as a routable way superimposed over it, in darker brown. It seems odd to have highway=track twice, but if that's what it takes to have a meaningful mapping for an area of land, I'm happy to do it that way. Presumably the developers of the standard map know what they are doing. So I seem to have answered my own question, thanks all for the replies. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
On 31/12/2019 18:10, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: I would add the appropriate surface=* tag to the way. Thanks Dave. But a way is a *line*. I want to tag the *area*. I've got 3 ways - 2 fences and a track. Tagging ways is easy. Finding a meaningful tag for areas seems to be much more difficult. If the landuse is the same on both sides, a field of cabbages on the left and a field of potatoes on the right, I can just let "farmland" flow across the track area. But if it is a wood on the right, where is the boundary between the wood and the cabbages? The track? Stitching things to highways is frowned on. Or one of the fences? Which one? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Landuse between fences?
Here is a track/public bridleway: http://85a.uk/coffin_way_960x520.jpg which I can easily map as such. But that is just a *centre-line*. If I add the fences, what is the correct landuse tag for the area between them? I can't find any tag which seems to apply. Everywhere I look on OSM such areas are left blank. But it can represent a significant area, sometimes 20 feet wide -- much larger than other areas on OSM which are mapped in great detail. If it was a canal for example, its banks could be separately mapped and the area between them mapped as water. Tracks and fences/hedgerows don't seem to have anything comparable. Thanks. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
On 29/12/2019 22:23, Andy Townsend wrote: Looking elsewhere in a couple of areas I'm familiar with, as well as missing data, there are plenty of of basic digitisation errors around, e.g. gardens seeming to be significantly larger then they should be. This is, I guess, only the free version - maybe there's a parallel complete version for paying customers? Hi Andy, No there isn't - I'm a Premium subscriber. The "Standard" base map is rubbish as a map in its own right. For example it has contour lines, but no height indications on them, or even which direction is uphill. What's the use of that? It is used as a base map for other coloured overlays in addition to the Street map, such as the National Park Paths, Cycle Map, Greenspace maps. None of which work very well. On mobile devices there is also a low-brightness Night map which is useful. However, the Aerial, 25K and 50K maps are fine -- and the 3D stuff and fly-over functions are great. The main reason for subscribing however, is the ability to view a large database of routes, create your own custom routes to add to it (or not), and have an easy URL of your route which you can send to friends. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
On 29/12/2019 15:53, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: > https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ > This OS map render only shows a selection of paths. Does anyone know > what criteria OS used to decide which to render? Initially, it appears > random. OS call that the "Standard Map", which is displayed to visitors to the "OS Maps" app who have not signed up for the subscription service (or logged in). After which you can see the "Leisure Maps" (Landranger and Explorer), the Night Map, and several other options. The Standard map appears to have been made as information-free as possible, perhaps intentionally as a background to the street map overlay -- and presumably to encourage folks to sign up for a subscription. For example the OS Maps help page says helpfully "There is no legend available for the Standard map at the moment." Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] No Through Road Ahead
How to tag this road? https://goo.gl/maps/B4kUxoR83ej9JXWQ8 There is no actual barrier, just a very sharp corner. Thanks. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?
I'm happy to use "farmland" to mean cultivated land, whether for cash crops, pasture for livestock, haymaking, any farming activity. But I keep finding myself on land for which none of the available tags really seem to apply. There seems to be one missing. For example: http://85a.uk/bredon_960x640.jpg Beyond the hedge is clearly farmland. But I don't think any of farmland/grassland/scrub/meadow properly describes the foreground area. I believe the technical term is "unimproved grassland" but I would most likely call it "hillside". Here is some more of it: http://85a.uk/bredon1_960x640.jpg Is it perhaps "heath"? That usually means an open level area of "heather", on acidic sandy soil. The wiki says: "don't use heath for areas primarily covered by non-woody plants like grasses - use natural=grassland or landuse=meadow instead". cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?
I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland. Thanks Dave. But in that case, how on OSM do we differentiate between the two? It seems silly that in some areas of OSM we can go into ridiculous detail, such as whether a bench seat has a backrest, but vast tracts of land which visually look very different are classed as one and the same? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] What is farmland?
