Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Peter Miller]

On 1 July 2012 22:49, Dave F.  wrote:

> On 30/06/2012 15:11, SomeoneElse wrote:
>
>>Obviously "mapping things that aren't there any more" is a bigger
>>issue
>>
> Has there been discussion about this outside talk:railway? If there hasn't
> I'm a bit annoyed that a niche user group didn't discuss it with the wider
> world.
>
> You're correct it has been discussed before but I thought there was a
> conclusion - that OSM is not a historic document.
>
> It there is physical evidence of something from days gone by then tag it
> as such but if the landscape has totally obliterated it, leave it be. If
> Peterito wants to create a 'railways of the past map' he should use OSM as
> the _current_ background and import old ways from a separate database.
>
> One of the problems is where do you stop? I live in a city that's goes
> back beyond Roman occupation. If OSM were to be totally inclusive &
> complete in a historic sense then my patch would be a right PITA to move
> around within the editors, let alone amend anything.
>

Apologies about not raising it earlier, but as is the nature of some of
these missions sometimes,they start with small tweeks in one's home patch
and then sometimes become much bigger. It had been my intention to mention
it on this list in due course.

By way of background, I have been doing a general GB cleanup on old
railways to ensure that they are correctly designated as
disused/abandoned/dismantled and that more former railways that are now
footpaths/cyclepaths are tagged as such. Here is a map on ITO Map showing
how railways have been reused:
http://www.itoworld.com/map/26#

Regarding the mapping of obliterated railway lines (often tagged as
railway=abandoned in the past), it was initially my view that this
information should not be in OSM and I spent some time removing it where I
found it. There was then a discussion and agreement that railway=dismantled
should be used for this purpose (which doesn't render on the standard
mapping and therefore doesn't make the map look odd where it crosses a
built-up area the way abandoned does). I know that it is not normally the
case to map removed features, but the community seemed to have agreed that
it should be included. Personally I feel that this is appropriate given the
huge legacy of railways for the UK.

While doing this I found railway:historic being used somewhere, I believe
it was in Cornwall and liked the fact that it retained more information
about the type is railway, ie if it had been a mainline railway, a
funicular railway or a miniature railway.

I started using railway:historic=xxx in place of railway=dismantled for
cycletracks etc in response to a comment through OSM messaging that one
editor had found it confusing to suddenly have cyclepaths being rendered as
railways in Potlatch due the railway=xxx tag (although that is not a good
reason to make the change in itself.)

As for the best venue to discuss tagging, I signed off the main talk a long
time ago as it took far too much time to keep up with. I now use the wiki
as my main place for global tagging discussions. You will see that there
have been a good number of discussions on talk:railways (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Railways) over the years including
on this topic. I do however agree that since my mapping has been done in
the UK that I should also have mentioned it here. Apologies for not doing
so. All we need to agree now is how to go forward on this one.

Responding to comments below. Use of railway=abandoned for lines across
housing estates is definitely wrong. Some suggest railway=dismantled, some
remove them. Personally I think we are very close to a routeable historic
railway network in advance of the 60th anniversary of the Beeching Cuts
which is in March 2013.


Regards,



Peter




>
> Cheers
> Dave F.
>
>
>
>
> __**_
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Peter Miller]

On 2 July 2012 16:19, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:

> Peter Miller wrote:
>  > I started using railway:historic=xxx in place of railway=dismantled
> > for cycletracks etc in response to a comment through OSM
> > messaging that one editor had found it confusing to suddenly
> > have cyclepaths being rendered as railways in Potlatch due the
> > railway=xxx tag (although that is not a good reason to make
> > the change in itself.)
>
> Indeed not. That's a 30-second change to P2 to change the rendering order.
> Put a trac ticket in and someone will change the stylesheet!
>

Good. It is now on trac. Thanks Shaun.


> > As for the best venue to discuss tagging, I signed off the main talk a
> > long time ago as it took far too much time to keep up with.
> > I now use the wiki as my main place for global tagging discussions.
>
> There is a tagging@ list now, of course.
>

However... that email list is very busy and currently full of discussions
about mapping 'larger mini-roundabouts' and eclectic other topics. I am
glad people are using it, but the wiki is also a productive place to
discuss tagging and is a lot more focused. For railways the 'talk:Railways'
page is pretty good. Personally I won't be signing up the talk-tagging but
will keep an eye on it from time to time.

Re Potlatch: thanks for sorting out the rendering Richard!


Regards,



Peter




>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/railway-historic-rail-tags-tp5714652p5714762.html
> Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic = rail tags

[Peter Miller]

On 4 July 2012 09:39, Craig Loftus  wrote:

> > However, there are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been
> > realigned or ripped up, should these also be removed from the database?
>
> I think highway=no is typically used as a temporary tag to try to stop
> remote mappers from adding something from a source that is not up to
> date. In practice they probably sit around in the database in
> perpetuity, but it still seems quite different to actively map
> dismantled and abandoned railway lines.
>

highway=no was a dirty hack suggested as a placeholder for a road name that
was in OS Locator that related to a road that didn't exist. Rather than
manage a separate DB of such features with all the associated complexity
someone suggested we pop it in as a non-road. This is currently often
essential for people who which to get to 100% on the OSM Analysis stats we
run (http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main).


> As others have mentioned, railway=dismantled seems fine. However, what
> is the argument for keeping connections between sections of dismantled
> railway, that have since been split by modern developments?
>

Personally I would love it if we are able to extract a routable rail
network from OSM for certain times in the past. I am sure some railway
enthusiast groups will love our historic railway mapping which is better if
complete. Here is a project I have proposed which is sitting waiting for
some love to digitise the world's historic public transport timetables, and
in particular some UK historic railway timetables. (
https://openbradshaws.wordpress.com/)

>
> As an aside, how would one map a dismantled railway bridge? And, how
> would one map an intact but disused bridge from which the railway
> tracks have been removed?
>

My personal preference would be to prefix any tag that is no longer
relevant with 'historic:' (rather than the :historic postfix). This would
fit with prefixes of proposed: and construction: but this is probably
getting to be something that would benefit from being discussed on the
tagging list..

For your above example I would like to use: railway=dismantled;bridge=yes
(or historic:railway=rail;bridge=yes)

If the bridge had been removed I would use:
railway=dismantled;historic:bridge=yes (or
historic:railway=rail;historic:bridge=yes)

If there was a proposed cycle route across a former railway bridge which
would have to be rebuilt I would be tempted to use:
historic:railway=rail;historic:bridge=yes;proposed:bridge=yes;proposed:highway=cycleway


Regards,


Peter



>
> Craig
>
> On 3 July 2012 22:47, Donald Noble  wrote:
> > As someone who has added a few railway=dismantled ways to the map, I
> > thought I might add in my reasoning.
> >
> > Railways, by their nature, link places and are pretty much continuous.
> > So in areas (like Glasgow) where there are sections of old railway
> > infrastructure visible on the ground I have mapped these as r=disused
> > or r=abandoned depending on whether the tracks are still in-situ. But
> > I find it useful if these can be linked by sections of r=dismantled
> > (or some other tag) that reflects that there was a railway there, even
> > if all traces are now gone, as this can make sense of the remnants
> > that are there.
> >
> > I appreciate there is a line between mapping what is on the ground and
> > creating a database of historic routes, and perhaps dismantled
> > railways crosses that line (if you'll excuse the pun). However, there
> > are also instances of highway=no, where roads have been realigned or
> > ripped up, should these also be removed from the database?
> >
> > Personally, I wouldn't map a long section where there once was a
> > railway but it has now been completely obliterated by this complex
> > housing estate and shopping centre, but I have mapped a place where an
> > abandoned railway was obliterated by a carpark but the remains of it
> > are visible on either side (and on 3ish year old bing imagery).
> >
> > This doesn't really address the OP regarding railway:historic=rail
> > versus railway=dismantled, which I have no real views on, as neither
> > appears on most map renderings. Although I have recently changed a
> > couple of railway=station+disused=yes nodes to
> > railway:historic=station, where there is no visible evidence left on
> > the ground (and so they are no use for navigation), so maybe
> > railway:historic=rail keeps things tidier.
> >
> > regards, Donald
> >
> >
> > --
> > Donald Noble
> > http://drnoble.co.uk - http://flickr.com/photos/drnoble
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.or

Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed changes

[Peter Miller]

On 20 September 2012 16:27, Chris Hill  wrote:

> It seems that PeterITO is once again making changes to speed limits, this
> time changing limits that are tagged maxspeed=national to maxspeed=60 mph.
> The signs I see ( the round white sign with the black diagonal bar) does
> not say 60 mph it says national speed limit. Therefore I believe PeterITO
> is wrong to make the changes. Furthermore, he seems to making them over a
> wide area which makes it an undiscussed mass edits and should probably be
> reverted as such.
>
> PeterITO, please explain what you are doing.
>

I have been fixing up the very small number of the remaining non-numeric
content in maxspeed to conform with more common practice here in the UK and
across the world. My changes are also consistent with the wiki. I have not
lost the fact that the sign is a white sign with a black bar in my edits.
that information is now encoded in source:maxspeed or maxspeed:type.

Examples of the changes I have made:
I have changed maxspeed=48 to maxspeed=30 mph (also maxspeed=80 to
maxspeed=50 mph etc) where it is obvious that they were entered as km/h
I have changed a bunch of maxspeed=20 to maxspeed=20 mph when it is clear
that that is what was intended.
I have removed some maxspeed=30mph;50mph where it is not obvious where the
change happened before the merge.
I have changed a number of maxspeed=national to maxspeed=60 mph +
maxspeed:type=uk:nsl_single or to maxspeed=70 mph +
maxspeed:type=uk:nsl_dual or to uk:motorway as appropriate.
Similarly for maxspeed=nsl_single, nsl_dual and national_limit, all of
which occur in small quantities.
Also a bunch of 'maxspeed=70 mph + GB:motorway' in Sussex, which are now
maxspeed=70 mph + maxspeed:type=UK:motorway (this odd coding must have been
based on a misunderstanding of the wiki or a talk post I believe).
I have changed a few maxspeed=High Street to name=High Street and removed
the maxspeed tagging in a few places. Odd but true.

You can use this map to see most of the things I have changed on this
'Speed fixup' map on ITO Map. The bits I have been focusing on are in
bright colours.
http://www.itoworld.com/map/125#

You will see they represent a small percentage of the whole. This work was
achieved manually in Potlatch in a few hours and has created more
consistency for the tag.

I hope this puts your mind at rest. Apologies for not raising this on the
list first, however it started with a few tweeks to my area and then grew
as these things sometimes do. All in all I think we can be very pleased
with the grown in speed limit data over the past year.


Regards,


Peter (PeterIto)



Regards,


Peter




> --
> Cheers, Chris
> user: chillly
>
>
> __**_
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed changes

[Peter Miller]

On 20 September 2012 16:59, Gregory Williams
wrote:

> > -Original Message-
> > From: Chris Hill [mailto:o...@raggedred.net]
> > Sent: 20 September 2012 16:27
> > To: Talk GB
> > Subject: [Talk-GB] maxspeed changes
> >
> > It seems that PeterITO is once again making changes to speed limits, this
> time
> > changing limits that are tagged maxspeed=national to
> > maxspeed=60 mph. The signs I see ( the round white sign with the black
> > diagonal bar) does not say 60 mph it says national speed limit.
> > Therefore I believe PeterITO is wrong to make the changes. Furthermore,
> he
> > seems to making them over a wide area which makes it an undiscussed mass
> > edits and should probably be reverted as such.
> >
> > PeterITO, please explain what you are doing.
>
> Presumably Peter is also adding source:maxspeed=UK:nsl_single, therefore
> preserving the fact that the maxspeed data represents the national speed
> limit at that point, rather than being explicitly signed as 60 mph?
> Certainly that's how I tag national speed limits on single carriageways
> here
> in Kent.
>

Correct. I did however use alternative maxspeed:type at times which also
appears in the DB and which I feel is better than source:maxspeed which to
my mind should be used for  'source:maxspeed=survey' or
'source:maxspeed=local authority spreadsheet-Dec12' or similar. However...
lets leave that discussion to another day but either way not information
has been lost by my edits and the data has been made more consistent.

Fyi, I changed one instance of 'maxspeed=30 mph;30mph' in Kent to
'maxspeed=30 mph' and left the instance of 'maxspeed=12 mph' alone (even
though it does seem a bit unlikely).

Re ITO Map, we have recently enabled 'clicks' on many of them. Click on any
coloured elements on the speed limit fixup map to see what the tagging
currently shows. Many other maps also now support clicks.

Finally. Be aware that we are still in the process of updating ITO Map
following the license change. If it is not updated tonight it should
hopefully do so tomorrow. It should then update daily. As such the speed
limit fixup map still shows the state of OSM before I made any changes.


Regards,


Peter


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

Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed changes

[Peter Miller]

Good to have a proper discussion on the subject.

There does seem to be a a massive consensus around the world that maxspeed
should be used to hold a posted speed limit in km/h or mph as a numeric in
the local units. (this is based on current practice as indicated by ITO Map
and by taginfo). There is a smattering of countrycode:zone, but it is
small. The only major use is in Romania.

There seems to be a mood to use maxspeed:type for the supporting
countrycode:zone data here, although more people are using source:maxspeed
for this globally. I have continued to use maxspeed:type in my cleanup pass
because in a number of cases the source:maxspeed already contained
something like 'survey', 'sign at S end' or similar.

I suggest that we raise a proposal at some point to migrate the zone
information to maxspeed:type, but lets not worry about that for now.

What we can discuss here is how to tag the UK speed limits.

Based on the dilemma I have had numerous times in the past week to decide
is a slip-road or roundabout is technically a 60mph or 70mph I would
suggest that we produce some guidance on what value to use in various
situations (even though it is a bit irrelevant and nerdy for most
situations we could imagine). I tag slip roads at the dual carriageway
speed if at least one end is on a dual-carriageway. I tag roundabouts as
70mph if there are at least two dual-carriageways attached to them. I use
60 mph in other situations.

Given that it is not always 100% clear if a road is 'dual' or 'single', I
suggest that we simply use use a value 'UK:national' in maxspeed:type (or
in source:maxspeed). This would be in place of uk:motorway, uk:nsl_single
and uk:nsl_dual. To be clear, the tag should be uk:national not just
national given the strong guidance on the wiki and through usage that it is
appropriate to include a country-code prefix.

Fyi, I am very nearly done with my maxspeed cleanup. Only a few smaller
roads to go.

Keep up the good work.

I now realise that a simple way to capture a speed limit and its location
as a car passenger is to take a geocoded photo of the sign. It's sad how
long it has taken me to twig to that one!



Regards,


Peter

On 25 September 2012 20:49, Colin Smale  wrote:

> On 25/09/2012 18:25, Andrew M. Bishop wrote:
>
>> As the author of an OSM data consumer (the router "Routino")
>>
> Can I just say how refreshing it is to have some input from the data
> consumers. Most of the interminable debates about tagging are between
> parties who talk about data entry issues (how many clicks, how much support
> in editors etc) and could be sorted far more effectively by considering
> what people want/expect to get out of the data. If the consumers' point of
> view is not adequately represented OSM could easily degenerate into WOM
> (like ROM only it's write-only). Any attempt to limit mappers' creative
> freedom by "standardisation" is usually met with howls of derision and
> dogmatic refusal.
>
> Just my 2c...
>
> Colin
>
>
> __**_
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed changes

[Peter Miller]

On 27 September 2012 17:42, Jason Cunningham wrote:

> As I mentioned earlier on it was speed limits for roundabouts along a dual
> carriageway that led to me doing a bit of research on UK speed limit
> legislation.
> My 'notes' are below
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu/UK_Speed_Limits
>
> A roundabout does not meet the given definition of a dual carriageway
> provided by legislation, and therefore is classified as a single
> carriageway road. Therefore a NSL roundabout can either be a NSL Restricted
> road or NSL single carriageway road speed limit. Recently spotted that my
> satnav already new this.
>

That does make sense.

