Re: [Talk-GB] Anglican churches
>It's not documented anywhere at the moment, but the different coloured >markers on the "nameless" maps at e.g. >https://osm.mathmos.net/nameless/amenity/place_of_worship simply >denote the type of OSM object: node, way or relation. > >Robert. Hi Robert, the nameless places of worship report looks good, but for me equally as important is places of worship with no religion. Any chance of that being added? Cheers, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts
>After a quick look at his edits locally he has also been removing ref >tags from roundabouts which seems an odd thing to do. This seems perfectly reasonable to me - the roundabout is a junction of various roads and I do not consider it to be part of a referenced highway. I note that the wiki indicates that the ref should be added to roundabouts to allow fluid routing, but this has relatively recently been added (April 2019) and I do not agree. It smacks of tagging for the renderer (in this case a routing engine). It seems bizarre to specify that for naming it should not use the name of a road it connects, but it should use the ref of a road that connects! Regards, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure
>> this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented usage of >> segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because >> I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show >> where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a >> shared use cycleway. We can't use both. >+1 (separate lanes for cycles & pedestrians) >+1 for "segregated" referring to separate (or not) pedestrian and cycle lanes >in a shared cycleway 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). Regards, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Paths on Wimbledon Common
>I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for >highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over >from a preset in Potlatch >1. > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607 > >I got a changeset comment querying the edit. Hi Andrew, My understanding is that highway=footway with no access tags has an implied foot=yes. This, however is entirely different from highway=footway + foot=yes which explicitly states that access is allowed. Without the explicit tag, whilst routing will be the same, it could just be that the mapper adding the path did not know whether access was allowed. In my view, if there is a rule check, it should be checking that there IS either a foot= tag or an access=tag and warning if there isn't. For me however, the biggest problem is ways tagged with highway=footway, access=no and foot=yes - this really should be warned about, as without reading the change history and notes it is not possible to determine whether the access=no was intended to indicate that other access than foot is disallowed (which is superfluous) or was added to say the path has been closed, forgetting that foot=yes will override it. The feedback comment mentioned 'designated' - I think foot=designated should ideally only be used in conjunction with the designation= tag, as otherwise you don't know what designation designates the access. There are also lots of ways tagged with values of 'designated' for transport modes where the mapper had an incorrect understanding of what it meant, so without the accompanying designation tag, these values should be taken with a pinch of salt. Regards, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UPRN & USRN Tagging
I note that ref:usrn was added to the Key:ref wiki in May 2017 and I can see no real reason to add GB into the key, especially if it is upper case. There are lots of examples of other country specific tags which do not include a country code on that page, in fact I can't see a single one that does include a country code. Regards, Mike >Agree with ref:GB:uprn and ref:GB:usrn. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Farmfoods clean up
I think the tag should indicate the primary market and should be consistent. From the Farmfoods home page, "Farmfoods are the Frozen Food Specialists. Our roots are embedded in the distribution and handling of frozen food." That seems pretty definitive to me. Supermarkets often sell a few books, records, home furnishings etc, but I would not think it sensible to tag them as bookstores or record shops. Regards, Mike >My local one was doing a roaring trade in 36-packs of loo roll >a few weeks ago. I believe they are also one of the cheapest >places to get cans of coke. So frozen_food sounds a bit too >limited. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 164, Issue 16
In my view we need to be putting out a consistent UK wide message (preferably parish name, type and number) and not confusing potential mappers by having different formats in different counties. We have enough trouble already with path references variously being put in name, ref or local_ref instead of prow_ref, so need a simple unambiguous standard. Regards, Mike >Just wanted to add that in my view the other reason to list by parish name, >type and number is that these directly relate to the legal record. Parish >Footpath 11 has usually been Parish Footpath 11 since the 1950s and will >continue to be so unless a formal legal process is followed to change >something. The numeric references for districts and parishes exist only in >an internal database of relatively recent creation. If 5 years down the >line the council adopts a new system any numeric references in OSM would >then be meaningless. ___ 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
>Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically >blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing >people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive >rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a >mapper mapped on the ground. Eg. I don't think a highway=no tag should be >added to a cross field definitive footpath just because a path round the >field has been mapped. In the case where a path has been permanently blocked, I would suggest disused:highway=footway/bridleway, abandonded:highway=footway or removed:highway=footway, depending on whether the path is still visible and whether the blockage would be relatively easy or difficult to remove. This seems to me to be much better than highway=no. Regards, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 163, Issue 23
Hi Dave, I have been using this data for several years and it appears to be updated around about weekly. It is probable that the review date refers to the page, not the data that it links to, which is on an entirely different server - The actual CSV is at http://media.nhschoices.nhs.uk/data/foi/Pharmacy.csv . I haven't noticed any corruptions - it could be a code page issue. >Are you sure it's upto date?: > >Page last reviewed: 15 December 2016 >Next review due: 15 December 2019 > >The 'GPs' is corrupted with Chines symbols. Cheers, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q2 2020 Quarterly project GP Surgeries and health sites