My understanding of "farmland" is fields of arable land used for the growing of crops. Vast areas of OSM have been marked in this area as "farmland", often as huge multipolygons which are difficult to edit in the iD editor. On the standard map it creates massive chunks of single colour which don't represent the true patchwork nature of the countryside. A lot of the land is not suitable for the growing of crops, and is only ever used as pasture for cattle or sheep. I would tend to call that a meadow. Some of it is too uneven, too high, too steep, soil too poor, for cultivation. I would tend to call that grassland or heath. Is this "farmland"? http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg If not, what should it be mapped as? On the right the ground rises steeply to a wooded hilltop. On the left is a farmyard and beyond that fields of crops. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging Mill Races / Leats / Lades
On 14/11/2019 12:31, Ken Kilfedder wrote: Per the wiki "Use waterway=canal for man-made open flow (free flow vs pipe flow) waterways used to carry useful water for transportation, hydro-power generation OR irrigation purposes." E.g. there are a range of purposes for which waterway=canal is used. But see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_(water_supply) "An aqueduct is a watercourse constructed to carry water ...in modern engineering, the term aqueduct is used for any system of pipes, ditches, canals, tunnels, and other structures used for this purpose. ...The simplest aqueducts are small ditches cut into the earth" Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging Mill Races / Leats / Lades
"Canal" should surely be restricted to transport functions? Boating apps presumably treat "canal" as a route unless navigation restrictions are added. If the stuff that is moving is the water rather than the boats, "aqueduct" would be the correct term. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Monochrome map layers
the standard Carto layer is costly to print in colour and doesn't work very well when printed in black and white as it uses a lot of subtle colour for detail. Hi Mark, The standard Transport map prints quite well in monochrome, and the street names are nicely prominent: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.1929/-2.2504=T I've used it in the past for the same purpose - election canvassing. :) cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Poly Tunnels vs Greenhouses
Large areas of farmland are being covered with poly tunnels which are readily apparent from aerial imagery which are sometimes tagged as building=greenhouse. Hi Brian, OS call them "glasshouse" rather than "greenhouse". But if they are plastic... Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Parish Councils needs
What happens in these parts is that the town/parish councils get the new responsibility and increase their precept to cover it. They then contract with the district council to provide the actual service. The net result is that residents see no change whatsoever, it is just a paper-shuffling exercise. Apart that is from the difficulty of finding any corresponding reduction in the district council precept. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published - proposed conflation process
As for the proposal, I agree that a slow and steady approach is required. Although I do think we should set a target date. A date by which we are happy to start the conflation or have agreed that it is not viable. Would be a shame to see it just drag out. Happy to help as much as I can to ensure this. Yes, good point. With such a large dataset, setting a timescale to ensure that momentum can be maintained would be sensible. Clearly it would depending on resources/time/willingness. I've included a new sentence to this effect. Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published - proposed conflation process
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: (1) I would suggest also generating big OSM file with this data (without conflation, just what would be imported into unmapped area) and running JOSM validator on it. It may find bugs in data, proposed conversion and in JOSM itself. That's a really great suggestion - have added that in at the end of point 4: "This data should be published as an .osm file for community validation. It should be run against the JOSM Validator, essentially checking its correctness against a theoretical blank map." (2) I would advise also consulting OSM community after steps 4, 5, 6. Just post on talk-gb and process feedback. Yes, I think this is very important and I included that - see mentions in 5) v. 5) vii. 6) xiii. 6) xiv. and the addition of the JOSM Validation step noted above. -- (3) What is also missing is - posting in imports mailing list - obtaining permission from OSM community for import (Assuming that process continues to be as great as so far it should be without problems). I've added in a new point 4, covering these two: 4. Post in the imports mailing list a full description of the proposed process, seeking consent: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports - documenting new proposed tags on OSM Wiki and getting feedback Added in explicitly as part of point 3. (Full proposal process is not necessary, but may be considered, but at least post about new proposed tags on tagging mailing list. Things like that often benefit from additional review) But mappers should be able to check what exactly will be changed. Agreeing on principle that data may be useful does not mean that any import is ok. Agreed, and added in mention of the tagging list. - (4) Have you considered importing some topics separately? For example - in the first run import just bicycle parkings. Useful suggestion. I thought just starting with a small area would be a sensible alpha stage, but actually within that having a single asset type first, and then following with the other types when that is successful, is a good idea. Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published - proposed conflation process