Slip road connected to dual carriageways also does not meet the definition
> of a dual carriageway. Slip roads on motorways are not covered by NSL
> legislation. The whole motorway network, which includes the slip roads, is
> deliberately outside NSL legislation. Motorways are "special roads" with
> separate legislation. If the slips roads are part of the Motorway Network
> then they're "special roads" covered the Motorway Legislation with a
> maxspeed for cars of 70 mph.
>

Thanks for the clarification. So what about slip roads on non-motorway
dual-carriageways? Are these 70mph or 60mph in your view?

Things can be different in Scotland. I concentrated on reading 'English'
> legislation and case law. Having read legislation and case law I'm happy to
> argue that British speed limit law is a mess.
>
> Once you understand the foibles of the legislation you'll start spotting
> stretches of road where signs are wrong or missing. The link below shows
> locations of street lighting around a junction.
> http://goo.gl/maps/I8uhr (yellow for lighting for main road, and orange
> for lighting of runabout which is technically a separate section of road.)
> There are clearly sections of road with 3 more street lamps that mean that
> unless otherwise signed the stretches of road are 'NSL Restricted' with
> speed limits for cars of 30mph. Roads leading up to the lighting are NSL
> single carriageway with speed limits cars of 60 mph. Legislation states
> there should be signs clearly advising you that NSL Restricted begins or
> small signs reminding you NSL single lane carries on, but they are missing
> (I haven't spotted nsl signs while driving or when double checking today
> using StreetView). Therefore the speed limit defaults to NSL Restricted.
> Since drivers would expect a sign for a change in speed limit they are
> unlikely to slow down to the NSL Restricted speed limit. Lack of signs for
> any other change in speed limit would mean it would be impossible to
> prosecute, but signs are not needed for NSL Restricted road and there is
> case law to support this. A problem for drivers, and for people trying to
> map speed limits.
>

I believe that when one starts finding errors on the ground it is a good
indicator that you are getting good at what you are doing!

Putting aside my little rant about missing speed limit signs, I think we
> could do with proper page giving some advice of speed limits if we intend
> to map them.
>

Or just  roll the details into the speed limits or maxspeed articles for
now as the same sort of questions are likely to appear in other countries?


Thanks,



Peter



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

[Talk-GB] OS Locator comparison and Google Streetview

[Peter Miller]

Just to say that I, along with a number of other people, have being doing
some OS Locator based updates to OSM over the past few days following the
release of the latest OS Locator update.

Where OS Locator and OSM disagree I either do a Google search to see if
Zoopla or other reputable sources can resolve the discrepancy for me (on
the basis that houses particulars are probably going to be right). In some
cases I may instead try Google Streetview and check the street sign. If
nothing works then I leave it unless there is some other reason to believe
OS Locator.

Now...

As a note of appreciation to Google in situations where I use Google
Streetview I then check their mapping to see if they are right or if they
are also incorrectly trusting OS Locator. Where Google Maps is wrong as per
Google Streetview I then 'report and problem' to Google giving them the
correct spelling. I was impressed that my last report, made at 6pm
yesterday evening, was responded to at 9am this morning confirming my
change. I have checked and it is already fixed on their mapping. Needless
to say it was fixed on OSM at 6pm last night!

Can I encourage other people to consider doing the same. That way we get
better maps for everyone and we provide something back to Google where we
use their resources. For the avoidance of doubt, we should only used Google
Streetview to check street signs to resolve the occasional queries and some
people don't even like that. What OSM contributors must never do is use
Google Maps as a primary source (which is called plagiarism)!



Regards,


Peter Miller (PeterIto)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS Locator comparison and Google Streetview

[Peter Miller]

On 15 November 2012 12:20, SomeoneElse  wrote:

> Peter Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> Just to say that I, along with a number of other people, have being doing
>> some OS Locator based updates to OSM over the past few days following the
>> release of the latest OS Locator update.
>>
>
> (leaving aside the Google issue)
>
> Can I make one additional request - If you're adding street names based on
> OS Locator can you make it clear (via a source:name tag) that you've done
> that?
>
> That is extremely useful information as it tells future on-theground
> mappers which streets haven't been surveyed for POIs and linking footpaths,
> etc.
>

Definitely. I do try to do that every time.

It is however a bit confusing that pressing 'b' in os locator background
view with the 'simple' panel displayed in Potlatch appears to achieve
nothing (even though it works behind the scene).

It is also a bit dangerous that it is easy to change the 'ref' field for a
road to 'b' if one pressed return on the name field for a more major road
(which works fine for residential roads). It is also odd that pressing
return a few times to get away from text boxes on the Potlatch interface
for primary and trunk roads seems to freeze at the 'lanes' text field so it
is also easy to change the lanes count to 'b'!

Finally, it is odd that 'b' doesn't work when more that one road segment is
selected in Potlach,

We will do a trac ticket or two for Potlatch as appropriate.


Peter


> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> __**_
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM

[Peter Miller]

Just to say that I have added tagging and a relations for both of the main
road schemes mentioned specifically in the Autumn Statement. I have also
updated a couple of other schemes to use the same tagging as outlined in
prefix (: = ) method of tagging life-cycle details as
outlined on the wiki here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts In all
cases I have modelled them in a manner in which software could interpret
the tags and create a routable model for the proposed scheme. I would be
very happy to get any feedback on the approach, either on this list on or
the wiki page. I have tended to use the source tag to hold a URL link to
the document I used to establish the route.

The two schemes mentioned in the Autumn Statement:

A1 (Leeming Bar and Barton)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2620992

A30 Temple to High Carblake
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2621269

Two other schemes:
A11 at Thetford
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1503233

SEMMMs in Machester
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2623484<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=2623484>

A final observation is that the information for these schemes is sometimes
vague, fragmented, non-existent or contradictory. As such I think it may be
worth creating wiki-pages on the OSM wiki for some of the larger or more
troublesome ones where people can work together to agree what should be in
OSM. Indeed, one question for any scheme is if it is certain enough to
happy to be in OSM at all.


Regards,

Peter Miller (PeterIto)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM

[Peter Miller]

On 7 December 2012 14:10, SomeoneElse  wrote:

> Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> Just to say that I have added tagging and a relations for both of the
>> main road schemes mentioned specifically in the Autumn Statement.
>>
>
> Is there any actual benefit to doing this before construction actually
> starts?  Until that point nothing on the ground has changed - only the
> degree of smugness on a politician's face.
>
> OSM unfortunately has more than it's fair share of "I wish there was a
> cycle route here" or "I wish there was a bypass there" - shouldn't we be
> more worried about mapping what's here now?
>

For sure, we should be mapping what is on the ground and we are getting on
with that very well indeed, however I believe it is also appropriate to add
details of schemes that have official backing, have a defined start or end
date and are have 'a strong likelihood of being built' (such schemes would
also appear on a printed road-atlas). Schemes that are aspirational (Boris
Island) or which have no official support or which are still at the
'preferred options' stage or before do not.

Thoughts?


Regards,


Peter


> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> __**_
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM

[Peter Miller]

Just spotted all the activity on this thread which is great to see.
Personally I am reasonably neutral on what policy emerges from this
conversation.

I do agree that few schemes are really really certain until the diggers
arrive. By way of example, I personally removed the Longdendale bypass (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longdendale_Bypass) from OSM a few years ago
after the HA pulled out of the public inquiry when the inspector had
rejected their traffic predictions for the seventh time! I do also agree
that it is also far from certain that HS2 will be built whatever the
administration is saying at present.

I would therefore understand the view that nothing should be added as
proposed until it is 99% certain that it will be constructed. By way of
example it would be most remarkable if the A11 Fiveways scheme was not
completed now that work has started. It would also be remarkable if
Crossrail was not completed (but there is a bit more risk there). Some
people however seem to believe that it is never appropriate to add content
until construction has actually started for that bit of the infrastructure
which seems a bit extreme.

As people may know, I am very interested in understanding and modelling how
our transport system is likely to develop and I if it is agreed that
information about less certain schemes does not belong in OSM then we at
ITO will devise a system to hold this information separately and allow
people to contribute to it. We will combine it with OSM so that people can
see what it might look like. You can see an example for the Norwich
Northern Distributor Road (which is not in OSM btw) here:
http://www.itoworld.com/map/245#

Another approach would be to allow 'aspiration' as a tag prefix for roads
that have considerable support but which do not yet meet the strict
requirements for 'proposed'.

Can I suggest that we work out what we believe are appropriate guidelines
here and then get them discussion on an appropriate  international list and
also on the wiki?



Regards,



Peter Miller
ITO World Ltd





On 12 December 2012 09:37, Lester Caine  wrote:

> Jason Cunningham wrote:
>
>> (just noticed my work on the South Devon Link Road and surrounding area
>> has been
>> deleted, then the same info re-added by someone else! I've been cleansed
>> from
>> the history.)
>>
>
> This is the more 'irritating' bit here. People spending a substantial
> amount of time doing work that someone else simply removes! I'll bang on
> again about secondary databases where the likes of these 'proposals' can be
> staged prior to their physical appearance, but the more annoying aspect of
> this moving forward is the simple scrapping of the current on the ground
> situation which IS perfectly valid information. Taking the A11 developments
> as an example, all of the current routing is nicely mapped, so displaying
> '2012' version of the map requires no 'extra' mapping. It would be nice to
> be able to roll back show the roads development over time, and there are
> people around who would contribute that material if a mechanism was
> available to fill in the gaps. It's the current lack of a mechanism to
> use/display current historic data that needs addressing?
>
> A slightly different example of this is looking at historic data in change
> sets. I'm probably spoilt with some of the comparison tools when looking at
> differences between versions of a file or changeset. But it would be nice
> to see a graphical 'diff' between version of object history in OSM ...
>
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -
> Contact - 
> http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=**contact<http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact>
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - 
> http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.**uk<http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk>
>
> __**_
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN Bus Stops

[Peter Miller]

Sounds good. Do however check out the code Thomas Wood wrote for a complete
NaPTAN importer a long time back.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Import


Regards,


Peter


On 11 December 2012 21:55, Barry Cornelius wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012, Donald Noble wrote:
>
>> I tried downloading the XML file from data.gov.uk:
>>
>
> The XML file is mentioned at:
>http://data.gov.uk/dataset/**naptan 
> and it is available as a zip file at:
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/NaPTAN/**snapshot/NaPTANxml.zip
> I think it gets regularly updated.
>
>  but when I opened it the 500MB file was all on the second line, apart
>> from the XML version tag on the first line. This meant I struggled to even
>> look at the file to see if I could do anything useful with it.
>>
>
> The file NaPTANxml.zip is about 31MB and, as you say, after unzipping it
> NaPTAN.xml is about 500MB.  If you're using linux, you can format
> NaPTAN.xml using:
>xmllint --format NaPTAN.xml >format.xml
> The file format.xml is about 750MB.  I think xmllint is in the debian
> package called libxml2-utils.
>
>
>  Therefore I was wondering if anyone has (or is able to produce) an
>> extract for the area around Glasgow (or even for Scotland) preferably
>> already in osm format that I could use.
>>
>
> I haven't done that.  However, in case it's of any use, I've put a zipped
> version of format.xml at:
>
> http://www.rowmaps.com/**temporary/format.zip
> It's about 36MB.  I regard this directory as a temporary space and so I
> will delete this file later.  Regard it as having the same licence as the
> original file:
>
> http://www.nationalarchives.**gov.uk/doc/open-government-**licence/
>
> To whet your appetite, here's an extract:
>  ModificationDateTime="2012-07-**02T14:24:40" Modification="new"
> RevisionNumber="0" Status="active">
>   60901000
>   45238737
>   
> Balmore Square
> Balmore Square
> Balmore Road
> before
>   
>   
> N0076070
> Glasgow
> 1
> 
>   
> UKOS
> 258877
> 668372
> -4.2579340692
> 55.8877326565
>   
> 
>   
>   
> BCT
> 
>   
> MKD
> OTH
> 
>   
> NW
>   
> 
>   
> 
>   
>   
>  Modification="new" Status="active">609G04088
>   
>   127
>   
>  ModificationDateTime="2010-10-**07T14:27:15" Modification="new"
> RevisionNumber="0" Status="active">GLGC
>   
> 
>
> There's some explanation at:
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/naptan/**schema/2.1/guide/naptan-**070325.doc
>
> --
> Barry Cornelius
> http://www.northeastraces.com/
> http://www.thehs2.com/
> http://www.rowmaps.com/
> http://www.oxonpaths.com/
> http://www.barrycornelius.com/
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] railway:historic=rail

[Peter Miller]

Apologies about being very late to respond to this issue.

I did use the historic:railway=* tag for old railway for a period of time
having come across it somewhere in the DB. It was good because it was
possible to tag which sort of railway it was

However... I now only use it in very particular circumstances because it
was hard to pick railway features out of the DB. I now always use a current
railway purpose using a railway tag, for example railway=rail, abandoned,
proposed or construction etc.

If however there is also a secondary value for the tag, for example a
former or proposed value then I would also use historic:railway=* or
proposed:railway=*.

For example with a railway that is currently part of a light_rail system
but was formerly part of a main line railway the tagging would be
railway=light_rail, historic:railway=rail.

In one extreme case I found an old canal which then converted into a
mainline railway and is now a cycleway which I think I tagged as tagged
waterway=abandoned, historic:waterway=canal, railway=abandoned,
historic:railway=rail, highway=cycleway. If there was a plan to bring the
canal back into use (which there wasn't) I would have also addded
proposed:waterway=canal!

This allows one to reliably use the railway tag itself to pick up all ways
that have relevance to a railway map without having to check loads of
prefixes and also allow the feature to contain a lot of temporal
information.

I will put it on my very long list to do a cleanup of the orphan
historic:railway tags which I added and which are not on ways with a
railway tag unless someone does it first.

Does that make sense?


Regards,



Peter



On 13 May 2013 17:10, Andy Allan  wrote:

> On 13 May 2013 11:49, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>
> > Would there be any opposition to gradually reverting uses of this tag to
> > railway=dismantled/abandoned, depending on what's on the ground?
>
> I don't oppose the change in principle, but we need to be clear what
> you intend for all the various values. railway:historic = rail,
> railway:historic = light_rail and railway:historic = tram can't all go
> into one railway=dismantled tag without losing information. I expect
> you intend to use another tag (dismantled = light_rail etc) but that's
> worth stating.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>



-- 

Peter Miller CEO

+44(0) 7774 667213

ITO World Ltd - Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number 5753174

Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ.

Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ.

Telephone - 01473 272225

www.itoworld.com

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
They are intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager
or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or
make copies thereof.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] HS2 mapping

[Peter Miller]

Just to highlight some mapping ITO have just released, which was developed
with CPRE showing the construction, landuse and operation impacts of the
High Speed 2 line.

Many thanks for the hundreds of people who have contributed to the base OSM
data which is used within the maps. Needless to say, it also uses
information from a number of other sources.

Would be great to get more detail into OSM along the route, in particular
footpaths and heritage details so the project is based on a thorough
understanding of the impacts. We will update the maps from time to time,
and use the latest OSM data when we do so.
http://hs2maps.com/



Regards,


Peter


-- 

Peter Miller CEO

+44(0) 7774 667213

ITO World Ltd - Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number 5753174

Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ.

Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ.

Telephone - 01473 272225

www.itoworld.com

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
They are intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager
or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or
make copies thereof.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 mapping

[Peter Miller]

Nice,

We are keen to add a heritage layer to the mapping. Nothing certain, but
will be great to have more data for the route.


