[Talk-GB] High speed rail link
Hi all, As somebody who'll be affected by the new High Speed Rail Link (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/), I thought it may be useful to map the proposed changes. Unfortunately, I haven't the first clue where to start. The way I see it, I'd need to take the existing map data for the region affected and fork it (given that the HSRL involves major changes to roads, bridges etc. as well as laying new track). Any ideas? Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS 1:25k update
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > You need to enter the correct URL in the custom WMS field. You can find the > correct link at the bottom of > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Provisional/First_Edition Ah-ha. That'd do it. Thank you. Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS 1:25k update
Hi, > If you want os1 tiles then you need to say source=os1 not add a spurious > layers parameter. And how was I meant to know that I wanted to use os1 tiles? As for the spurious parameter, I was copying what Andy had pasted. Sorry, but I assumed that this was required. More fool me. > The url to use is documented clearly in the wiki. If you know where to look or what to search for, I'm sure you're right. Please be aware that not everybody has your understanding of the subject. I am coming at this from the point of view of somebody who's done a little work uploading traces and adding a few ways. All I wanted to do was help the project a little more. I was (and still am) more than happy to profess my ignorance in matters technical; I did what I thought was logical given the information I had and I asked for help in (what I thought) was a reasonable way. It would appear that you expect me to be psychic. Perhaps I should be flattered that your expectations should be so high, but instead I'm a little upset. Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS 1:25k update
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > The lowzoom for the 1:25k mapping is now up to date again. > http://ooc.openstreetmap.org/?zoom=6&lat=54.54181&lon=-4.3&layers=00B0 I thought I'd have a go at some tracing and tried to follow the instructions for setting up the WMS plugin in JOSM from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_Popular_Edition This works fine, but shows the old maps... for example, I see this map: http://ooc.openstreetmap.org/?zoom=15&lat=52.38716&lon=-1.65077 When I want to see this map: http://ooc.openstreetmap.org/?zoom=15&lat=52.38716&lon=-1.65077&layers=00B0 (the only difference being the 'layers' value) I tried changing the definition of the WMS URL to "http://ooc.openstreetmap.org/wms/map.php?source=npe&layers=00B0&"; (and various versions of this) But I still get the old map (or an error message). I fully appreciate that I'm doing something wrong and completely misunderstanding how the whole thing works, but... help, please! Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Sleaford Avoiding Line
Peter Miller wrote: > So I guess I should tag it as ' railway=rail, tracks=1, oneway=yes, > freight=yes, passenger=no, note="two tracks, but one disused and > overgrown" ' Shouldn't it be created as two separate ways in the same way a dual-carriageway or motorway would be? Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Red Routes
Thomas Wood wrote: > And don't forget double yellows too... And double yellows with one, two or three stripes up the kerb. Whatever they meant. Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Shaun McDonald wrote: > I have seen many roundabouts split up so that the bridges can be added > properly, so started doing it myself some time ago. Which begs the question what is the point of tagging as way as a bridge? Other than what the rendered map looks like (and I keep hearing that we're not meant to be tagging for the renderer), I can't see the point of messing up a perfectly formed roundabout with all parts set with the correct 'layer' tag when all you end up with is a roundabout which renders as badly as this one: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.46457&lon=-1.70987&zoom=15&layers=0B00FFF Surely it's perfectly obvious that if a road goes underneath another road, there must be a bridge involved. Sorry for the rant, but I've just fixed two roundabouts where the layers were all set incorrectly at about the time somebody added those bus routes. Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
David Earl wrote: > I was doing some bus routes for the first time recently too, and I think > there's a fundamental problem here: a roundabout has to be a complete > loop, but the bus route may only use part of it. I ended up putting the > whole roundabout in the route relation. Which, after thinking about it, would make perfect sense - after all, the bus driver could go all the way around the roundabout twice before taking the correct road off and although it may have been a little silly, nobody could say that he went the wrong route! Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Roundabout, ways and relationship policies
Hi all, I've just had a play with the roundabout at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.4462&lon=-1.6826&zoom=14&layers=0B00FFF to correct the layers after somebody else did some tweaking and noticed that the roundabout has been split up into several separate ways. That appears to have been done so that some of the ways could be grouped into a relationship for a bus route. Apart from the fact that whoever did the splitting managed to leave a break in the middle of the bus route which would seem to be a bit of an error, I have some concerns about whether this has been done correctly at all... Should, for example, the component ways making up the roundabout be grouped in their own "I'm a roundabout" relationship? I have had a look at the docs about relationships and had a look at how this one's configured in JOSM, but to be frank, I'm clueless. Please could somebody give me some ideas about what (if anything) is wrong with this whole roundabout/bus route/highway junction and what should be done to sort it all out. Cheers, Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Reverting all Liam123's edits
Peter Miller wrote: > Do I have some support for this? Yes. Definitely. I am surprised that this has not already happened. > Does anyone object? Probably. ;-) Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] printing from website
Chris Fleming wrote: > Except this is overkill in most cases when you just want a quick print > out. Yes. It was said with tongue planted firmly in cheek... Is there a smiley for that? :-J perhaps? Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] printing from website
Tom Hughes wrote: > Page splits will be entirely dependent on the size of your browser > window Unless the 'print' link generated a PDF, of course! Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering problem (Osmarender layer)
From: "Ed Loach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > While Mapnik shows it correctly, the Osmarender layer is having > problems rendering the roundabout here: Hi Ed! I had great fun with the roundabouts around here which were all laid out pretty much the same. I couldn't find any documentation which showed how to do it properly either... Anyway, I can see now that your problem's sorted (well, JOSM says it is, anyway), but leading on from this, I have a question for everybody I found somewhere a reference which said that roundabouts should have the same road type as the most major road at the junction and not as the other feeder roads. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find this any more, so I am now wondering whether that was just a figment of my imagination! Anyway, In the example Ed gave, I would therefore have set the roundabout to be highway=trunk (and not highway=primary as it is at the moment) and I would have set the roundabout to the West of it likewise. But thinking about it. If the main road is a highway=motorway, then the roundabout shouldn't be highway=motorway, because (in the majority of cases), it isn't a motorway. Perhaps, therefore, the roundabout should be highway=motorway_link. Or should it be highway=X (where X is the type of the most major road directly connecting to it (i.e. not with a _link). Am I being overly pedantic, or is there a /proper/ way of doing this? Cheers, Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