would be the inconsistent tagging of cycle lane/track -related data in OSM, which is acknowledged to be one of the most complex areas of OSM. The script will need to be adapted to deal with various edge-cases like these, so that the geometries and metadata are matched together correctly and that existing OSM data that should be retained is not overwritten. viii. Inspect the conflated data and determine where manual inspection will be unavoidable vs. where fixes can be automated. ix. Identify whether any upstream improvements to the conflation tool being used could be made, with a view to facilitating further automation of the workflow and reduce the need for repetitive manual inspection that is avoidable. Liaise with the tool authors to determine feasibility and likely time requirements for such development work. x. Iterate the script and workflow to minimise as far as possible the need for these manual changes during an inspection stage. xi. Document a key checklist of conversion types to check. xii. Carefully and thoroughly observe the correctness of the data, iterating the script output and repeating these beta steps until correctness is achieved. Undertake manual changes that cannot be automated. The time required for this should not be underestimated – there will be around 10,000 assets within the data package, and all the various combinations of data should be checked. xiii. Report to the OSM community at this stage, seeking their consent for merging in the data. xiv. Save the merged import data into the live OSM dataset and request community feedback. xv. Manually fix up any identified problems arising from this feedback so that there is correctness, and fix the underlying problem in the script. xvi. At this point, feasibility and timescale for conversion has been established, and community confidence will be much stronger. The script will be in a near-final state for a mass import, and a set of instructions for manual inspection will be established. One of the 25 areas will be in OSM and this data will be picked up by routing and cartography systems entering real-world use within days/weeks. xvii. Relay back to TfL the findings, in the form of a short document. This will: a. Confirm what data within the CID has and has not been imported. b. Include an estimate of the time requirement for the remaining 24 areas, based on an extrapolation of applying the finalised script and manual procedures. c. A recommendation for whether this activity should be undertaken on a paid professional basis or whether crowdsourcing is realistic given the time, complexity and data volume. d. Include any proposals for making improvements to tools and the likely cost, which TfL may wish to consider funding. 7. FINAL STAGE: full merger. This step involves re-running the finalised script/workflow and manual procedures for each of the 24 remaining data package areas. Estimate: as defined in beta report. i. Run the script to convert the data for the 24 data package areas. ii. Conduct the workflow for each of the 24 data package areas. iii. Seek community input as this work proceeds. iv. Import the data and fix up issues arising from feedback. v. Report back to the OSM community. vi. Produce a final report for TfL confirming completion of the activity. Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published - schema mapping
Just to say that I've turned all the comments (here and on Twitter) into issues and replies at: https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues I'll merge the changes into the conversion webpage shortly. Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops
On 09/10/2019 11:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed. "Sunderland-based Hays said it planned to reopen all the shops under its own brand with immediate effect." Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops
The advantage of turning them all to disused: is that they are done. The disadvantage is that there is no local confirmation. However .. I think most will agree that even without a local survey .. the shop is closed. Not so fast -- see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49985369 Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way vs. tracks
There is absolutely no indication of it on the ground: no beaten path, no fingerboard, no break in the hedge at the SW end (it wouldn't need one at the NE end, open country). Do I delete as probably sourced from OS, or leave as it's a right of way? First thing to do is check the County Council's definitive map (it should be online, with reference numbers) to check that it is still a public right-of-way, and hasn't been closed or diverted since the OS map was made. If it is, you walk to and fro along it until there is some evidence on the ground, and then you map it as highway=footway with designation=public_footpath and foot=designated. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published - schema mapping
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019, Martin - CycleStreets wrote: What are people's thoughts about these suggested new tags? Thanks so much everyone for all the great comments. I'll be replying on these as soon as I get a chance later this week and merging the changes in, after a busy week following State of the Map. (Can't believe I didn't spot the "center" spelling and "mandatory" issue myself - like the other points these are all definitely changes that should be made!) Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published - schema mapping
in the short term. A Cyclists dismount sign in the UK, which is a recommendation that can be ignored (unlike a No cycling sign), does not mean the same thing as bicycle=dismount, which refers to cyclists being required to dismount and walk their cycle but that a cycle can be legally carried (unlike bicycle=no). OSM needs to fix this problem, but it will be very hard to do so. (The community also needs to fix the contradictory descriptions of bicycle=dismount in the OSM Wiki.) A possible but nasty workaround would be e.g. bicycle=dismount_uk representing the UK meaning of a Cyclists dismount sign. https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#ss_dismou https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Access_tag_values and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle • Two-stage turn signal: This is actually a painted road marking addition within the junction, rather than being signals per se. A short spur could be added as a new stretch of cycleway drawn in, or it could be presented within a relation using the (established) except=bicycle tag, but the latter does not then actually represent the presence of the waiting box in the adjacent highway coming from the left. https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#sig_twostg FIELDS NOT PROPOSED FOR NEW TAGS Fields not proposed to become newly represented in OSM: • Shared Nearside Lane for ASL: This is where a cycle lane or shared bus lane becomes a lane for general traffic turning at a junction. Essentially this becomes the road, so no special infrastructure is involved and thus no tagging is proposed. https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#asl_shared • Bicycle parking stand types: The CID has several variations on the Sheffield stand, e.g. the M stand. OSM has no such differentiation. Introduction of such a variation is unlikely to be entertained, as downstream users of the data would not consider the difference important – they simply care mostly whether the frame is lockable or not. https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#prk_mstand • Number of cycle parking stands present: Although the CID captures both the number of physical stands and capacity, OSM stores only the capacity. There is unlikely to be any practical use for OSM users of the number of physical stands, and thus this is proposed to be discarded. https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#prk_provis • Physical attributes of signs (colour of any patch around round road marking; direction facing): These have no practical bearing on OSM users so are