Regards,


Peter



On 26 August 2013 21:52, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> Hi Peter
>
> I'm gradually adding listed buildings along the route in Warwickshire
>
> regards
>
> Brian
>
>
> On 21 August 2013 15:52, Peter Miller  wrote:
>
>>
>> Just to highlight some mapping ITO have just released, which was
>> developed with CPRE showing the construction, landuse and operation impacts
>> of the High Speed 2 line.
>>
>> Many thanks for the hundreds of people who have contributed to the base
>> OSM data which is used within the maps. Needless to say, it also uses
>> information from a number of other sources.
>>
>> Would be great to get more detail into OSM along the route, in particular
>> footpaths and heritage details so the project is based on a thorough
>> understanding of the impacts. We will update the maps from time to time,
>> and use the latest OSM data when we do so.
>> http://hs2maps.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Peter Miller CEO
>>
>> +44(0) 7774 667213
>>
>> ITO World Ltd - Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number
>> 5753174
>>
>> Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ.
>>
>> Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ.
>>
>> Telephone - 01473 272225
>>
>> www.itoworld.com
>>
>> IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are
>> confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only.
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the system
>> manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to
>> anyone or make copies thereof.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>


-- 

Peter Miller CEO

+44(0) 7774 667213

ITO World Ltd - Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number 5753174

Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ.

Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ.

Telephone - 01473 272225

www.itoworld.com

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
They are intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager
or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or
make copies thereof.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 mapping

[Peter Miller]

Thanks for that. Is there any chance that this ROW information can be added
to OSM? Possibly I am missing something, but it seems to be adding
complexity to have to fish around in another database for this information.

Regards,


Peter



On 25 August 2013 18:04, Barry Cornelius  wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> Just to highlight some mapping ITO have just released [
>> http://hs2maps.com/], which was developed with CPRE showing the
>> construction, landuse and operation impacts of the High Speed 2 line. ...
>> Would be great to get more detail into OSM along the route, in particular
>> footpaths and heritage details so the project is based on a thorough
>> understanding of the impacts. We will update the maps from time to time,
>> and use the latest OSM data when we do so.
>>
>
> If you wish to detect which public rights of way (PROWs) are close to the
> route of the proposed HS2, my web site http://www.thehs2.com may help.
>
> www.thehs2.com can be used to display a map showing:
>the route of the HS2;
>the PROWs that are close to the route of the HS2;
>the points at which these PROWs cross the route of the HS2.
> The underlying map can be from the Ordnance Survey, OpenStreetMap, Google
> or Bing.
>
> Examples are:
>Phase 1 (from London to the West Midlands):
>   http://www.thehs2.com/phase1/**maps/showmap.php?place=South%**
> 20Heath&type=rcOSM&lat=51.705&**lon=-0.677&zoom=13<http://www.thehs2.com/phase1/maps/showmap.php?place=South%20Heath&type=rcOSM&lat=51.705&lon=-0.677&zoom=13>
>Phase 2 (from the West Midlands to the North West and the North East):
>   http://www.thehs2.com/phase2/**maps/showmap.php?place=**
> Culcheth&type=rcOSM&lat=53.45&**lon=-2.52&zoom=13<http://www.thehs2.com/phase2/maps/showmap.php?place=Culcheth&type=rcOSM&lat=53.45&lon=-2.52&zoom=13>
>
> Those web pages show a map from OpenStreetMap with various items
> superimposed on the map:
>a multi-coloured line that shows the route of the HS2;
>some cyan coloured lines showing the route of PROWs;
>some circles showing crossing points (i.e., where HS2 and a PROW meet).
> You can click on any of these items to get more details about the item.
>
> www.thehs2.com provides information about PROWs close to the HS2 as
> follows:
>Phase 1:
>   Only for those PROWs which I've walked.  This is all but two of the
>   crossing points between Euston and Offchurch (near Leamington Spa).
>   Because of my GPS device, this data is inaccurate in places.
>Phase 2:
>   Only for those PROWs where the council has released data about their
>   PROWs.  This is actually most of the PROWs as only the councils of
>   Manchester, Sheffield and Trafford are unable to supply data.
>
> The data is also available in KML format:
>Phase 1:
>   crossing points: 
> http://www.thehs2.com/phase1/**kmls/c/all.kml<http://www.thehs2.com/phase1/kmls/c/all.kml>
> PROWs: 
> http://www.thehs2.com/phase1/**kmls/r/all.kml<http://www.thehs2.com/phase1/kmls/r/all.kml>
>Phase 2:
>   crossing points: 
> http://www.thehs2.com/phase2/**kmls/c/all.kml<http://www.thehs2.com/phase2/kmls/c/all.kml>
> PROWs: 
> http://www.thehs2.com/phase2/**kmls/r/all.kml<http://www.thehs2.com/phase2/kmls/r/all.kml>
>
> The crossing points are also available in csv files:
>Phase 1:
>   
> http://www.thehs2.com/phase1/**kmls/c/all.csv<http://www.thehs2.com/phase1/kmls/c/all.csv>
>Phase 2:
>   
> http://www.thehs2.com/phase2/**kmls/c/all.csv<http://www.thehs2.com/phase2/kmls/c/all.csv>
> In these csv files, the word "Fill" means "embankment" and the phrase
> "At Grade" means "level with the nearby land".
>
> So these maps/data may help you find the PROWs which cross the route of
> the HS2 that are missing from OpenStreetMap and so need some mapping done.
>
> --
> Barry Cornelius
> http://www.northeastraces.com/
> http://www.thehs2.com/
> http://www.rowmaps.com/
> http://www.oxonpaths.com/
> http://www.barrycornelius.com/
>
>
> __**_
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>



-- 

Peter Miller CEO

+44(0) 7774 667213

ITO World Ltd - Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number 5753174

Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ.

Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ.

Telephone - 01473 272225

www.itoworld.com

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
They are intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager
or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or
make copies thereof.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes

[Peter Miller]

Apologies for being slow to pick this one up. I was in private discussion
with Andy on this using OSM messaging which appeared to have come to a
conclusion. I now notice that it had moved to talk-gb.

For avoidance of doubt, all my edits have been fully manual.

Here is the explanation I gave to Andy for using and preferring
gb:national. I would be happy to hear from others on the matter. As you
will notice this was worked out with PinkDuck up in Nofolk:

Andy: "Regarding gb:national, I use that tag because that is what the sign
says.
gb:nsl_single and gb_nsl_dual are interpretations of the actual sign based
on one's understanding of exactly what constitutes a dual carriageway which
is not always clear. The Highway Code defines it as 'a dual carriageway is
a road which has a central reservation to separate the carriageways.' I
suggest that the status of divergent roads, very short sections on the
approach to a roundabout and slip roads is uncertain and that the correct
interpretation could only be agreed in a court. This is the conclusion that
PinkDuck and I came to anyway. He asked the DfT of someone and learnt that
trunk road slip roads were 60mph but that motorway ones were 70mph. etc
etc. You will notice that I have corrected the limit on the roundabout to
60
mph."


So...on the basis that we should tag what is there, we see a white sign
with a black diagonal line on it then that is what we should indicate. We
do of course interpret that by putting what we believe if the correct legal
speed limit in maxspeed. As such a single carriageway national limit is
coded as "maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=60 mph". As dual carriageway
is tagged as "maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=70 mph". The motorway
version is "highway=motorway,maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=70 mph".

Thoughts?


Regards,


Peter Miller (PeterIto)



On 23 September 2013 09:34, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Sat, 2013-09-21 at 22:09 +0100, Andy Street wrote:
> > I'd agree that maxspeed=national is insufficient as it is impossible
> > to tell what speed you can do in a built up area.
> National speed limits rarely apply in built up areas, other than
> sometimes on faster feeder roads. The built up area limit in the UK is
> 30mph, unless signposted differently. This is implied by the presence of
> street lighting. 30mph limits, where there are no streetlights, require
> repeater signs.
>
> > I'm also not a huge
> > fan of the current practice of placing "single" or "dual" in the
> > maxspeed:type tag either as I consider the number of carriageways to be
> > feature of the road rather than the speed limit.
> This tag is vital, as in the UK on roads where the national speed limit
> applies, it is much more than a mere feature of the road as you put it,
> but defines the speed limit. When roads change between single and dual
> carriageway the speed limit changes, there are no signposts.
>
> 60 mph on single carriageways, 70 mph on dual carriageways or 70 mph on
> motorways in England and Wales are never explicitly signposted on NSL
> roads, but are indicated by the black diagonal, or motorway chopsticks
> signs.
>
> There are a few exceptions on special roads, hence the A55 in North
> Wales and the Edinburgh City Bypass do have 70mph signage.
>
> Phil (trigpoint}
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>



-- 

Peter Miller CEO

+44(0) 7774 667213

ITO World Ltd - Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number 5753174

Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ.

Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ.

Telephone - 01473 272225

www.itoworld.com

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
They are intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager
or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or
make copies thereof.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes

[Peter Miller]

Barry,

Are you saying that a road marked with a numeric sign of '60 mph' defines a
different legal maximum speed for some vehicle types from a single
carriageway road marked with a white sign and a black diagonal? For example
that a bus/coach/car+trailer/HGV less that 7.5 tonnes are only be able to
operate at 50 mph on a national limit single carriageway road (for examples
one tagged marked maxspeed=60 mph,maxspeed:type=gb:national), but can
operate at 60mph on a dual carriageway road signed numerically (ie
maxspeed=60 mph;maxspeed:type=sign)?


Peter



On 24 September 2013 16:04, Barry Cornelius wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Richard Mann wrote:
>
>> So...on the basis that we should tag what is there, we see a white sign
>> with a black diagonal line on it then that is
>> what we should indicate. We do of course interpret that by putting what
>> we believe if the correct legal speed limit in
>> maxspeed. As such a single carriageway national limit is coded as
>> "maxspeed:type=gb:national,**maxspeed=60 mph". As dual
>> carriageway is tagged as "maxspeed:type=gb:national,**maxspeed=70 mph".
>> The motorway version is
>> "highway=motorway,maxspeed:**type=gb:national,maxspeed=70 mph".
>>
>
> I was once on a speed awareness course.  Many of the attendees were
> unaware of what the limits were on the different kinds of road.  So the
> question was raised as to why a black diagonal line is used and not a value
> like 50 or 60 or 70 which make life a lot easier.
>
> The reason is that the maximum speed is dependent on the kind of vehicle
> you are driving.  It's defined in Rule 125 of the Highway Code which is at:
>https://www.gov.uk/general-**rules-all-drivers-riders-103-**
> to-158/control-of-the-vehicle-**117-to-126<https://www.gov.uk/general-rules-all-drivers-riders-103-to-158/control-of-the-vehicle-117-to-126>
>
> So I wonder whether it is appropriate to include "maxspeed=70 mph" in OSM
> as it could be misunderstood.  It is only appropriate for some road users.
>  This was certainly the argument being proposed for not having 70 on road
> signs.
>
> Of course, another reason for not using numerical values on road signs is
> that if the UK were ever to change the value of the national speed limits
> then it would mean a lot of signs to change!  I guess this does not apply
> to OSM as global editing is a little easier.
>
> Although I lurk on this list, I'm not an OSM contributor.
>
> --
> Barry Cornelius
> http://www.northeastraces.com/
> http://www.thehs2.com/
> http://www.rowmaps.com/
> http://www.oxonpaths.com/
> http://www.barrycornelius.com/
>
>
>
> __**_
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gb<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>



-- 

Peter Miller CEO

+44(0) 7774 667213

ITO World Ltd - Registered in England & Wales - Registration Number 5753174

Office - 2nd Floor, 25 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AQ.

Registered Office - 32 Hampstead Heath, London, NW3 1JQ.

Telephone - 01473 272225

www.itoworld.com

IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
They are intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager
or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or
make copies thereof.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Fwd: National speed limit changes

[Peter Miller]

I have just noticed that this response went only to Andy. Forwarding to to
the list now.

Peter


On 24 September 2013 14:26, SomeoneElse  wrote:

>  Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks for replying here.
>
> Peter Miller wrote:
>
>
>  So...on the basis that we should tag what is there, we see a white sign
> with a black diagonal line on it then that is what we should indicate. We
> do of course interpret that by putting what we believe if the correct legal
> speed limit in maxspeed. As such a single carriageway national limit is
> coded as "maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=60 mph". As dual carriageway
> is tagged as "maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=70 mph". The motorway
> version is "highway=motorway,maxspeed:type=gb:national,maxspeed=70 mph".
>
>
> I understand the potential problem (does a national speed limit dual
> carriageway slip road count as a dual carriageway or not?) but am concerned
> that changing e.g. "GB:nsl_single" to "gb:national" will:
>
> o potentially obscure any underlying data errors (imagine something tagged
> "maxspeed=70 mph, maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_single")
>
> o make things more difficult for data consumers (if only by changing the
> data from something that they might be expecting)
>
> o confuse new mappers who see data that they've entered being changed
> because it's "wrong", when in reality there really isn't a concensus on
> this.
>
> I fully accept that national speed limit tagging in the UK is a mess (at
> the time of writing 4 of the top 6 values for
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/maxspeed:type#values could mean
> the same thing) but any consolidation must proceed following discussion.
>

Sure, and I am politely inviting people to discuss the subject now and am
suggesting that it makes a lot of sense to consolidate around a tag value
which describes what one sees in front of one on the ground, ie a black and
white sign. To be clear I in the habit of using the nsl_single and nsl_dual
format until PinkDuck politely pointed out that I was tagging some
slip-road etc incorrectly and we agreed that is made more sense to avoid
the confusion in the first place and use the simpler gb:national.


>
> With regard to the other point:
>
>
> For avoidance of doubt, all my edits have been fully manual.
>
>
> I don't believe that anyone has suggested otherwise
>

I was responding to Roberts comment above that "I certainly don't think
there has been any discussion of or agreement for a mass mechanical edit to
change existing values."


> although I have certainly suggested that you may not have visited all of
> the places that you have been changing the speed limit for.  There is
> clearly a sliding scale between "I've surveyed an area, and everything that
> I've edited is based on the results of that survey, aided by e.g. Bing,
> OSSV, and other named sources" and "I've changed a bunch of tags worldwide
> based on who knows what information without even looking where I've changed
> them".
>
> The wiki's "mechanical edit 
> policy<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy>"
> (as currently written) suggests that changes of this type may be covered
> ("search-and-replace operations using an editor... unless your changes are
> backed up by knowledge or survey") - I guess that it depends on what you
> mean by "knowledge" **.
>
> Clearly no-one's going to object to some tag-changing edits
> (designation=public_fooptath to designation=public_footpath for example)
> but in this case there's enough doubt - other mappers have said "I think
> the changes should reverted" and "This tag is vital" in the replies to my
> original mail.
>
> Based on that, where you've changed e.g. "GB:nsl_single" to "gb:national"
> would it be possible for you to revert your changes?  There's clearly a
> discussion to be had going forward about which one of GB:blah, UK:blah,
> gb:blah and uk:blah we need to keep, but based on the replies so far there
> doesn't appear to be a concensus to support merging of everything into
> "gb:national".
>

I don't hear a clamoring for such a reversion, and indeed I don't think
anyone in OSM is sufficiently knowledgeable able the law to say for sure
which tag should be used in all cases as I have indicated above.


Peter

Cheers,
>
> Andy
>
> ** In which case quite possibly mea culpa for the changesets that I refer
> to 
> here<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-September/015227.html>-
>  it's not black and white.
>
>
> _

Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes

[Peter Miller]

To attempt to summarise the situation:


   - The maximum legal speed for any vehicle should be a number in maxspeed
   following by " mph".
   - There should also be information available to say if this speed is
   defined as a number in a circle or a black and white sign
   - There is also benefit, for various reasons, to know if a road is
   single carriageway or dual carriageway.
   - There also seems to be agreement (in the form of silence from some)
   that there is no clear definition of what is and is not a dual-carriageway
   in the UK without going to court!
   - OSM tagging policy is generally that one should tag what one sees.

As such, it seems unreasonable to ask a new mapper to great a situation
requiring a court case for every ambiguous section of road in the country
to establish if they are dual carriageways or single carriageways. This is
why I suggest we use GB:national to indicate that the speed is set by a
black/white sign.