The data at https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies looks like an out of date copy of the NHS data to me. You can use the data at https://www.nhs.uk/about-us/nhs-website-datasets/ which is regularly updated. It even includes an opening hours file which can be linked to the pharmacies. You will need to use "¬" as the column separator. Instead of double clicking on the csv file, open Excel with an empty spreadsheet and use import file. You can then choose the column separator. If you follow the "About our data downloads" link it tells you how to import the data. I assume the data is combined from various regions which use their own systems, hence the variety of ways of holding the address data. Regards, Mike >Yes, the first two links at >https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies >are broken for me as well. For the third link, it looks like they >tried to do CSV, but didn't understand how to escape commas within the >fields, and so opted to use a different character "¬" instead. If you >import this into a spreadsheet, and tell it to use just "¬" as the >column separator, I think it works out fine, with all the entries in >the right place. (You can certainly do this with LibreOffice; I'm not >sure about Excel.) The address lines seem to be used inconsistently, >but everything is back aligned when you get to the postcode field. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments
Perhaps setting both building=yes and disused: building=apartments would fulfill all the needs. Regards, Mike On 18 Dec 2019, 12:00, at 12:00, talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: >Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to > talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition > (David Woolley) > 2. Re: Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition > (Robert Skedgell) > > >-- > >Message: 1 >Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 20:54:24 + >From: David Woolley >To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition >Message-ID: <14f1fd0d-149b-e3dd-40e4-a1da4c995...@david-woolley.me.uk> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > >On 17/12/2019 20:35, Warin wrote: >> >> so >> building=apartments >> becomes >> disused:building=apartments >> >> or >> building=yes >> becomes >> disused:building=yes > >I disagree. It is still a building. In fact some of the most >interesting buildings are disused ones. > > > >-- > >Message: 2 >Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:20:27 + >From: Robert Skedgell >To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Disused or empty apartments prior to demolition >Message-ID: <8277e623-b349-1534-08a3-9a085012e...@hubris.org.uk> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > >On 17/12/2019 20:54, David Woolley wrote: >> On 17/12/2019 20:35, Warin wrote: >>> >>> so >>> building=apartments >>> becomes >>> disused:building=apartments >>> >>> or >>> building=yes >>> becomes >>> disused:building=yes >> >> I disagree. It is still a building. In fact some of the most >> interesting buildings are disused ones. > >Rather than change the tagging on the buildings, if they are currently >enclosed by a landuse=residential polygon*, perhaps change that to >something else (splitting the polygon if appropriate)? > >Unfortunately that creates another headache, as neither >landuse=construction nor landuse=brownfield really seem to fit the >original case. > >* In the OP's example, this is >https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/676088956 > >-- >Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) > > > > >-- > >Subject: Digest Footer > >___ >Talk-GB mailing list >Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > >-- > >End of Talk-GB Digest, Vol 159, Issue 14 > ___ 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 would prefer not to see cycleway:lane=mandatory as this suggests that
cyclists have to use the lane when set. In the UK, the significance of the
solid white line separating a cycle lane and main carriageway is that motor
vehicles are not allowed to use the cycle lane, but cyclists can use either the
cycle lane or main carriageway. I would only want to see mandatory used if
there is also a separate sign prohibiting cyclists from the road (and I am not
sure whether any of these exist). I suggest cycleway:lane={exclusive|advisory}
which are existing tags according to the wiki. Note that UK cycle lanes can
also be used by pedestrians, so are not strictly exclusive to cyclists.
Cheers,
Mike
>• Mandatory/Advisory Cycle Lane: OSM has no differentiation between
>mandatory (solid white line) and advisory (dashed white line) lane,
>probably because this distinction is rare elsewhere in the world. A new tag
>cycleway:lane={mandatory|advisory} is proposed as a backwards-compatible
>addition that elaborates on cycleway=lane. This would be useful for routing
>engines, who could infer a level of commitment to cyclists at each such
>location.
>https://bikedata.cyclestreets.net/tflcid/conversion/#clt_mandat
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default
Hi Robert, Looks interesting. I've signed in and had a look. However, the first one I looked at is a petrol station, and the wiki indicates that shop=yes is the correct tagging as an additional tag for amenity=fuel. Hence I suggest that these be omitted from the list requiring replacement. Cheers, Mike >I've never really used Maproulette before, but I thought this would be >a good opportunity to have a go. So here's my attempt at a challenge, >for anyone who is interested in using it: >https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/9051 . > >Robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] How would tag or name this wall crossing?
Hi Mike, I call them fat man's agony and consider them to be a type of stile. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_fat_man%27s_agony_-_geograph.org.uk_-_945142.jpg Mike B. -Original Message- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2019 17:18:46 +0100 From: Michael Collinson To: OSM talk-gb Subject: [Talk-GB] How would tag or name this wall crossing? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed What do you call the type of wall crossing the that consists of two stone pillars placed close to each other (usually in a drystone wall) to leave a gap wide enough for humans and sheep dogs to squeeze through but not cattle or fully-grown sheep? Has anyone one got a barrier= tag for them? Just got back from Middlesmoor in Nidderdale where there are ton of them. They are typically not raised, so not a stile, and typically no gate, just a gap. Mike -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- End of Talk-GB Digest, Vol 151, Issue 25 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Driving Test Centres
You could also add government=transportation to office=government Regards, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.
I think that if an intersecting highway and waterway are mapped just as lines, then these represent the full width of the highway and waterway and it is illogical to use a line or area to represent the ford. If either the highway or waterway is mapped as an area then I would expect the ford to be mapped both as a line across the area and also as a node at the intersection of the centre line. Only if both highway and waterway are mapped as areas would expect the ford to be mapped as an area (and also as a node at the intersection of the centre lines). Regards, Mike On 06/01/2019 16:44, Martin Wynne wrote: > For example I have just been updating a local ford well-known to me, > over the River Rea at Neen Savage: > > https://goo.gl/maps/NetZQD1UVfE2 > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.39462/-2.47891 > > That section of the river is mapped as an area, so I have added an > area of it as landuse=ford where it is also an area of road. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