proposed to be discarded. https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#ss_colour https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#ss_patch https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#ss_facing https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#ss_circ • Sign locations and TSRGD sign number: Around 50% of the database is the physical locations of signs, whether they be signs on a pole or road markings. OSM is able to represent signage locations, but worldwide this is very rare (except for very specific types). OSM is concerned with the practical meaning represented by a sign, so the sign pole head is not really relevant. Almost always there is another asset, which represents this meaning in the direct context of the geometry. E.g. an ‘Except cyclists’ sign is an asset next to a cycle lane/track asset whose (line) geometry has a contraflow indication. Accordingly, the proposed action here is to discard the vast majority of the signage locations which have related geometries with meaning-based attributes, and for the rest (e.g. ‘Except cyclists’ in a road which has no physical markings/layout but permits contraflow cycling, so is not technically an asset and thus not represented in the CID) to transfer this meaning onto the road itself. https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#ss_name Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published - schema mapping
I will shortly be circulating a proposed mapping of CID -> OSM attributes, reflecting the published schema of the finalised version of the dataset, for comment. A proposed mapping of the data is here: https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/ I would very much welcome comments and thoughts! This is also available as an Excel (and JSON) file at: https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/tree/master/schema This reflects the final released data rather than earlier versions, with the data viewable and filterable at at: https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/ For each field, I've looked at the data and proposed what is shown as "OSM tag(s)", and there is an associated "OSM comment" where relevant. The TfL CID database is large (234,333 assets), but quite a number of the aspects are not really relevant to OSM. Across the 9 asset types, there are 95 fields, but 23 of them I propose would be discarded (search for "Discard" on the webpage). Cycle parking data is in my view the most useful part of the database - it seems to be more comprehensive than OSM has. The cycle lane data is also excellent, in that it contains the actual start-stop locations, compared to OSM's tendency sometimes just to have a single lane marked for the whole length of a street even though it can come and go. The data is high quality - I've very rarely come across errors, having now spent quite a lot of time looking at it. There are two images of each location so it is verifiable easily. As an example of data that is likely to be unwanted, 118,893 (~50%) of these assets are signs (the actual signage head or paint on the ground). While OSM does have support for traffic_sign=*, in practice this are rarely used, as the tagging on the Ways that the signage actually represents is more important, and that data is in any case also represented in the CID as line geometries. For instance, a contraflow cycleway has both the line geometry with clt_contra=TRUE but there are also signs for that contraflow. Only the line geometry is really needed for OSM. There are a few cases where this doesn't quite hold true (e.g. where a sign says "No cycling" but the path beyond it isn't actually present, because that is not classed as cycle infrastructure). I'll shortly e-mail again with more detailed commentary on various aspects of what is shown, in particular cases where new tags are suggested. Searching on the webpage for "Community" will find cases where there are particular issues which as I say I'll e-mail about separately. PS The webpage display, which reads from the JSON file, is a bit of a work in progress - I'm aware the ID links aren't yet activated, and the Browse map link isn't yet picking up the field (only the type). I'll fix these shortly. Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps (Jez Nicholson)
On 05/09/2019 09:47, Jez Nicholson wrote: It would seem ridiculous for me to have to set up an account and> licence the underlying section of map to sell a single field But what> if I'm selling 15,000 fields?? etc., etc. Field boundaries don't change much over the years. If you use an OS map over 50 years old it is out of copyright, and can be marked up as the basis of a modern survey if needed. Get the person who drew the red line on a modern map to draw it again on an old map. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019, Martin - CycleStreets wrote: I've sent a follow-up e-mail to the OSMF Licensing Working Group, which compiles all the various statements from Transport for London, and includes various e-mails where these statements were originally made, so that the LWG will hopefully be able to give a clear judgement now. I'm pleased to say that they have now given a judgement, as below. As you can see, they've given a positive statement that the data as licensed *is* permissible to use as a source for use in OpenStreetMap. This decision will be reflected in their minutes which should be published in due course at: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes#Licensing_Working_Group I will shortly be circulating a proposed mapping of CID -> OSM attributes, reflecting the published schema of the finalised version of the dataset, for comment. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 23:36:57 +0200 From: Simon Poole To: Martin Lucas-Smith - CycleStreets Cc: Legal / License Working Group Subject: Re: Licensing compatibility of TfL Cycling Infrastructure Database for conflation Dear Martin, As indicated we had a quick look at this at our meeting this evening and believe that it is unproblematic to use this data in or as a source for OpenStreetMap. Thank you for documenting this so well and if you have the opportunity, please convey our gratitude to TfL for making the data available and taking the trouble to ensure that it is usable on the presented licensing terms, which, unluckily, is not the norm. Kind regards Simon for the OSMF LWG ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published