We could however compromise and suggest 'GB:nsl_dual' where we know if is a
dual carriageway, 'GB:nsl:single' where we know it isn't and GB:national
where we aren't sure.

Alternatively, we could always use 'GB:national' for the maxspeed type and
add other tagging to indicate dual carriagewayness, either using
'carriagway=A/B' tag or a relation with type=dual-carriageway or similar.

Or..  and this is the simplest approach in the short term as far as I can
see which I have been advocating, we can imply dual-carriagewayness by a
combining a highway tag with the tag pairs  'maxspeed=70' and
'maxspeed:type=GB:national'. I say this because the '70 mph' value for
maxspeed can only be used case where a road is a dual-carriageway. As we
get clearer about what constitutes a dual-carriageway or not we then only
need to change with speed between 70 mph to 60 mph. We can then also
populate approach dual-carriageway tagging on these roads.


Regards,



Peter


On 29 September 2013 00:45, Nick Allen  wrote:

> Peter,
>
> After your first post on this, my initial thought was that you were
> correct and the simpler tag you were proposing was enough. I started
> following your proposal, but I've thought a little more & feel that the
> more involved 'GB:nsl_single' type tag is actually needed & I'll be going
> back through my work over the last couple of days and changing it back.
>
> My thinking is;
>
> i/. The basis of GB law is that it is up to the individual to know what
> the law states, and to comply with it. No matter what your SatNav tells you
> it won't help you when you are standing in a court explaining your actions
> - the SatNav is a guide only and some maintain that they are unsafe as they
> distract the driver who may therefore miss the speed limits being displayed.
>
> ii/. If you are driving a motor vehicle with very few exceptions you
> should comply with the law regarding speed limits.
>iia/. A built up area with street lighting (I'm not entirely sure how
> you define built up area, and I seem to remember something about the street
> lights being no more than 200 yards apart) will have a speed limit of 30
> mph unless there are signs indicating otherwise, & there should be repeater
> signs at intervals if it is not a 30mph area.
>iib/. National speed limit signs - the national speed limit has changed
> during my lifetime. Motorways are fairly simple, and for a car (not towing)
> it will be 70mph. Two-way roads with a national speed limit sign are also
> fairly simple, being 60mph for a car (not towing). Dual carriageways -
> little bit more complex - an island in the middle of the road to assist
> pedestrians to cross is not sufficient to make it a dual carriageway, but
> you would need to look at the current case law to help in deciding what
> exactly is a dual carriageway. I don't think a long length of wide road
> with the lanes divided by white crosshatch markings on the road, even if
> this exists for a length measured in miles, counts as a dual carriageway -
> it needs to have a physical barrier involved.
>iiic/. A prescribed limit indicated by signs such as '40', '50' etc..
>
> iii/. The current software writers who seem to be using OSM data are
> mainly wrestling with the basics of navigating a car anywhere in the world
> but I think steps are being made towards navigation for larger vehicles,
> and these vehicles are likely to have different speed limits imposed on
> them in GB national speed limit areas. If they are writing software for
> navigating a 40 tonne lorry across Europe then the least we can do is try
> to indicate what type of road it is so they can attempt to give an
> indication to the driver of what is the maximum speed they may legally

Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes

[Peter Miller]

On 29 September 2013 10:05, Colin Smale  wrote:

> **
>
> Peter,
>
> I say this because the '70 mph' value for maxspeed can only be used case
> where a road is a dual-carriageway.
>
> What about link roads and slip roads? Sometimes they seem to go on for
> miles without an obvious "other carriageway". Yet the correct maxspeed is
> often 70mph, is it not?
>
> How about saying that 70mph can only be valid on a way tagged as one-way?
>

In a word, I believe the answer is 'no'. I say that because the legal
definition of a dual-carriageway appears to be vague, with unclear
edge-cases. There are certainly examples of one-way national speed limit
trunk and primary roads which are not 70 mph. Possibly it would be best to
discuss some actual situations.

How about Junction 31 on the A14 junction to the west of Cambridge. Most
slip roads are currently 60 mph, but one is 70 mph. A short section of
parallel ways of the Huntingdon Road is shown as 70 mph however I am not
now clear if that short section constitutes a dual carriageway.
http://www.itoworld.com/map/124?lon=0.07067&lat=52.23321&zoom=15&fullscreen=true

How about the many short sections of 'dual-carriagway' on the A120 in Essex
such as this one. Dual carriageway or not? I am not clear.
http://www.itoworld.com/map/124?lon=1.21929&lat=51.92823&zoom=17&fullscreen=true

Or this junction between the M1 and A421. Again, short sections of
'dual-cariageway' and slip roads to both a motorway and a trunk road. What
is their status?
http://www.itoworld.com/map/124?lon=-0.60951&lat=52.02764&zoom=16&fullscreen=true

It is for these reasons that I advocate setting maxspeed:type simply to
'GB:national' and then interpretting it to the best of our current
knowledge as a numeric limit in maxspeed. Possibly we should err on the
side of caution with the numeric limit.


Regards,


Peter


Colin
>
> On 2013-09-29 10:14, Peter Miller wrote:
>
>  To attempt to summarise the situation:
>
>
>- The maximum legal speed for any vehicle should be a number in
>maxspeed following by " mph".
>- There should also be information available to say if this speed is
>defined as a number in a circle or a black and white sign
>- There is also benefit, for various reasons, to know if a road is
>single carriageway or dual carriageway.
>- There also seems to be agreement (in the form of silence from some)
>that there is no clear definition of what is and is not a dual-carriageway
>in the UK without going to court!
>- OSM tagging policy is generally that one should tag what one sees.
>
>  As such, it seems unreasonable to ask a new mapper to great a situation
> requiring a court case for every ambiguous section of road in the country
> to establish if they are dual carriageways or single carriageways. This is
> why I suggest we use GB:national to indicate that the speed is set by a
> black/white sign.
>
> We could however compromise and suggest 'GB:nsl_dual' where we know if is
> a dual carriageway, 'GB:nsl:single' where we know it isn't and GB:national
> where we aren't sure.
>
> Alternatively, we could always use 'GB:national' for the maxspeed type and
> add other tagging to indicate dual carriagewayness, either using
> 'carriagway=A/B' tag or a relation with type=dual-carriageway or similar.
>
> Or..  and this is the simplest approach in the short term as far as I can
> see which I have been advocating, we can imply dual-carriagewayness by a
> combining a highway tag with the tag pairs  'maxspeed=70' and
> 'maxspeed:type=GB:national'. I say this because the '70 mph' value for
> maxspeed can only be used case where a road is a dual-carriageway. As we
> get clearer about what constitutes a dual-carriageway or not we then only
> need to change with speed between 70 mph to 60 mph. We can then also
> populate approach dual-carriageway tagging on these roads.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> On 29 September 2013 00:45, Nick Allen  wrote:
>
>> Peter,
>>
>> After your first post on this, my initial thought was that you were
>> correct and the simpler tag you were proposing was enough. I started
>> following your proposal, but I've thought a little more & feel that the
>> more involved 'GB:nsl_single' type tag is actually needed & I'll be going
>> back through my work over the last couple of days and changing it back.
>>
>> My thinking is;
>>
>> i/. The basis of GB law is that it is up to the individual to know what
>> the law states, and to comply with it. No matter what your SatNav tells you
&

Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes

[Peter Miller]

On 2 October 2013 10:15, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30 September 2013 08:12, Peter Miller 
> wrote:
> > On 29 September 2013 10:05, Colin Smale  wrote:
> >> How about saying that 70mph can only be valid on a way tagged as
> one-way?
> >
> > In a word, I believe the answer is 'no'. I say that because the legal
> > definition of a dual-carriageway appears to be vague, with unclear
> > edge-cases. There are certainly examples of one-way national speed limit
> > trunk and primary roads which are not 70 mph.
>
> But that's not what Colin was saying. He was suggesting, "70mph
> implies one-way", not "one-way implies 70mph".
>
> Or to put it another way, he was saying "70 is not allowed on a
> two-way road" rather than "a one-way road must be 70".
>

I see what you mean. I agree than one could use the 70mph/not one way pair
as an indicator that either a one-way tag is missing or that the 70 is in
error.

>
> > It is for these reasons that I advocate setting maxspeed:type simply to
> > 'GB:national' and then interpretting it to the best of our current
> knowledge
> > as a numeric limit in maxspeed. Possibly we should err on the side of
> > caution with the numeric limit.
>
> In that case, surely it is better to make use of the more definite
> tags GB:nsl_single and GB:nsl_dual when we are sure of the type of
> road (which will be the majority of cases), and only use GB:national
> for the cases where we aren't sure.
>

> (Ok, so you can work out which is implied by looking at the maxspeed
> value, but that's additional work for data users, and means that it's
> less clear how the mapper has come to their maxspeed conclusion. Also,
> with your suggestion of caution on unclear cases, there would be no
> way to distinguish between a definite single carriageway road and the
> unsure situation, since both would use maxspeed=60pmh and
> maxspeed:type=GB:national.)
>
> Agreed.

Fyi, Ed Loach has just emailed me with a load of analysis of where 'dual
carriageway' signs are used and should be used. I suggest we may also want
to make more use of a separate tag associated with those signs. I have
encouraged him to post this to the list, although he had a technical error
with posting to the list a few days ago.


On 27 September 2013 15:40, Peter Miller  wrote:
> >> Based on that, where you've changed e.g. "GB:nsl_single" to
> "gb:national"
> >> would it be possible for you to revert your changes?  There's clearly a
> >> discussion to be had going forward about which one of GB:blah, UK:blah,
> >> gb:blah and uk:blah we need to keep, but based on the replies so far
> there
> >> doesn't appear to be a concensus to support merging of everything into
> >> "gb:national".
> >
> > I don't hear a clamoring for such a reversion, and indeed I don't think
> > anyone in OSM is sufficiently knowledgeable able the law to say for sure
> > which tag should be used in all cases as I have indicated above.
>
> If there have been bulk changes from more specific things like
> "GB:nsl_single" to the more general "GB:national", then I have already
> said in a previous message that I think those changes should be
> reverted. There had been no previous discussion or agreement about
> making the changes (which is reason in itself for reverting), and
> there still doesn't appear to be a consensus. Also, it's arguably
> loosing information (whether it's right or wrong) captured by the
> original mapper. In almost all cases it will be obvious whether a road
> is a dual carriageway or not. I don't believe the few edge cases
> warrant removing the majority of good information.
>

There has not been any bulk changes to my knowledge. I for one have not
done any, and this is not the first time in this thread that I have had to
clarify that I have not done so, can we now drop this suggestion please.

To be clear, I have been moved some gb:national style tagging from
source:maxspeed to macspeed:type to allow source:maxspeed to be used for
information about the data gathering process and may have simplified with
to GB:national in the process (apologies), but I have not done any bulk or
mechanical edits - every change has been manual and associated with adding
speed limit data in a neighbouring area.

 Peter


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



-- 

Peter Miller CEO

+44(0) 7

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

[Peter Miller]

On 12 Dec 2008, at 00:40, Mark Williams wrote:

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

I have been working on adding wiki pages for every County and Unitary  
Authority in the UK (there are 140 in total) so that we have a  
consistent place to add this sort of information. There were articles  
for some and there are about 19 added so far. Could people add county  
pages for their areas and and use this for a hit-list section of  
wanted places?:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:County_in_England

This is the sort of format I use. A general overview of what is done  
and not done and what people could do:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Suffolk(UK)

For villages it is necessary to create district pages as well  
otherwise there are too many of them in the list. Here is a district  
page with details of what needs to be done and what has been done in  
East Cambs
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/East_Cambridgeshire

New mappers should be able to see what needed to be done in their  
areas and we can use it to plan the 'mopping up' of the missing areas!

Btw, Lincolnshire has the lowest population density of any county in  
England, that might be one reason for the lack of mapping.

Regards,


Peter


>> Cheers
>
> Basildon, in Essex.
>
> I can't think of many reasons anyone would go there, other than  
> perhaps
> bowling at Bas Vegas or walking round, well, the bits I've already
> walked round... It's all a bit chavvish with added drug users.
>
Muki Haslan at UCL published a paper last summer that pointed out that  
OSM was not mapping deprived areas. It has some other useful  
information. I wonder if he could be encouraged to update his research  
and produce a more detailed map.
http://povesham.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/openstreetmap-quality-evalution-and-other-comparisons/
 
.

> It needs a mapping party sometime - I think I'll look at that when the
> weather picks up though, Basildon in the rain is just too awful :)
>
> Although I did see on Ito-world that someone's done a bit recently.

For some time we (at ITO) have being planning to do a thematic mapping  
view of these un-loved places by combining the census data and OSM  
data. Each census output area covers about 100 households so there  
must be able 300,000 of them so it is very detailed. The idea would be  
to check that there are roads in each OA and to look at the ratio of  
roads/people in each  area. We would then produce a thematic map for  
the UK showing where there were people but no roads in OSM. Would that  
be useful? I would need to check but it is my understanding that there  
are no copyright issues with doing this and anyway we are not using it  
to map from we are using it to tell us where to map.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ONS_coding_system

>
>
> We could do a mapping party with 10-pin bowling after; there may  
> well be
> somewhere amenable to accommodating us for the day.
>
> Has anyone tried a geocaching event with mapping included? Sort of
> 'cache in maps out' as it were... it should pick up some GPS owners.
> I've never understood why there's so little crossover with that. There
> are really quite a lot [of geocaches] in & around Essex.
>
> Can we convince one of the pub listing or similar websites to take on
> our mapping? This would give some fairly public places an incentive to
> get their area done, at least. Things like WI & religious groups often
> have a website & don't want ads all over it as well, and could use  
> clean
> maps, and have lots of activists - mostly without GPS in my  
> experience,
> though.
>
Do remember that the local councils might be interested themselves.  
There is growing official awareness that OSM exists and might be  
useful to them. That is one reason why I am building the local  
authority pages.

Peter

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


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

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

[Peter Miller]

On 12 Dec 2008, at 09:13, Steve Hill wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> I have been working on adding wiki pages for every County and Unitary
>> Authority in the UK (there are 140 in total) so that we have a
>> consistent place to add this sort of information. There were articles
>> for some and there are about 19 added so far. Could people add county
>> pages for their areas and and use this for a hit-list section of
>> wanted places?:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:County_in_England
>
> Just a thought, but UK != England - might it be an idea to rename  
> this page, or is the plan to create separate pages for Wales,  
> Scotland, Northern Ireland...?
>
I agree GB != UK != England.

This list is called 'talk-GB' but in the description it is described  
as "General discussion for UK users"
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo

I think GB is probably right for this list (ie england, scotland and  
wales) so can someone change the description? Northern Ireland is  
geographically part of Ireland so should be covered in the Ireland list.

As for 'counties in England' I don't have a strong view. Should it me  
counties in GB or should we have different ones?