I've sent a follow-up e-mail to the OSMF Licensing Working Group, which compiles all the various statements from Transport for London, and includes various e-mails where these statements were originally made, so that the LWG will hopefully be able to give a clear judgement now. In summary, my findings are that: - The license is indeed that at: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/terms-and-conditions/transport-data-service which is based on Open Government Licence v2 with some changes. - The license now contains mention of containing Geomni UKMap data, as of 17th July 2019. - The data was collected by the surveyors using UKMap as a background map, and then checking was later performed using aerial imagery from the same supplier. - Geomni have confirmed they do _not_ regard themselves as having residual data rights in the released data, because TfL "haven't simply copied features from our data". - There is no use of Ordnance Survey data at all. - TfL are happy with commercial / non-commercial use of the released data. Obviously, my summary below is not a definitive legal statement, and only the LWG can give such a view. I will forward what response I get from them, once they've looked at the various e-mails, and checked my interpretation of these, and then hopefully given a clear statement. (Naturally, until that happens, we should not be conflating any data.) Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Rob Nickerson wrote: Hi all, The email below is from TfL announcing the release of the cycle data. I'm copying in Martin to this email as he was working on this Talent Directory project so can hopefully provide a comment on the licence. Taking a look myself it is an OGL v2 licence which is good. TfL muddy the water slightly in that they are applying the licence to data obtainable via an API. They therefore include statements about it being the users responsibility to check the page for updates to the licence and that by running a new API call you are accepting the new licence. For us I think we are fine in that we download the data once (rather than regularly via their API) and the licence when you download it grants perpetual use. OGL v2 can sometimes suffer from it's clause about not covering third party rights the data provider is not entitled to provide (e.g. Royal Mail Postcodes) but a previous (off list) chat with Martin suggested we are ok on that front. Clarification welcomed. Rob --- Dear all Having engaged with yourself previously about the Cycling Infrastructure Database (CID), we are delighted to let you know that the CID is now live. London’s Cycling Infrastructure Database is the world’s largest and most comprehensive database of cycling infrastructure, containing comprehensive details of cycling infrastructure in the Capital. The CID is intended to address barriers to cycling by providing Londoners with clear and accurate information about cycling infrastructure, helping them plan cycle journeys with confidence. The CID is a core part of our Cycling Action Plan which sets out how TfL, boroughs and others will work together to make London the world’s best big city for cycling. To create the database, TfL have surveyed every street in every London borough to collect information on over 240,000 pieces of infrastructure, covering an area of 1,595 square kilometres. The database also contains 480,000 photographs of cycling infrastructure, allowing users to see exactly what can be found on street. For example, cycle parking users will be able to see what type of parking is available. TfL collected data of 146,000 cycle parking spaces across London, as well as gathering information on 2,000km of cycle routes and 58,000 wayfinding signs. The following types of asset are included in the database: * Cycle lanes and tracks – including whether they are segregated or painted lanes * Cycle parking, including the type and capacity of parking * Signalised crossings for cycles * Restricted route - Modal filters and traffic gates which allow cycles to pass but restrict car traffic * Traffic calming, including the location of all speed humps in Greater London * Advanced stop lines – boxes at junctions for people cycling * Signals - early-release signals at junctions * Signage - Signed cycle routes and other wayfinding * Restricted Points – points where people cycling will have to dismount Paths through parks and other green spaces that can, and cannot, be cycled on. The CID is accessible in geojson format via the following platforms: TfL Open Data Portal: https://cycling.data.tfl.gov.uk/ (CycleInfrastructure/Data & CycleInfrastructure/Documentation) London Datastore: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/cycling-infrastructure-database?q=CID The CID is continuously being maintained by
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL cycle data published
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Rob Nickerson wrote: The email below is from TfL announcing the release of the cycle data. I'm copying in Martin to this email as he was working on this Talent Directory project so can hopefully provide a comment on the licence. Thanks - Rob. Will be e-mailing tomorrow to give updated info on the license - there have been various discussions over the last month on this, which I will report back on. Taking a look myself it is an OGL v2 licence which is good. TfL muddy the water slightly in that they are applying the licence to data obtainable via an API. They therefore include statements about it being the users responsibility to check the page for updates to the licence and that by running a new API call you are accepting the new licence. For us I think we are fine in that we download the data once (rather than regularly via their API) and the licence when you download it grants perpetual use. OGL v2 can sometimes suffer from it's clause about not covering third party rights the data provider is not entitled to provide (e.g. Royal Mail Postcodes) but a previous (off list) chat with Martin suggested we are ok on that front. Yep, again I'll update on that tomorrow. It is looking good to me, but I'm seeking a definitive view from the OSMF LWG now that I've obtained full details of the provenance of the data. This has taken a bit longer than hoped. Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits
On 29/07/2019 09:35, Andy Robinson wrote: I've just looked at a number of Amazon Logistics in my local area. A lot of service roads are getting added which on face value look perhaps to be driveways but that tag hasn't been added. Amazon have been asking for help with this, see: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jguthula/diary/390322 Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default
Sometimes deciding what is and isn't a gate is tricky. Is this a gate? http://85a.uk/beware_bull_960x772.jpg If not, what is it? Should it be mapped at all? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Gates open/closed by default
The tag is *barrier*=gate. A permanently open gate isn't a barrier, so I don't think it should be tagged as such. At least not across a way. You could add a separate node to one side of the way, and tag that as a gate. A gate which is often open, but sometimes closed, is just an ordinary gate. Many farm gates are like that. Potatoes this year = leave the gate open. They are not likely to escape, and it saves getting down off the tractor. Sheep this year = keep the gate closed. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 12:55, David Woolley wrote: ... (As a variation on the last point, one of my pet hates, these days, is how few houses now have house numbers in the UK. It make it difficult to give accurate locations for fly tips Have you seen: https://what3words.com/ Every 3m (10ft) square on the planet is given a location name consisting of 3 random words from the dictionary. Their app shows you the 3 words for your current location. Many emergency services are using it -- much easier than asking callers to give postcodes, grid refs, lat/lon, road numbers, etc. Just read out the 3 words from your screen. Even if the local authority don't already use it, they can easily download it when given the 3 words, or go to the web site to find the location. Anyone can scribble down 3 words without making a mistake. And often remember them. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data