>> Do remember that the local councils might be interested themselves.
>> There is growing official awareness that OSM exists and might be
>> useful to them. That is one reason why I am building the local
>> authority pages.
>
> I'm not sure why the councils would use OSM - as far as I know the  
> councils' internal systems (e.g. highways department, etc) are  
> heavilly based on OS maps with the council's own layers overlaid.   
> This means (as I interpret it):
>
> 1. The council's own layers are derived from OS maps so could never  
> be integrated with OSM
> 2. Since the councils have to publish their maps they presumably  
> already have a licence from OS to do so, so using OSM *as well*  
> won't save them money.
> 3. Like it or not, OS maps are usually more detailed than OSM - most  
> (all?) areas in OSM don't map detail like where the running lanes of  
> a road end and the walkway begins and few areas have individual  
> buildings mapped.  For example, zoom into some of the residential  
> streets on: http://maps.swansea.gov.uk/localview/OnTheMap.aspx
>
> I'd be pretty interested to hear another side to the argument  
> though. :)
>

We all know about the OS licencing issues and so do councils! There is  
a real bun-fight between the OS Google and councils over licencing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/20/ordnance-survey-google-maps

I am frequently invited to talk about OSM to council people and did so  
again last month. Last week I was demonstrating progress with OSM to  
people at the DfT. Here is a research project that we are part of  
(paid for by the DfT and other departments) that is looking at the  
whole user-generated content area to help the government see how it  
should engage.
http://ideasintransit.wikia.com/wiki/Ideas_in_transit

Here are all the projects I know of that relate to OSM and are within  
scope of the project. Would anyone like to add content to OSM related  
articles on the ideas in transit wiki? It would be great to have some  
of these articles updated.
http://ideasintransit.wikia.com/wiki/Category:OpenStreetMap


Regards,


Peter

> - Steve
>   xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org   sip:st...@nexusuk.org   http://www.nexusuk.org/
>
> Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence
>


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Visit to academics in london

[Peter Miller]

A good point of contact would be Muki Haklay, our long term supporter  
within UCL

Here are his recent posts that are tagged 'openstreetmap'
http://povesham.wordpress.com/tag/openstreetmap/


Regards,


Peter

On 14 Dec 2008, at 00:30, Thomas Wood wrote:

> Do we even have any academics at UCL working actively on OSM? I
> thought they just hosted our servers since the project leadership have
> good contacts?
>
> 2008/12/13 Bruce Cowan :
>> On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 14:09 +, James Stewart wrote:
>>> I am down from Edinburgh university and wondered if any academics  
>>> at ucl working on osm might have time to meet about work on  
>>> project. I do mapping, but am interested in doing research on osm.
>>> Regards
>>> James stewart
>>>
>>>
>>> - Message from talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org -
>> [snip huge amount of text]
>>
>> Please be careful when you reply to a digest message to not quote the
>> whole digest.
>> --
>> Bruce Cowan 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> Thomas Wood
> (Edgemaster)
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

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

[Peter Miller]

On 15 Dec 2008, at 18:20, matthew-...@newtoncomputing.co.uk wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:14:53PM +0000, Peter Miller wrote:
>> This list is called 'talk-GB' but in the description it is described
>> as "General discussion for UK users"
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
>>
>> I think GB is probably right for this list (ie england, scotland and
>> wales) so can someone change the description? Northern Ireland is
>> geographically part of Ireland so should be covered in the Ireland  
>> list.
>
> "Talk-GBGeneral discussion for users in Great Britain"
>
> Better?
>


Much better :)


Peter


> Cheers,
>
> -- 
> Matthew


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

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

[Peter Miller]

On 15 Dec 2008, at 21:00, Chris Hill wrote:

> Peter Miller wrote:
>> On 15 Dec 2008, at 18:20, matthew-...@newtoncomputing.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:14:53PM +, Peter Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> This list is called 'talk-GB' but in the description it is  
>>>> described
>>>> as "General discussion for UK users"
>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
>>>>
>>>> I think GB is probably right for this list (ie england, scotland  
>>>> and
>>>> wales) so can someone change the description? Northern Ireland is
>>>> geographically part of Ireland so should be covered in the  
>>>> Ireland  list.
>>>>
>>> "Talk-GBGeneral discussion for users in Great Britain"
>>>
>>> Better?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Much better :)
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
> Except that the ISO code for the UK is GB, so Talk-GB is for the UK.

It is true that the ISO code for the UK is GB but it also appears to  
be incorrect! Here is a long article on wikipedia about england,  
wales, scotland, GB, UK, Ireland, Eire and ISO codes!

"GB is the ISO 3166 code for the United Kingdom."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_(terminology)

Regards,



Peter


>
>
> Cheers,
> Chris


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

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

[Peter Miller]

On 16 Dec 2008, at 10:08, Steve Hill wrote:

> Peter Miller wrote:
>> We all know about the OS licencing issues and so do councils! There  
>> is a real bun-fight between the OS Google and councils over  
>> licencing.
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/20/ordnance-survey-google-maps
>
> Ok, that's pretty interesting - it is good to see that the councils  
> are starting to realise how the licences can come back and bite  
> them.  The article mentioned that Google has changed their mapping  
> licence to make clear that it isn't claiming ownership of the data -  
> does this mean that their licence would now allow us to trace their  
> satellite photos?

Most certainly not. The reason we can't trace from Google's aerial  
photograph is because I understand that deriving mapping from it is  
specifically excluded. Ed Parsons confirmed that at the SOTM  
conference this year. All google are saying is that if one places a  
layer of OS data on top of google data then google don't claim  
ownership of that data, but I think they do retain the right to crawl  
it. the OS don't like that!

Here are some more reasons why Local Authorities might be interested  
in OSM. More of the same really ...

http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/blog/?p=256

http://www.edparsons.com/2008/09/ordnance-survey-and-the-google-maps-api/


Regards,



Peter


Regards,


Peter
>
>


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

[Talk-GB] Yet another rail network map

[Peter Miller]

On 17 Dec 2008, at 22:03, Steve Chilton wrote:

> Bizarely, the day Kaerest released his openrailmap I had rendered a  
> UK rail network map - purely for visualisation and checking  
> purposes, but have only just had time to upload it to the server.
> It is at: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~steve8/railway.html
> No particular plans to enhance it or add details.
> It is just a companion to: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~steve8/canal.html
> which has been re-rendered with last week's UK planet file.
>

Great stuff (and great minds!). Is there an agreed (or common)  
approach to tagging abandoned/dismantled railway stations? There isn't  
anything in map features about it, but it would be great content to  
have in there in OSM, particularly for those with an interest in  
historical railways. To render historical stations on these maps would  
encourage contributors (as in 'render and they will come').

What about proposed lines and stations? There are a number of these in  
the UK and again it would be very useful to be able to see where they  
were. railway=construction construction=rail? railway=proposed  
proposed=rail?

On the subject of historical railways, can one use start-date and end- 
date attributes to animate the life of the UK's railway network,  
watching it growing a shrinking over the years. There may be some  
complex cases where a line opened, closed and was then re-opened, but  
we could leave that for now in order to get the basic information in.

Could these maps render the 'lanes' tag, around which there seems to  
be an emerging consensus  for showing the number of tracks, typically  
1 for single track working, 2 and the 4. The rendering should use a  
different style for single track working and multi-track, typically  
using a different symbol.

How about rendering speed limits using colour? There are some sections  
of track with max-speed already, but this rendering would greatly  
encouraged if it for other areas.


Regards,


Peter

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Yet another rail network map

[Peter Miller]

On 18 Dec 2008, at 11:12, Shaun McDonald wrote:

>
> On 18 Dec 2008, at 10:52, Peter Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> Could these maps render the 'lanes' tag, around which there seems to
>> be an emerging consensus  for showing the number of tracks, typically
>> 1 for single track working, 2 and the 4. The rendering should use a
>> different style for single track working and multi-track, typically
>> using a different symbol.
>
> I'm starting to come round to the thinking that we should use one  
> way for each track, as often happens now in stations. You can then  
> get detailed to the point of where you can change tracks, and which  
> tracks actually have a platform against them.
>

Doing the track layout within the station is something I am sure that  
railway people will want to do - indeed they won't be able to resist  
doing it :) Do lets get the separation of the track true-to-life though.

With regard to long sections of parallel track between stations I  
suggest the 'lanes' tag could be suitable, if not then the parallel  
tracks would need to be placed the correct physical distance apart and  
then the renderers would need to be able to simplify the presentation  
down to a single line for wider area maps and do two track far enough  
apart so that they can be distinguished from each other for close up  
maps.

Sounds like we are going to need to 'suck it and see'. Possibly we  
should go for the most detailed representation on the ground and then  
use relations to associate elements together to help the renderer.



Regards,


Peter


>>
>>
>> How about rendering speed limits using colour? There are some  
>> sections
>> of track with max-speed already, but this rendering would greatly
>> encouraged if it for other areas.
>>
>
> Good idea.
>
> I'd also be interested in whether a section of track is electrified.  
> Has anyone got any ideas for that? power=overhead/third_rail/none/ 
> overhead_and_third_rail ?
>
> Shaun
>


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Yet another rail network map

[Peter Miller]

On 18 Dec 2008, at 11:12, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
>
> For features with a previous use (eg abandoned stations) I have more  
> of as
> problem at this juncture of the project. At some point I'd really  
> like to be
> able to record some historical map data but I don't feel we have the  
> tools
> and editing visualisation to do it properly at the moment. I also  
> have a big
> concern about how old features which have now been lost (no visual
> representation) can reside with objects that are at the same  
> location today.
> In some cases, especially for roads, parts of old may be  
> incorporated into
> the present.
>

Ok, so the only abandoned stations that should be included are ones  
where the actual station still exists, even if it has been re- 
purposed. An abandoned station with the old platform visible and  
possibly a derelict building could be shown as  
railway=abandoned_station.  A re-purposed station could possibly be  
tagged as building=restaurant and railway=abandoned_station?

If all physical evidence of the station has gone then it should not be  
marked.

Should the same rules apply to railway lines and to other historical  
features - ie if they have completely gone then they should not be  
marked?

A railway line that is now a footpath, or a cycle path or even an  
identifiable strip of wildlife and tress should be shown but if it is  
now plowed fields then it should not be shown?


Peter

> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
>> boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Peter Miller
>> Sent: 18 December 2008 10:52 AM
>> To: Steve Chilton
>> Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: [Talk-GB] Yet another rail network map
>>
>>
>> On 17 Dec 2008, at 22:03, Steve Chilton wrote:
>>
>>> Bizarely, the day Kaerest released his openrailmap I had rendered a
>>> UK rail network map - purely for visualisation and checking
>>> purposes, but have only just had time to upload it to the server.
>>> It is at: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~steve8/railway.html
>>> No particular plans to enhance it or add details.
>>> It is just a companion to:
>> http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~steve8/canal.html
>>> which has been re-rendered with last week's UK planet file.
>>>
>>
>> Great stuff (and great minds!). Is there an agreed (or common)
>> approach to tagging abandoned/dismantled railway stations? There  
>> isn't
>> anything in map features about it, but it would be great content to
>> have in there in OSM, particularly for those with an interest in
>> historical railways. To render historical stations on these maps  
>> would
>> encourage contributors (as in 'render and they will come').
>>
>> What about proposed lines and stations? There are a number of these  
>> in
>> the UK and again it would be very useful to be able to see where they
>> were. railway=construction construction=rail? railway=proposed
>> proposed=rail?
>>
>> On the subject of historical railways, can one use start-date and  
>> end-
>> date attributes to animate the life of the UK's railway network,
>> watching it growing a shrinking over the years. There may be some
>> complex cases where a line opened, closed and was then re-opened, but
>> we could leave that for now in order to get the basic information in.
>>
>> Could these maps render the 'lanes' tag, around which there seems to
>> be an emerging consensus  for showing the number of tracks, typically
>> 1 for single track working, 2 and the 4. The rendering should use a
>> different style for single track working and multi-track, typically
>> using a different symbol.
>>
>> How about rendering speed limits using colour? There are some  
>> sections
>> of track with max-speed already, but this rendering would greatly
>> encouraged if it for other areas.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>> Cheers
>>> STEVE
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1854 - Release Date:  
>> 17/12/2008
>> 7:21 PM
>


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

[Talk-GB] Official database of 350, 00 GB bus stops etc and 50, 000 places to be made available!

[Peter Miller]

I am pleased to be able to announce that after discussions between  
various OSM contributors and the DfT / Traveline over the past months  
we are now able to make this announcement just in time for Xmas :)


---

The UK Department for Transport, together with Traveline, is offering
to make available the bulk of the data from their NaPTAN and NPTG data  
sets to

the OpenStreetMap project.

The National Public Transport Access Nodes (NaPTAN) dataset contains
details of some 350,000 public transport access points in Great  
Britain including bus stops,

railway stations, tram stops and ferry terminals. This data
includes a name, geocode, official code and other information useful
to the project.

The National Public Transport Gazetteer (NPTG) dataset is a gazetteer
of some 50,000 place names in the UK with a name and a geocode. These
places are arranged in a hierarchy so that it is known that Camden is
in London. Again there is additional information in the data set that
is useful to the project.

The Department requires that the official identifier for each feature
is also included in the imported data to allow the movement of these
features to be tracked over time and for updates to potentially be
added in the future.

For the avoidance of doubt the datasets themselves will remain Crown  
copyright. The Department

is however offering a single one-off bulk import to OpenStreetMap under
the required CCBYSA licence used on OSM. It may from time to time
offer updates, but this is not guaranteed at this stage. It is in
principle happy with also making the data available on the ODbL  
licence but

would make a final decision when the text for the licence is made
available.

This data would be made available in XML or CSV formats as per
published standards here:
http://www.naptan.org.uk/
http://www.nptg.org.uk/

The process of releasing the data would be as follows:

A trusted technical team (possibly consisting of one person) with OSM
is identified
An import process will be designed by the team and agreed with the
contact person at the DfT
The department will then release a copy of NaPTAN and NPTG to a
nominated individual for the purpose of entering the agreed data into
OSM in the agreed format.
On completion of the import the source datasets would be deleted.

I think you will all agree that this is a major opportunity for the  
OSM-GB project

and one which we should respond to positively.

I (Peter Miller/PeterIto) will make the introduction and will be happy  
to be on the

team but am not offering to do the bulk of the technical work.

This work is supported in this work by 'IdeasInTransit' which is a
five year research project funded by the UK government examining "what  
happens when people

and the power of the crowd come together with technology to address
the transport challenges faced by individuals and society".
http://ideasintransit.org/

I have added the key points from this post to a new NaPTAN wiki page  
where we can discuss the implications of this opportunity and how we  
take advantage of it.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN


Regards


Peter Miler
ITO World Ltd


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Official database of 350, 00 GB bus stops etc and 50, 000 places to be made available!

[Peter Miller]

On 23 Dec 2008, at 16:22, Chris Morley wrote:

> Peter Miller wrote:
>> The UK Department for Transport, together with Traveline, is offering
>> to make available the bulk of the data from their NaPTAN and NPTG  
>> data
>> sets to
>> the OpenStreetMap project.
>
> Well done Peter Miller, this is very welcome and illustrates the
> importance of OSM having professional supporters with influence as
> well as vision.
>
Absolutely. There is growing awareness and interest in official  
circles. The DfT chief scientist, Brian Collins is aware of the  
initiative and gives it his full support.

> But it sounds as if the DfT is conceding the concept of open data is
> rather reluctantly: the transfer process seems to complicate things
> without any useful result.

I really don't think it will be a problem. If we get a 'team' together  
we can probably agree the import process with them in a few days. As I  
understand it there is a small amount of data in the source files that  
is confidential to the department (addresses or something) but this is  
not data that we would want anyway. They just want to be sure that  
these bits don't get out as well.

The cautious wording is mine and is as much to reassure the people in  
the department who are new to CCBYSA that nothing fundamental is  
changing from their side.

I understand that there is also a small income associated with  
licencing the current data to commercial parties and at this stage  
they don't want to say to another bit of the DfT 'by the way, you know  
that data that you sell over there - well we give it away over here'.  
I believe that this is why the updates will be occasional not daily.

>> For the avoidance of doubt the datasets themselves will remain Crown
>> copyright. The Department
>> is however offering a single one-off bulk import to OpenStreetMap  
>> under
>> the required CCBYSA licence used on OSM.
> ...
>> An import process will be designed by the team and agreed with the
>> contact person at the DfT
> ...
>> On completion of the import the source datasets would be deleted.
>
> Couldn't somebody write a script to re-extract the data from planet?
> They would then have the NAPTAN and NPTG data, still with Crown
> Copyright but with a CCBYSA licence, which they could publish. The
> Department of Transport would no longer control of who has use of the
> complete dataset, which presumably is the reason for the complicated
> transfer process. It's a pity that the data wasn't released with fewer
> strings in the first place, but I guess this was as far as the DfT was
> prepared to progress.
>

I think we might be making more of this than is the case. As I  
understand it the process will be as follows:

1) We will agree how we are doing the import and what data we want to  
import and also what we will do about data that is already in the DB.  
We will document this on the wiki and discuss it on talk-GB.