On 04/07/2019 18:51, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: These are still 'physical' in the sense that they exist in the timetable & Naptan documents. (Think also boundaries which don't have dashed lines painted across fields) This strikes me as a strange definition of "physical" and could cover almost anything. My definition of "physical" is something I can take a photograph of. But I don't see any reason why OSM should be limited to such "physical" objects. Most maps show all sorts of non-physical data. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data
On 04/07/2019 16:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: In OSM we map *physical* objects only. In rural areas there are many places where buses are timetabled to stop but where there is nothing physical -- no signpost or shelter. Are these highway=bus_stop in OSM? The wiki for highway says "Can be mapped more rigorously using public_transport=stop_position for the position where the vehicle stops and public_transport=platform for the place where passengers wait. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves
seen this done in various places, but I've never understood the point it. The two representations are identical in terms of the data, but the latter requires 2.5 times as many objects and is much more of a pain to work with in the editors. This happens a lot in my area. Huge areas of "farmland" have been created as massive multipolygons, which are too big to fit in the iD editor, and include ways shared with other areas such as equally large multipolygon woods. It's a pain to split them up without damaging them where they include areas which should be mapped as meadow, orchard, scrub, etc., which I much prefer to map as separate closed field areas, sometimes with their own name. Likewise several woods are mapped as a single large multipolygon wood where in fact they are several separate woods each with a *name*. How can I apply names to parts of a multipolygon? cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycling Infrastructure Database
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019, Tom Hughes wrote: Whether we want it is not really the issue. I believe the issue is the licensing, and until that is resolved what we may or may not want is irrelevant. I have been following up with TfL some of the licensing questions, and am expecting very shortly to send updated information I have from TfL to the Licensing Working Group[1]. I'm awaiting one or two further clarifications before I send that. [1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycling Infrastructure Database
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019, Tony Shield wrote: Looking at the demo I can't think of a reason why OSM would not want this data - I believe we do want this data. Questions I have - * Are the tags suitable for a global database? Can and should they be reused elsewhere in UK? or globally? Is there a need for specific prefixed TfL tags? I'm about to circulate a proposed mapping of TfL's attributes to OSM tags. In some cases, there is no equivalent, e.g. signage plates/locations do not have an equivalent in OSM). In some cases I believe there are new tags that could be created, e.g. there are a lot of cyclehoop stands which are just arms bolted to an existing signpost, and which there doesn't seem to be an existing OSM tag for (surprisingly). I certainly don't believe that OSM should be creating anything London-specific or maintaining proprietary prefixing. * Are there clashes with other cycling data in London? What is a resolution strategy? * Will import and integration be performed by automatic processing? Usual OSM import rules? Clash detection and sanity checking? Clearly, there is overlap with existing OSM data, in that for instance, a high proportion of the cycle/bus lanes are present, cycle parking is sometimes present (though the TfL data seems more comprehensive to me), etc. TfL seem potentially interested in funding tool development, which in my view should be of a generic nature that supports other conflation efforts. Richard Fairhurst's new tool, and other things like the JOSM conflation tool is amongst others I am currently looking at. I would welcome any pointers to other tools that people would recommend or are aware of. It seems to me that a manual conflation process, assisted by pre-processing to weed out obvious clashes or mismatches, and with workflows optimised towards the large volume of data here (e.g. approving several nearby cycle parking locations in one go) would be the way forward. Again, any views most welcome. Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves
Thanks for the comments. There are in fact 3 adjacent nature reserves with different names and ownerships. It's possible to see the property boundaries on old maps, but after visiting the site again yesterday I can find little remaining physical evidence of the boundaries, with many footpaths crossing between them. The web sites refer to them being seamlessly linked together with connecting footpaths. So I have changed the OSM mapping to show a single nature reserve, with the individual reserve names applied to the land parcels within it: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3647/-2.2802 This seems a better way of showing what is actually on the ground for visitors. http://www.worcswildlifetrust.co.uk/reserves/the-devils-spittleful-rifle-range-and-blackstone-farm-fields https://www.wyreforestdc.gov.uk/things-to-see-do-and-visit/countryside-and-nature/nature-reserves/burlish-top.aspx cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Adjacent nature reserves
At this location there is a large area of open sandy heath, forming a nature reserve: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.3716/-2.2816 In fact it is two nature reserves side by side with different names and ownership. One is charity-owned and managed by the county Wildlife Trust, the other is owned and managed by the local District Council. On the ground the boundary between them is barely visible, just odd bits of old fencing in places, and footpaths criss-cross between them. The visitor material tends to combine them as a single nature reserve, and that is how most folks think of them: http://www.worcswildlifetrust.co.uk/reserves/the-devils-spittleful-rifle-range-and-blackstone-farm-fields The council's web site refers to them linking "seamlessly": https://www.wyreforestdc.gov.uk/things-to-see-do-and-visit/countryside-and-nature/nature-reserves/rifle-range-sssi.aspx But on the OSM standard map, the common boundary is shown as a bold green line, which bears no relation to anything on the ground and could be misleading for visitors. Here's a picture of the boundary, running approx from 8 o'clock to 2 o'clock: http://85a.uk/rifle_range_boundary_960x448.jpg Is there a better way to map this? If I combine them as a single nature reserve, is there a way to name the two parts of it separately? Is there a way to show the common boundary less prominently? Thanks, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] max_age=toddler? | Re: Playground age limits