2) They will then give us the source files (which contains a small  
amount of data which we are not importing and they don't want us to  
import)

3) We will do the import.

4) We delete the source files (including the small amount of data we  
don't want).

5) We have the data we imported for ever as per CCBYSA.

6) At a later data we might be offered a refresh of the data to update  
the records. I am sure these updates will get more frequent as the  
department gets more comfortable with the process and the benefits to  
the professional community become clearer.

7) When the new licence appear, they, along with every other  
contributor will read it and decide if they will agree to it.  This  
should be a formality as long as the licence is good.



Regards,



Peter

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Official database of 350, 00 GB bus stops etc and 50, 000 places to be made available!

[Peter Miller]

On 23 Dec 2008, at 16:41, David Earl wrote:

> On 23/12/2008 14:48, Peter Miller wrote:
>> I am pleased to be able to announce that after discussions between  
>> various OSM contributors and the DfT / Traveline over the past  
>> months we are now able to make this announcement just in time for  
>> Xmas :)
>> ---
>> The UK Department for Transport, together with Traveline, is offering
>> to make available the bulk of the data from their NaPTAN and NPTG  
>> data sets to
>> the OpenStreetMap project.
>
> Excellent news indeed. Well done.
>
> It will be interesting to see how these align with existing data.
>
As with every dataset there are of course errors (I know of a locality  
in the wrong place in Ipswich for example and another that doesn't  
actually exist). The first job would be to try matching up places from  
each source and spot the conflicts.

> Place names are going to be an interesting exercise as they are  
> unlikely to be in the same place - could be widely different.
>

The exciting thing about this from my side is that places (called  
localities) also come with a hierarchy and a centre geocode and a  
rough perimeter. We get the locality hierarchy because each place can  
have a parent. The rough perimeter comes out because every Stop Point  
is also associated with a locality, so one can put a rubber-band  
around all the stops that claim to be in Cambridge or a suburb of  
Cambridge and one has an approximate boundary for the place.

Every bus stop also says which administrative area it is in (a county/ 
borough/PTE) and so we get approximate authority boundaries as well.

Other stuff - every stop should have an associated street name and a  
direction of travel when it leaves the bus stop. This might help us  
with naming streets or at least cross-checking our streets with theirs.

> I imagine I could help if you want/need assistance with importing.

Your help would I am sure be very welcome. Would you like to put your  
offer/skills on the wiki?


Regards,



Peter

>
>
> David


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

[Talk-GB] New 'talk-transit' list for discussing all things to do with public transport and shared taxis

[Peter Miller]

A new 'talk-transit' list is now available for discussion of all  
things that relate to public transport (buses, trains, trams, ferries  
and air services) as well as for shared taxis.

Do subscribe and contribute to the discussion here:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Please direct future discussions on other lists to talk-transit or at  
least copy us in on the discussions.



Regards,



Peter


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

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

[Peter Miller]

On 10 Feb 2009, at 17:12, Brian Quinion wrote:

> Has anyone made any plans for mapping parties for any of the unloved
> north yet?  After cycling up and down the hilly climbs of Sheffield I
> quite fancy mapping somewhere flat like Lincolnshire :-)
>
> I've checked the wiki but didn't notice anything - so are their any
> unannounced plans in progress?
>

Should we investigate buying aerial photography for some of these un- 
loved places which would allow us the capture the base road structure  
and land-usage prior to any actual visit and speed things up a lot?  
The photography that Mikel and eye have been sorting out for Gaza  
Strip is costing $11 (£7.50) per sq km for 2 meter accuracy, 1 month  
old colour images (with the associated rights to derived mapping from  
them).
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Palestine_Gaza

Taking Grimsby as an example, it comes out at some 80 sq km (possibly  
significantly less) which to a total of £600. Lincoln seems a lot  
smaller, say 25 sq km? which means it would cost under £200. If we do  
this then I think it will be a lot more feasible to do a whole place  
in a single weekend which could be a lot more fun and allow us to tick  
places off with some speed!

I would suggest that a we create an initial 'shopping list' coming to  
a total of about £5,000 would be a good start (for Gaza we raised the  
required £4K in about 10 days).

I can think of two potential charitable partners who would make it  
possible to accept charitable donations for such a UK project and also  
a bunch of social funds that could be approached for financial support.

If we feel that 2 meter photography is not good enough then we could  
consider 50cm photography for $12-$25 or even 50cm stereo pairs at $50  
per sq km :) Here is some more detail about what is available from the  
new GeoEye Satellite
https://www.swiftpage6.com/speasapage.aspx?X=2Y0QTEPLHQNJ6RT800ZVW7

There are restrictions on public access to this imagery so the imagery  
would need to be served from something with some restrictions on the  
total number of people who can access it (an approved list on  
contributors). Simone is sorting stuff out for Gaza and might be able  
to provide more details in due course.

Thinking ahead,  should be set up an Aerial photography team who sort  
out the purchasing and hosting of commercial photography as and when  
required?


Regards,



Peter Miller


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


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

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

[Peter Miller]

On 10 Feb 2009, at 20:07, Chris Hill wrote:

> Brian Quinion wrote:
>>> Should we investigate buying aerial photography for some of these  
>>> un-loved
>>> places which would allow us the capture the base road structure and
>>> land-usage prior to any actual visit and speed things up a lot? The
>>> photography that Mikel and eye have been sorting out for Gaza  
>>> Strip is
>>> costing $11 (£7.50) per sq km for 2 meter accuracy, 1 month old  
>>> colour
>>> images (with the associated rights to derived mapping from them).
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Palestine_Gaza
>>>
>>
>> Please, please NO!
>>
> +1  Please don't waste resources on an area in the UK that can  
> comfortably mapped on the ground.  Aerial photos of a war zone is a  
> completely different thing where drawing maps on the ground is  
> dangerous.  I'm not very likely to come across unexploded ordnance  
> in Grimsby.

I hear you loud and clear! I mapped Ipswich prior to photography being  
available and then the yahoo aerial photography turned up and I  
reviewed the area using it.  I did find it useful to get the junction  
geometry correct, getting roundabouts the correct size, improving road  
centre-lines and spotting a bunch of missing features and doing the  
land-use more accurately. Personally I would have been happy to have  
had the support of the photography sooner but I do hear your message.

Speak for yourself regarding bombs though:)  I was mapping Felixstowe  
last summer when a 1000lb bomb got washed up on the beach and then got  
washed out to sea again before the army could deal with it! More  
details here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/7363722.stm


Regards,



Peter


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

[Talk-GB] English administrative divisions cleanup/fixup

[Peter Miller]

There is some admin_area data in the NaPTAN import that will be  
happening soon given that every bus stop is associated with a  
transport authority (county/unitary authority/Passenger Transport  
Executive).
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN

We will be discussing the details of this import on talk-transit and  
you might like to get involved.


Regards,


Peter



On 15 Feb 2009, at 14:19, Feargal Hogan wrote:

> Hi
>
> First post to the list.
>
> I've been looking to get access to a set of polygons for the main  
> English
> administrative divisions. I'm not that concerned with the celtic  
> regions for
> the time being. This data <> available via ONS/OS but with  
> licencing
> restrictions. Better to use/create a free-to-use set, I thought.
>
> Working on the basis that I needed to create it myself, I took the  
> list of
> schools at http://www.showusabetterway.co.uk/call/data.html#schools  
> and
> matched it against the NPE postcode data. It only managed to geocode  
> about
> 5% of the schools, but it was enough for my next proof-of-concept  
> step.
> Using the data I was able to create voronoi cells for each Local  
> Education
> Authority (well each one that contained at least one postcode in the  
> NPE
> dataset).
>
> These were not very accurate in most cases, but some data is better  
> than
> none.
>
> My next step was to see if I could 'help' the voronoi analysis by  
> excluding
> the areas where there was already free boundary polygons available.  
> This
> took me back to OSM. So I extracted the boundary data for England  
> using
> something like
> http://osmxapi.hypercube.telascience.org/api/0.5/ 
> *[boundary=administrative][
> bbox=-4.65,50.1,2,55.4]
> and had a good browse through it to see what I was getting. The
> 'free-tagging' nature of the OSM data (and this is not a criticism,  
> just an
> observation) means that it is difficult to quantify the quality of  
> the data,
> and also it is difficult to filter the dataset into something  
> meaningful and
> useful, at least for my purposes.
>
> I figure that I am going to have to do a fair bit of clean-up on  
> this data
> before it is useful to me. What would be a real waste of time would  
> be for
> me to do all the cleanup, and then NOT reflect it back into the OSM  
> dataset.
> Whilst I have done quite a bit of interactive editing using potlatch  
> and
> josm, I haven't done any dataset uploads.
>
> So my questions are:
> 1) How should I approach such a data cleanup operation? and
> 2) Are there any agreed data tagging standards for the UK or more
> specifically for England?
>
> Appreciate any comments or suggestions you might have.
> Thks
> Feargal Hogan
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

[Talk-GB] Tidying up wiki pages for the UK

[Peter Miller]

We are planning to give the UK administrative wiki pages a bit of a  
spring clean which are all a bit random, not very well linked and  
contain quite a lot of duplicated content and some very out-of-date  
content.

The plan is as follows:


Firstly we will create wiki pages for the English and welsh counties  
that don't already have one (not many missing actually).

We will then go through all the country pages and get them into a  
similar format with a live map at the top and a 'place' list down the  
right hand side. If there are articles for towns and districts within  
the county we will link to these from the county page.

We will create an England page and move the list of English Counties  
to this page from the UK page

We will create a Wales page (there isn't one yet!) and link it to the  
counties in Wales which we will create if necessary.

We will move any information about towns from the UK page to the  
relevant country page

We will then shrink the UK page down to a list of national projects  
(motorways/cycle routes, A roads etc) and then a list of pages for the  
parts of the UK (England,Wales,Scotland N.Ireland).

The general format we will be using for county pages will be the one  
used for Suffolk, however we will not dump any current information  
from existing County pages, we will just move it down the page.  
Anything blatantly out-of-date will be removed.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Suffolk

Any thoughts? Please say now if you disagree with any of the above.

When I say we, it is because I and JossSmithson (who works for ITO)  
will be doing the work between us. If anyone else wants to do any of  
this then please join in.


Regards,


Peter




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tidying up wiki pages for the UK

[Peter Miller]

On 9 Mar 2009, at 12:12, David Earl wrote:

> On 09/03/2009 12:04, Peter Miller wrote:
>> We are planning to give the UK administrative wiki pages a bit of  
>> a  spring clean which are all a bit random, not very well linked  
>> and  contain quite a lot of duplicated content and some very out-of- 
>> date  content.
>
> Quite a lot of the Cambs/West Suffolk stuff is organised by District  
> at the moment (though I perhaps mistakenly conflated Cambridge and  
> South Cambridgeshire, and e.g. the East Cambs page is actually named  
> Ely).
>
> District is a bit more manageable a unit than County I think.
>
> I like the idea of a coherent organisation by County, but an extra  
> level may well help IMO, for very active areas like the east of  
> England.

I fully agree that most of the detail will be at the district level  
and I did do a bunch of work sorting Cambs into a hierarchy like that  
some time ago. I think the district structure for Cambs should be good  
now.

All we are proposing at present is to sort out the UK page, create  
both England and Wales pages and then complete the English and  Welsh  
county pages - any more than that would be taking too long.

It does make sense to then build on this with districts/boroughs for  
the detail however we will be leaving that to the locals to sort out!


Regards,


Peter



>
>
> David


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tidying up wiki pages for the UK

[Peter Miller]

On 9 Mar 2009, at 13:06, Ed Loach wrote:
> r. I think
> therefore that the towns listed on each district page are probably
> more correct than those in the template (though some places are
> perhaps open to debate). Since then I've tended to concentrate on
> the district page where I live.
>
> The Essex page was originally based on the Suffolk page, so should
> be fairly easy for you to update if need be.
>

Agreed. I have now moved all the towns from the Suffolk page to the  
relevant District page.

For our 'first pass' we will concentrate on the county level and leave  
others to do the district level as they see fit.


Regards,


Peter


> Ed
>
>
>
>


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tidying up wiki pages for the UK

[Peter Miller]

On 9 Mar 2009, at 13:06, Ed Loach wrote:
>

A general update...


We have sorted the UK page into a pages for the relevant parts of the  
UK (England, Wales, Scotland and NI) and also a list of UK wide  
projects and have moved the England specific content from the UK page  
to a new England page.

We have created a category 'UK Projects' for UK wide projects. Do add  
to this here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:UK_Project

We have been adding appropriate county pages to the 'County in  
England' category.

We have also be rationalising the categories into which the county  
categories go. A county category (Suffolk) should be in its own County  
Category,  in the appropriate regional category and in the England  
Category if that makes sense!

We have added the regional categories (East of England)  into a  
'Regions in the UK' category.

We have removed counties from other categories when we find them.

There is plenty left to do, but I hope people are happy with what we  
have being doing so far.


Regards,


Peter



>
>
>


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tidying up wiki pages for the UK

[Peter Miller]

On 9 Mar 2009, at 15:36, Ed Loach wrote:

>> There is plenty left to do, but I hope people are happy with
>> what we
>> have being doing so far.
>
> Would it make more sense for
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/England
> to redirect to WikiProject_England now instead of
> WikiProject_United_Kingdom?
>
> If so then it can be easily updated at this link:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=England&action=edit

Done. thanks


Peter

>
>
> Ed
>
>


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

[Talk-GB] What should we do with the towns/cities section on the England page

[Peter Miller]

The Cities/Towns and Vilages section on the England page is very out- 
of-date. It is however a way of accessing the country by post code.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_England#Cities.2C_Towns_and_Villages

Personally I do see it belonging on England page and would like to see  
it move! I would be happy for it to live on its own page with a link  
from the England page. I could also see the merit to linking it to the  
UK postcode project and removing any content from it that becomes out  
of date quickly.

Post code project is here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_UK_Postcodes


Any thoughts?




Peter



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

Re: [Talk-GB] What should we do with the towns/cities section on the England page

[Peter Miller]

On 10 Mar 2009, at 12:57, Chris Hill wrote:

> Peter Miller wrote:
>> The Cities/Towns and Vilages section on the England page is very  
>> out- of-date. It is however a way of accessing the country by post  
>> code.
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_England#Cities.2C_Towns_and_Villages
>>
>> Personally I do see it belonging on England page and would like to  
>> see  it move! I would be happy for it to live on its own page with  
>> a link  from the England page. I could also see the merit to  
>> linking it to the  UK postcode project and removing any content  
>> from it that becomes out  of date quickly.
>>
>> Post code project is here:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_UK_Postcodes
>>
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>>
> Presumably you are going to blank out the list like you have the  
> list of counties.  The information for East Yorkshire was up-to-date  
> but it is now blanked out.  If I update it once again will you leave  
> it alone?

Ouch! and no, I certainly don't think an edit war is necessary or  
desirable.

Do be aware that the old list seemed to be a mixture of counties and  
unitary authorities and some were missing (such as Kent). There were  
some from Scotland (highlands) and Wales (monmouthshire) in the list  
even though there were links to a separate Scotland page - you get the  
idea.

We have chosen to use ceremonial counties as the basis for this level  
of the England page and aim to include all parts of the UK once and  
once only.

Can I ask you to bear with us while we:

1) Ensure that we do have every part of England in once an once only  
(we don't have that yet)
2) Have transferred the information we have rudely dumped on the floor  
to the new page - we will not however check the currency of that data.