What about `max_age=toddler`? (i.e. the oldest you can be is "a toddler"), likewise `min_age=young_child` for the "older" one? (Is that the best term?) Yes it's not a numeric age, but it's better than nothing? Thanks Rory. I wondered about that. If a tag expects a numeric value, is it ok to enter text? Or should I invent a new tag, such as maybe age_range=toddler? Is "toddler" too UK-specific? Does everyone understand it to mean the same thing? Is "infant" younger or older than "toddler"? For the older children, I wondered about "school-age", although of course there are also infant schools for toddlers. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Playground age limits
Mapping individual equipment is a possibility, whilst as a 58 year old I am unlikely to use the swings but I do use the exercise equipment and climbing wall. Hi Phil, Here the exercise equipment is in a separate area away from the playground. According to the wiki it should be tagged leisure=fitness_station, which I've done, although the signs call it a "Green Gym". As a 71-year-old my idea of exercise is to walk briskly by. :) Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Playground age limits
On 04/06/2019 15:31, Philip Barnes wrote: I would map them as separate playgrounds, map the fence and gate then add age tags as appropriate to that area. My towns main rec has such a distinction, outside the fenced children's area anyone can use the equipment. Hi Phil, That's what I've done, but how do I add age tags if there are no signs? I don't feel qualified to guess suitable ages in years. And max or min suggests actual restrictions apply. But it would surely be helpful to map users to know the type of play equipment available? I'm tempted to try max_age=yes, min_age=no for the fenced area, and min_age=yes for the remainder. The main reason for the fence would seem to be the several NO DOGS signs, which I have tagged. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Playground age limits
In the local park there are two areas of play equipment for children. One is fenced off and clearly intended for infants/toddlers accompanied by parents. Next to it there is a larger unfenced area containing play equipment for unsupervised older children, large climbing structures, zip wires, etc. leisure=playground allows min_age and max_age in years, but in this case there are no signs giving specific age restrictions. How best to map the distinction between the two areas? Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Preston Park, Brighton
Some of the fields are edged with small wooden posts to prevent driving onto the grass. Is this a 'fence'? if so, what is its type? Hi Jez, You can tag a way as barrier=bollard for a row of posts. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Farmland (crop or animals)?
Apart from the specialised tags such as "orchard" there appears to be
only 2 tags available for general agricultural land:
farmland
which I have taken to mean arable land. i.e. land suitable for the
growing of crops, even if currently used as pasture for grazing by
livestock; and
meadow
which I have taken to mean other land which has no history of being used
for crops, usually because it is unsuitable in some way -- too steep or
uneven, liable to flooding ("water meadows"), poor soil, presence of too
many trees, areas of scrub, poor drainage, etc. In many cases used only
for sheep.
Here are a few pics of what I would tag as "meadow" even if not
technically "unimproved grassland" or whatever is the proper definition
of a meadow:
http:/85a.uk/meadow1_960x640.jpg
http:/85a.uk/meadow3_960x640.jpg
http:/85a.uk/meadow4_960x640.jpg
http:/85a.uk/meadow2_960x640.jpg
If "meadow" is not the correct tag, what is? Do we need a new tag?
"farmland" doesn't seem right -- none of the above is going to become a
field of potatoes any time soon.
In the last pic, the hedge clearly marks the boundary between "meadow"
in the foreground and the fields of rapeseeed beyond. To use the same
"farmland" tag for both wouldn't properly describe the landscape. But
there are vast areas of OSM which are so described.
cheers,
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Miniature railway or minimum gauge?
On 21/05/2019 12:18, Mark Goodge wrote: > ... From a mapping perspective, therefore, there are two questions which need to be asked: 1. Was the railway originally constructed purely for leisure purposes? 2. Are the locomotives intended to be models or replicas of full-size locomotives (or are otherwise "faked", such as petrol-engined locos designed to look like steam locos)? If the answer to both questions is "yes", it's definitely a miniature railway. If the answer to both are "no", then it definitely isn't. There are several small-gauge railways which are essentially leisure railways but which have been built or rebuilt on the trackbed of former full-size working railways, so answering your Q.1 isn't always straightforward. Q.2 assumes that all the rolling-stock either is or isn't a replica of full-size railways, when often it is a mixture of both. I would suggest that a more useful mapping question would be 3. Does the small-gauge railway publish a public timetable? If so, to my mind it is definitely a "Narrow-Gauge Railway", regardless of the gauge or design of the rolling stock. If not, it is probably better described as a "miniature" railway of some sort. The latter type can be further divided into a. those which are essentially the preserve of model engineering enthusiasts or clubs, where giving public rides is an occasional fund-raising exercise, and for their own amusement they are just as happy to run trains for themselves or friends: http://www.kinvermodelengineers.org.uk/images/50/20.jpg My original example of the Rhiw Valley Light Railway also falls into that category. and b. commercially operated seaside or park railways, where the object of the exercise is to amuse the paying passengers rather than the locomotive driver: https://www.pecorama.co.uk/trains/ These two types are quite distinct, and we do probably need some separate tagging for them. But I'm not quite sure what? Perhaps the miniature railway could have commercial=yes or no added? I re-tagged the RVLR as narrow-gauge in line with the wiki page as it then was, but I think perhaps I should now change it back. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Miniature railway or minimum gauge?
I refer to the Rhiw Valley Light Railway: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.61639/-3.26766 https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5712937 This is a private 15" gauge railway which holds regular open days for the public: http://rvlr.co.uk/ It is currently tagged as railway=miniature. But the OSM wiki says 15" gauge railways should be called instead "minimum-gauge railways", although there doesn't seem to be any such tag available: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway=miniature Wikipedia suggests that a "miniature railway" is one using rideable *models* of real railways, which is not the case for the RVLR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum-gauge_railway Should I change the tag to railway=minimum_gauge, bearing in mind this is not a common usage in the UK? Thanks. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycling Infrastructure Database
On Fri, 10 May 2019, Jez Nicholson wrote: Their data is highly accurate, Yes, that seems to me as well to be the case. We're just awaiting more images to be uploaded to the site (every feature has two images, but not all are GDPR-cleared yet). I'd welcome as many eyes as possible on the sample data to get a good assessment of the data quality. https://tflcid.cyclestreets.net/ and there's definitely going to need to be some clever conflation tooling. Bike stands are fine, but advance stop lines, etc. are specialist subjects in my book. I'm sightly overawed by the quantity and am unsure whether volunteers are going to be able to get through it, but again that is something you'll be talking about in your report, no? Yes, that will be a key issue. Bear in mind that the sample data is only one of *25* areas, so there's a lot of data. Clearly, pre-translations in the data to convert the CID schema to OSM tagging would remove a lot of manual work, and a conflation tool could work on a similar basis to the England Cycling Data project tool [1]. I think there's scope for some pre-processing (e.g. eliminating locations in the CID data that clearly already exist in OSM based on a nearness search), and the ability for multiple features to be done at once, e.g. a screen where say 10-20 cycle parking locations could be reviewed at once. Again, views on this would be extremely welcome. There would need to be some tool development regardless of who does the conflation. Indeed. I'd welcome pointers to up-to-date information on the state of such tools at the moment, e.g. the JOSM tool, and other developments currently happening. [1] See images on: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/England_Cycling_Data_project Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] TfL Cycling Infrastructure Database
Transport for London (TfL) have created a new database of cycling infrastructure, containing 240,000 assets, covering all of Greater London. This groundbreaking database contains every cycle infrastructure asset within Greater London, including assets on and off-carriageway. The assets surveyed are: cycle parking; signals; signage; traffic calming measures; restricted points (e.g. steps); advanced stop lines; crossings; cycle lanes/tracks; and restricted routes (e.g. pedestrian only routes). TfL is keen to make this available to the OpenStreetMap community under a compatible open license, to ensure maximum use of the CID. TfL is also potentially willing to consider tool development to help facilitate sensitive merging in of this data. There is a new Wiki page, giving full details, at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database Demonstrator map: - A demonstrator map, for the purposes only of evaluation by the OSM community at this stage, has been created by CycleStreets. This demonstrator map contains only one of the 25 areas that have been surveyed. We are specifically seeking comments on data quality and usefulness of this data from the OSM community. Initial analysis by CycleStreets is that the data is of excellent quality, and very suitable for conflation into OSM, to increase both comprehensiveness and metadata quality. https://tflcid.cyclestreets.net/ (Use the controls on the right to change feature type.) Usage notes: The controls on the right of the map allow the different feature types to be selected. The OSM layer (available at zoom level 19+) also provides a live feed from the OSM API, to enable quick comparisons. The two photos of each asset are in the process of being supplied; those already available and cleared in GDPR terms are included in the popup. It is stressed that at this point, no permission is given for re-use of the data in any way, but TfL strongly intends to make this available in future. All 25 areas would be covered in the final data release, not merely the one shown currently in the demonstrator map. Feedback is very strongly encouraged, as soon as possible. What are people's thoughts? Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] How to tag this?
On 08/05/2019 12:46, Andy Townsend wrote: It's a bit of a stretch, but perhaps some kind of tourist information feature? Thanks Andy. I think it is intended for locals rather than tourists. It's in a village on a country lane, not a recognised tourist destination. On closer examination of my original photo, I think it is advertising a themed "pub night" at the local village hall (which is nearby), rather than an actual pub. There is a notice inside with a date and admission charges. I found this, but it's rather more than a notice board: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/62741/best-tag-for-a-community-notice-board cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