Before we start are people happen with using ceremonial counties (such  
as Cheshire and Berkshire) at this top level? Cheshire was split into  
two unitaries a few weeks ago!




Regards,


Peter


>
>
> Chris


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

[Talk-GB] Free National Grid Vector Layers for gas and electricity?

[Peter Miller]

A nice friendly person in the GIS business has just pointed this site out to
me. They described it as a 'free' national grid vector layers and it
certainly looks as though one can download shape files for gas pipes,
electricity lines and the like. I am not sure what they mean by 'free'
though and can't find a license page. Anyone fancy looking into whether we
can use it or not?

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/GasElectricNW/undergroundcables/shape/



Regards,



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

[Talk-GB] Spring cleaning the England bit of the Wiki

[Peter Miller]

As people will be aware we have been doing serious spring cleaning of the
England bit of the OSM wiki.

In summary:

There are now articles for all UK Ceremonial Counties (except the City of
London as noted)
All the counties are are linked to the appropriate region (except the one
county is split between two regions)
All the counties have a 'places' template and a slippery map in a standard
format. Generally I didn't touch the rest of the article.
They are all in a category  'County in England'
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:County_in_England

There is a page of each region
There is a category for each region with the appropriate counties in them
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Region_in_England

I have merged the category 'UK Cities' into the category 'City in UK'
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:City_in_UK

I have created 'Project in UK' category and added all UK projects to it and
linked that to the 'Projects' Category and 'UK' Category
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Project_in_UK

I have merged 'places to map' and 'more places to map' into 'UK Mapping
Priorities'
I have created pages for all the places listed in UK Mapping Priorities
I have created a category call 'UK Mapping Priority and put all those places
in the category
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Mapping_Priorities

We have done this because I think it will help us with both the process of
completing the mapping of the UK and also with the process of engaging with
authorities in the UK who will often see 'their' wiki page as a good source
of material about what is happening in their area.

I suggest that anyone who sees a big place that needs mapping in future
firstly creates a page for the place, then adds it to 'UK Mapping Priority'
and then adds it (with its population total) into the table on the UK
Mapping Priorities page. There is a place on the UK Mapping Priorities page
for notes about progress and plans for each place.

I haven't done anything for the Wales and Scotland sections except to shift
some articles from the 'UK' category to the 'Wales' or 'Scotland' category.


Regards,



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

[Talk-GB] Boundaries page and replication of boundary relation links

[Peter Miller]

Firstly, I have copied the table from the boundaries page showing the
hierarchy of administration in Wales to the Wales page and merged it with
the content in the Unitaries table which helps the uniformity of the UK
pages.

Secondly we seem to now be in a position where we are maintaining a detailed
list of boundaries in two places, both on  the boundary page (for the UK)
and on the England/Scotland/Wales pages. Can I suggest that we migrate all
the relations to the England/Wales/Scotland page and stop maintaining a
separate list on boundaries and that the table there is used to carry notes
about which boundaries are complete, work in progress etc and other issues
relating to the project to collect the boundaries?

In actual fact the Scotland page is well behind the others without even a
list of counties (and the wikipedia article for Scotland isn't as good
either and is asking for expert help!)

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/Boundaries
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Wales

Regards,


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

[Talk-GB] Official cycle accident information released as raw data with easting/northing

[Peter Miller]

Here is some interesting data for traffic incidents involving bicycles for
2005/6/7 (published 10th March 2009) - 16,000 entries for 2005.
http://innovate.direct.gov.uk/2009/03/10/pedalling-some-raw-data/

And here is someone publishing a KML version of the same data the following
day
http://scraplab.net/2009/03/11/pedal-cycle-incident-data-in-kml.html

This particular data may not be directly of relevance to the core OSM
product or possibly it is? Certainly it is relevant to cycle journey
planners. It is also possibly a sign that the UK government is getting used
to the idea of releasing raw data. The only requirement seems to be to
attribute the data to the DfT - here is the note attached to the download in
the spreadsheet..

"Road Accident Statistics

"The data in the attached sheets show  the  location of personal injury
accidents reported to the police in  which at least one  pedal cycle was
involved.

"Definition
Accident: Involves personal injury occurring on the public highway
(including footways) in which at
least one road vehicle or a vehicle in collision with a pedestrian is
involved and which becomes
known to the police within 30 days of its occurrence. The vehicle need not
be moving, and accidents
involving stationary vehicles and pedestrians or users are included. One
accident may give rise to
several casualties. “Damage-only” accidents are not included.

"Further information on road accident statistics, including scope,
definitions and limitations can be found in Road Casualties Great
Britain:2007 Annual Report on the DfT website at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain20071

"For further information and queries concerning this data please contact:

Mr Anil Bhagat
Department for Transport
Zone 3/19, Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR
Telephone: 020 7944 6595
E-mail: roadacc.st...@dft.gov.uk

"The source of these data should be  quoted as Department for Transport


Regards,


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

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

[Peter Miller]

On 23 Mar 2009, at 19:31, Chris Andrew wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Would you consider the GPL licence?
>
> Name ideas:
>
> "Tora"- The Open Routing Algorithm?
>
> "Aora"- Andrew's..
>
> What's it written in, maybe that could help with the namePyOra,  
> for example?
>
> Just a thought.

A name... Who is this project aimed at? You need to answer that one  
before choosing the name. If is a bunch of clever back-end code that  
can be used by anyone wanting to put a journey planner together then  
you need a name that works for techies, otherwise you have the much  
harder task of building a pubic facing brand which will probably need  
marketing and other stuff to make it work.

Assuming you are producing something for the techie community then it  
needs to be memorable and relatively unique. Avoid a phrase that just  
says what is is because there are going to be too many of those! If  
the project is good and gets used then the name will become well known  
so the most important thing for a techie project is that it is good.  
It is also important to build a community that can engage with it, so  
do provide a way for people to engage with the project - a wiki page  
for describing the project and for feedback and suggestions seems to  
work well and of course making it open source. Is also takes a lot of  
work.

Not sure how Chris arrived at Tora. It sounds nice, however it seems  
to already be being used for something similar?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporally-ordered_routing_algorithm



Regards,




Peter



>
>
> Chris.
>
> 2009/3/23 Andrew M. Bishop :
>> "Tim Waters (chippy)"  writes:
>>
 I decided that what would be fun to implement is a routing  
 algorithm
 that can find the best (shortest or quickest) route between any two
 OSM highway nodes. I know that there are other routing algorithms
 available but this started as an intellectual exercise so I  
 developed
 my own.  It seemed to work so I added a fancy web front end to it  
 and
 put it on a server.
>>
>>> This is really neat. it's good to see a few excellent routers  
>>> occuring
>>> because of OSM.
>>> I think your one is quite powerful for the ability to customise the
>>> weighting, nice!
>>>
>>> Also, any plans to release the source for the router available so we
>>> can play too?
>>
>> Yes, if people find it useful then I have no problems with releasing
>> the source code.  I need to tidy up a few things and write a README
>> file, but it was always planned that a release would occur if it
>> worked.
>>
>> One thing that it is missing is a good name - I ought to get that
>> sorted out as well before releasing it.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew.
>> --
>> Andrew M. Bishop a...@gedanken.demon.co.uk
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Reasons why you may want to try GNU/Linux:
>
> http://www.getgnulinux.org/
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

[Talk-GB] MK mapping party

[Peter Miller]

On 18 May 2009, at 08:56, Ed Loach wrote:
>
>
> Looking at the "UK mapping priorities" page which has been updated  
> recently, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Mapping_Priorities

I notice that Colchester has recently 'graduated' from UK Mapping  
Priorities due to the large effort that is currently going into the  
place. I have added a 'graduate' section to the UK Mapping Priority  
page for a list of towns that no longer warrant inclusion in the list  
(and have put Colchester at the top of the list). Well done everyone  
involved!


Regards,



Peter


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Question regarding mapping inaccuracies.

[Peter Miller]

On 29 May 2009, at 15:42, Shaun McDonald wrote:

> I'm wondering if someone will be able to implement an efficient  
> version of the snooker ball visualisation on 
> http://www.cyclestreets.net/blog/2009/03/26/thats-a-really-odd-route/

That's very useful. Is it possible for anyone to view that mapping  
view through Cycle Streets?


Regards,



Peter



>
>
> Shaun
>
> On 29 May 2009, at 15:19, Chris Andrew wrote:
>
>> Hi, all.
>>
>> It occurred to me whilst editing recently, that due to user error,
>> some roads do not correctly link to each other.  I made this mistake
>> when I first started editing, because I had the resolution at the
>> wrong setting.  This made things quick and easy, but unless you are
>> using a small scale, you can't ensure that the way that you are
>> plotting actually joins an existing way.
>>
>> This leaves me thinking that this could be a bit of a problem for
>> route planning on satnav devices and other apps where the roads MUST
>> connect together.  My question is, can we (do we?) automate the
>> checking of roads to ensure they are connected to something, and if
>> not, is it possible to highlight them, rather like unnamed roads can
>> be shown in red?
>>
>> Sorry about my garbled message; I hope it makes sense.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Chris.
>>
>> -- 
>> Reasons why you may want to try GNU/Linux:
>>
>> http://www.getgnulinux.org/
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

[Talk-GB] OSM UK publicity challenge

[Peter Miller]

On 1 Jun 2009, at 21:24, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> So how do we get some more publicity for OSM in the UK?
>
> Here's one idea:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2009/may/24/cycle-holiday-britain-mike-carter
>
> "Do you have any tips for Mike about great campsites or interesting
> B&Bs along the coast? Or perhaps you'd like to ride alongside him for
> a day? Contact Mike at get.car...@observer.co.uk"
>
> Any OSMers who can get easily to the coast fancy doing this? (Gregory
> M? PeterIto?) Could be a nice bit of publicity for OSM in a national
> broadsheet.
>

Good idea. I have just send a pile of ideas to him for the Suffolk  
section from Harwich to Southwold. Ed, I copied you in in-case you  
want to add anything about the Essex section.



Regards,



Peter

> Any more ideas?
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

[Talk-GB] maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc

[Peter Miller]

I have been looking at the coverage of maxspeed limit data for  
highways in the UK and we seem to have a right mix of styles.


Here is the data for bug chunk of England while avoiding including  
anything from France or Ireland (which would include km/hour figure).  
We current have over 17,000 highway ways tagged with maxspeed and also  
300 ways tagged as 'maxspeed:mph'. You will notice that for 30 miles  
per hour we have 30, 30mph, 30 mph, 48.2, 48.28,  48.280, 48.27808,  
48.28032 and 48.28.


Any suggestion on what we should recommend for the UK? I guess the USA  
should also be party to this discussion but they have far less  
population of the maxspeed field (only 70 uses in the Bay area) so  
possibly we should come to a view first.  Our options seem to be:-

maxspeed=30mph (the user should strip a trailing mph to find the value)
maxspeed=30   (leaving it for the user to realise that it is in the UK  
and therefore imperial)
maxspeed=30 mph (the user should strip the last word if it is mph  
including the space)

maxspeed:mph=30 (Easy for the user)
maxspeed=48.28 (with a defined precision) For metric use no work by  
the user, for imperial use a look-up table is required or a conversion  
and rounding



Here is what we have at the moment for 'Mid England' including London,  
Portsmouth, Bristol, B'ham up to Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds etc)  
starting with the most popular:-


30mph   5185
48.000  4155
20mph   1282
64.000  922
32.000  871
40mph   833
96.000  383
30.000  341
80.000  300
112.000 294
30 mph  263
60mph   245
50mph   244
50.000  164
20 mph  160
48.2803200  144
48.280  97
40 mph  95
48.2780800  75
24.000  69
64.370  67
16.000  67
60.000  60
113.000 58
40.000  54
100.000 43
8.000   41
50 mph  40
97.000  39
national35
80.4672000  32
20.000  31
64.3737600  29
70mph   27
10 mph  23
5mph20
10.000  20
10mph   18
70 mph  18
5 mph   15
15mph   14
110.000 11
80.500  11
32.180  10
nsl 9
36.000  9
60 mph  8
45.000  6
15.000  6
NSL 6
32.1868800  6
19.000  5
7.000   5
64.400  4
11.200  3
42.000  3
15 mph  3
5.000   3
48.280  3
12.800  2
70.000  2
96.5606400  2
160.000 2
30mph..change me!   1
80; 50mph; 80   1
32.187  1
Carr Lane   1
112.6540800 1
38.000  1
48;96   1
32.200  1
48;64;801
8.050   1
54.400  1
48.300  1
48.200  1
16.090  1
12.000  1

Regards,


Peter


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

Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc

[Peter Miller]

On 4 Jun 2009, at 12:48, WessexMario wrote:

> Isn't all this already specified?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed
> " If your country uses kilometers tag the value without unit! "
> " If your country still uses miles tag the value and append "mph" OR
> convert to the EXACT kilometers per hour value! "
> which is specified below to 5dp.

Very helpful. And to be clear is says their should be a space between  
the number and the unit, ie '50 mph' not '50mph'.
>
>
> The UK uses miles. so the first option doesn't apply
> In the UK, the correct value would be '30 mph" , NOT a value in kph.
>
> If applications don't cope with mph, then they need updating as  
> they're
> not following the specification.
>
> Adding another log to the fire...
> Is there a case for specifying knots in the same way as mph for  
> waterway
> tags?
> for speed limits in harbours, canals, rivers, ,,,

Makes sense.

Another log...  What about trains? Network Rail use mph, so I would  
suggest we do the same.



So. are we reaching a point where we should do some clean-up work  
on the current tagging? Would that be appropriate?

Should we add a space where required and convert the various km  
interpretations to either fit the proper km conversion from the table,  
or convert to mph.

Is this something that Potlatch can do reasonably efficiently?



Regards,


Peter


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


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

[Talk-GB] UK-ST LEONARDS-ON SEA: CYCLE DATA COLLECTION & MANAGEMENT CONTRACT

[Peter Miller]

The DfT have just published a contract out for the collection and  
management of cycle data for St Leonards on Sea

"Lot 1. Cycle data collection. Undertaking cycle surveys to extend the  
Ordnance Survey Integrated Transport Network to include information  
about existing cycling infrastructure and where cycling is permitted  
and recommended. Cycle data will be provided in accordance to  
CycleNetXChange specification (http://www.cyclenetxchange.org.uk/).

"Lot 2 - Cycle data management. Managing the central database  
including coordinating data collection, journey planner publishing,  
data maintenance and quality assurance activities and managing local  
authorities and data suppliers. These activities are supported through  
the online data management tools provided by Transport Direct.
http://www.publictenders.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=84033

Should we give the place a review and ensure it is top notch for  
cycling before the contact is awarded. The roads for the place seems  
to be complete, however there is a distinct lack of footpaths and  
cyclepaths in the town which seems unlikely. There is also a lack of  
paths through parks and there are no cycle lanes/tracks on roads  
according to OpenCycleMap. It might also need work on turn restrictions.

The users retselkim, timsc, fyremoon and the_winch seems to be  
reasonably active in the area. It is too far for me to go but might be  
a good venue for a mapping party this summer - south coast, sun, sea,  
ice cream etc ;)



Regards,



Peter








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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK-ST LEONARDS-ON SEA: CYCLE DATA COLLECTION & MANAGEMENT CONTRACT

[Peter Miller]

On 4 Jun 2009, at 15:01, Andy Allan wrote:

> Out of interest, how much would one of these tenders go for i.e. how
> much do people pay in the "real world" for this kind of thing? Are we
> talking £500, £50,000, £250,000?
>

No idea, but the tender process must have significant costs associated  
with it measured in £x,000. Anyway, I feel that the 'real world' is  
shifting and possibly in the real world' in future the answer will be  
'not very much just so as long as you work with people not against  
them'.

Incidentally, I was speaking to a senior professional person from the  
South West a few days ago who was aware that OSM had just mapped MK  
and was wishing that something similar could happen where he was. I  
suggested that all he had to do was ask, be nice and offer warm beer  
and pizzas at the end of the day from council funds!



Regards,



Peter


> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Peter Miller  > wrote:
>>
>> The DfT have just published a contract out for the collection and
>> management of cycle data for St Leonards on Sea
>>
>> "Lot 1. Cycle data collection. Undertaking cycle surveys to extend  
>> the
>> Ordnance Survey Integrated Transport Network to include information
>> about existing cycling infrastructure and where cycling is permitted
>> and recommended. Cycle data will be provided in accordance to
>> CycleNetXChange specification (http://www.cyclenetxchange.org.uk/).
>>
>> "Lot 2 - Cycle data management. Managing the central database
>> including coordinating data collection, journey planner publishing,
>> data maintenance and quality assurance activities and managing local
>> authorities and data suppliers. These activities are supported  
>> through
>> the online data management tools provided by Transport Direct.
>> http://www.publictenders.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=84033
>>
>> Should we give the place a review and ensure it is top notch for
>> cycling before the contact is awarded. The roads for the place seems
>> to be complete, however there is a distinct lack of footpaths and
>> cyclepaths in the town which seems unlikely. There is also a lack of
>> paths through parks and there are no cycle lanes/tracks on roads
>> according to OpenCycleMap. It might also need work on turn  
>> restrictions.
>>
>> The users retselkim, timsc, fyremoon and the_winch seems to be
>> reasonably active in the area. It is too far for me to go but might  
>> be
>> a good venue for a mapping party this summer - south coast, sun, sea,
>> ice cream etc ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>


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

Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc

[Peter Miller]

On 4 Jun 2009, at 17:11, WessexMario wrote:

> Robert Naylor wrote:
 On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:13:28 +0100, David Earl
  wrote:


> I also came across someone tagging maxpeed=NSL yesterday. If it  
> gives
> someone happiness, fine, but I don't really think it should be
> necessary
> to tag the default situation, only when there is an exception to  
> the
> general rule
>
>> This page seems to confirm this:
>> http://www.abd.org.uk/know_your_speed_limits.htm
>>
>>
> There is a major problem with using maxspeed=NSL.
> Dual Carriageways.
> How will the applications know that a way is part of a dual  
> carriageway
> or is just one oneway way that happens to be near another oneway way?

Here is a proposal for using relations to combine carriageways and  
also one for collecting together all the slip-roads into a single  
feature called 'junction':-

"To avoid duplication, the name/ref of the street should continue to  
be placed on the Ways of the street or in the Relation for the  
collected ways of a street. This relationship is only intended as a  
hint to renderers that the adjacent ways are actually part of the same  
street/road so the name could be positioned between the carriageways  
rather than in both, or the road number rendered only once for  
adjacent pairs of ways and similar applications.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Dual_carriageways

And this one for interchanges
"The main purpose of the Relation at present is to give renderers or  
route planners a name and or number for a junction. It also means that  
a staggered cross roads controlled by linked traffic signals can be  
grouped into the one junction while still maintaining the geometry of  
the streets correctly.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Junctions


Regards,


Peter


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Speed Limit - Trains Was: Re: maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc

[Peter Miller]

On 5 Jun 2009, at 09:06, Peter Childs wrote:

> 2009/6/4 Peter Miller :
>> Makes sense.
>>
>> Another log...  What about trains? Network Rail use mph, so I would
>> suggest we do the same.
>>
>
> Do they? I've seen quite a few Rail Signs that seam to be in km/h. Not
> being a train driver I'm not always sure. I think that it might be
> that National Rail use mph and Euro Tunnel use kph. I think we might
> have to find a train expert to check.
>
The network rail documentation, as linked from here talks about mph,  
but you might well be right about the channel tunnel link
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4449.aspx

> On a simular subject are there ways of Tagging 3rd Rail vs Overhead  
> Power etc
>
You should be following talk-transit where we are discussion such  
ideas at present. We haven't touched on Overhead Power yet, but there  
is a proposal to rationalise and extend pt tagging at present that  
could include it:-
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

> Oh and London Bridge is a mess, on 5 or 6 Layers. Needs major work,
> but is very difficult Is there a way of tagging platforms with
> where the trains go. eg Platform 3 - Maidstone and Paddock Wood for
> Strood.

Lots of current discussion about tagging of complex stations on talk- 
transit.

And also I think the railway lines in london need relations for  
each line. Currently the names of lines are encoded in the ways which  
just doesn't work. One ends up with ways named as 'Circle, Hammersmith  
and City, and Metropolitan line'
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4453689

Would any object if we were to remove the names from the ways and at  
the same time create ways for each line? Fyi, at ITO we have been  
doing some work on relationships for railway line which seems to be  
very effective. Here is an example:
http://osm.cdauth.de/route-manager/relation.php?id=138843

Possibly we could do something similar for the underground
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tube_Network_Map

Fyi, Joss (who works for ITO) is  in the process of preparing a new  
OSM railway wiki page in his user area which lists lines and gives  
relations where they are available.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:JossSmithson/UK_railways




Regards,



Peter



>
>
> Peter.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Speed Limit - Trains Was: Re: maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc

[Peter Miller]

On 5 Jun 2009, at 09:35, Peter Miller wrote:

>
> On 5 Jun 2009, at 09:06, Peter Childs wrote:
>
>> And also I think the railway lines in london need relations for
> each line. Currently the names of lines are encoded in the ways which
> just doesn't work. One ends up with ways named as 'Circle, Hammersmith
> and City, and Metropolitan line'
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4453689
>
> Would any object if we were to remove the names from the ways and at
> the same time create ways for each line? Fyi, at ITO we have been
> doing some work on relationships for railway line which seems to be
> very effective. Here is an example:
> http://osm.cdauth.de/route-manager/relation.php?id=138843
>
> Possibly we could do something similar for the underground
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tube_Network_Map

I take it all back - not sure how I missed the underground line  
related relations. Looks like they just need to be added the wiki.  
Actually - I think there should be a wiki page for the London  
Underground - there is one for the stations by the wiki seems in a bit  
of a mess in relation to LU.

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Speed Limit - Trains Was: Re: maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc

[Peter Miller]

On 5 Jun 2009, at 10:19, Tom Hughes wrote:

> Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> Fyi, Joss (who works for ITO) is  in the process of preparing a  
>> new  OSM railway wiki page in his user area which lists lines and  
>> gives  relations where they are available.
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:JossSmithson/UK_railways
>
> Joss's work had been noticed, mainly because there was some question  
> over where some of the data had come from. In the end we decided it  
> had probably from Wikipedia, although that does of course leave open  
> the question of how Wikipedia knows that the Hertford East Branch  
> line is SRS 05.03 ;-)
>

Sure. Possibly this is something we should pick up on in talk-legal at  
some point and proper get a view from a proper lawyer. It is a bit of  
an anomaly that Wikipieda can cite sources and include facts from  
other places and that OSM can (probably) include information from  
Wikipedia but probably not (according to general opinion) cite non- 
wikipedia sources. We have taken the view that citing Wikipedia seems  
to be accepted so that it what we are doing. You may also notice that  
we are also putting significant effort into many transport related  
articles in Wikipedia (both rail and road) particularly for the East  
of England and intend to be providing images for use in those articles  
soon, so it is good if they match up.

> Incidentally, looking at that just now I see that the relation for  
> that branch has been extended all the way down to Broxbourne station  
> rather than terminating at Broxbourne Junction where it joins the  
> main line and I'm wondering if that is the best thing to do?

We took the decision to use wikipedia as a the reference for the  
extent of historic lines, so if the wikipedia article for the Ipswich  
to Ely line says that it goes all the way to Ipswich to Ely (even  
though the last section is also the Great Eastern Main Line) then that  
is what we have done.

Happy for people to adjust it if we come to a general view that this  
is incorrect, but we are intending to produce pretty maps to go into  
those wikipedia article from OSM relations in due course and it is  
therefore convenient if the information matches.



Regards,




Peter

>
>
> Tom
>
> -- 
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://www.compton.nu/


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Speed Limit - Trains Was: Re: maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc

[Peter Miller]

On 5 Jun 2009, at 10:49, Richard Mann wrote:



I'd be reluctant to see separate ways for Circle / H&C / Met. This  
is another example where the renderers have got to crack how to draw  
asymmetrical lines (ie one colour on the left of the line, another  
on the right).




I am certainly not proposing separate ways for separate lines. I think  
there should either be one way for a bunch of parallel tracks or  
alternatively one way per track if people are getting nerdy (surely  
not!). I was just proposing that line names should be defined in the  
relations and not on the ways - the ways should only be named if the  
name is associated with that piece of track rather than the line that  
runs on it.


I agree that there is an interesting job for renderers that want to  
render maps where multiple lines share a section of track and it will  
be great when someone rises to the challenge. Possibly it is a good  
compromise until then for ways to have names in addition to the  
relations to work with current renders.



Regards,



Peter




Richard

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Peter Childs  wrote:
2009/6/4 Peter Miller :
> Makes sense.
>
> Another log...  What about trains? Network Rail use mph, so I would
> suggest we do the same.
>

Do they? I've seen quite a few Rail Signs that seam to be in km/h. Not
being a train driver I'm not always sure. I think that it might be
that National Rail use mph and Euro Tunnel use kph. I think we might
have to find a train expert to check.

On a simular subject are there ways of Tagging 3rd Rail vs Overhead  
Power etc


Oh and London Bridge is a mess, on 5 or 6 Layers. Needs major work,
but is very difficult Is there a way of tagging platforms with
where the trains go. eg Platform 3 - Maidstone and Paddock Wood for
Strood.

Peter.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Speed Limit - Trains Was: Re: maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc

[Peter Miller]

On 5 Jun 2009, at 11:23, Richard Mann wrote:

Yes but if you do that, make sure that there's a tag used for lines  
which are "fast", otherwise you won't easily be able to tell which  
routes have separate tracks for fast and slow trains (maybe that  
exists already)


Individual tracks can of course have different maxspeed tags if they  
are modelled using different ways. Possibly that is a different issues  
from fast/slow trains but this is getting outside my area of knowledge.




Regards,




Peter




Richard

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Steve Hill  wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Peter Miller wrote:

I am certainly not proposing separate ways for separate lines. I think
there should either be one way for a bunch of parallel tracks or
alternatively one way per track if people are getting nerdy (surely
not!).

Tracing individual tracks might make sense if people are tracing  
from photos.  Especially true for sidings, etc.  I don't really see  
it as much different to having separate ways for the two sides of a  
dual carriageway.


 - Steve
  xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org   sip:st...@nexusuk.org   http://www.nexusuk.org/

Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Speed Limit - Trains Was: Re: maxspeed field - what units should we use. etc

[Peter Miller]

On 5 Jun 2009, at 10:59, Tom Hughes wrote:

> Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> On 5 Jun 2009, at 10:19, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>> Incidentally, looking at that just now I see that the relation for  
>>> that branch has been extended all the way down to Broxbourne  
>>> station rather than terminating at Broxbourne Junction where it  
>>> joins the main line and I'm wondering if that is the best thing to  
>>> do?
>> We took the decision to use wikipedia as a the reference for the  
>> extent of historic lines, so if the wikipedia article for the  
>> Ipswich to Ely line says that it goes all the way to Ipswich to Ely  
>> (even though the last section is also the Great Eastern Main Line)  
>> then that is what we have done.
>
> This isn't a historic line, it's an existing, active line:
>
>  http://osm.cdauth.de/route-manager/relation.php?id=142019

By historic line we purely mean the historic name for the line.  
Network Rail has moved to Route numbers and SRS codes for sections of  
track for obvious reasons and these SRS sections have names, but the  
wikipedia articles are built around the older names for the lines and  
that is what we chose to follow if that makes sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertford_East_Branch_Line

> As you can see the southern end extends beyond the junction with the  
> main line (about 1km east of my house...) down to the next station.
>
Sure, but the wikipedia article says it goes from Broxourne to Herford  
so we have used that as our source. Again - happy for a decision to  
tweek this and end at the junction where it joins the main line, but  
lets be consistent about it.

> Somebody has in fact added the old Buntingford Branch line (which  
> came off the Hertford East Branch) which no longer exists. That does  
> seem to terminate where it comes off the Hertford East Branch:
>
>  http://osm.cdauth.de/route-manager/relation.php?id=148560
>
> In fact it terminates just before the Hertford East Branch,  
> presumably because whoever put it in didn't know how it used to  
> cross the Lee Navigation, though the footpath there (which I always  
> thought was a bit odd) looks like a good bet for the old route.  
> Maybe I should go out and investigate that sometime...

Incidentally there is an wikipedia article for that one as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buntingford_Branch_Line


Regards,


Peter


>
>
> Tom
>
> -- 
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://www.compton.nu/


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

[Talk-GB] Authorities, boundaries and admin-levels

[Peter Miller]

We (at ITO) have now created wiki articles for all the English unitary  
authorities, so there are now articles for all the English ceremonial  
counties and for all the unitaries. We are now going through the  
articles doing a bit more tidying up for consistency within the  
introductory paragraphs.

We have also been adding authority boundary relations from the OSM  
database to the wiki where we have found them and have added them to  
both the 'Wikiproject England' and 'Wikiproject UK Boundaries'  
articles. As you will see, there are loads of boundaries but many  
still require a little TLC!

Wikiproject England
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_England

Boundaries article
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/Boundaries

Geofabrik's web site gives a good idea if the boundary is complete or  
not (some of the other boundary tools say that the boundary is fine  
when it is in fact it is not due to additional sections or duplicate  
sections).
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_England


We need to agree on how to use admin-level within the UK, because the  
current proposal doesn't really work and misses out some levels.

We need to accommodate the following:

*UK
*England/Wales/Scotland
*English regions (North East, East of England etc)
*Ceremonial counties/unitaries
*Districts
*Parishes/Wards etc (but lets deal with the big ones first)


This Wikipedia article has stuff on standard hierarchies:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUTS

And so does this one:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_level_NUTS_of_the_European_Union

And here is the current OSM guidance:-
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:admin_level#admin_level

In order to tie in with NUTS and with guidance for other countries  
within OSM we might want to do the following for England  (Scotland  
and Wales would be similar but would skip some levels):-

UK (admin_level=2)
England/Wales/Scotland (admin_level=4)
English regions (North East, East of England etc) (also admin_level=4  
as per NUTS)
Ceremonial counties - where they exist (admin_level= 5)
County Councils/Unitary Authorities (admin-level=6)
Districts  (admin-level=8)  districts / London boroughs / metropolitan  
boroughs.

London is a technically a region (admin-level=4) but could also  
possibly be considered to be at admin-level=6.



Regards,




Peter



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Authorities, boundaries and admin-levels

[Peter Miller]

On 11 Jun 2009, at 07:49, Abigail Brady wrote:

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Peter Miller > wrote:


*UK
*England/Wales/Scotland
*English regions (North East, East of England etc)
*Ceremonial counties/unitaries
*Districts
*Parishes/Wards etc (but lets deal with the big ones first)

Ceremonial counties are not part of the administrative hierarchy,  
they form a separate hierarchy


Good point. How about tagging ceremonial counties as 'type=boundary'  
and 'boundary=ceremonial'? We can use the admin-level for county to  
indicate that it is a ceremonial county as distinct from a ceremonial  
region (if there is such a thing). We could then also have  
'boundary=historical county' and other inventions for defunct  
administrative boundaries.


the border between ceremonial Durham and ceremonial North Yorkshire  
goes through the Stockton-on-Tees unitary authority along the river.


I have added a new boundary for the ceremonial county as distinct to  
the unitary which I think is correct:-


County Durham (ceremonial)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/156050

Durham (unitary)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/88067



 Do you mean "metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties?"


possibly! Would that be approriate?

The mention of NUTS worries me.  In England it doesn't encode the  
actual administrative hierarchy anyway and classifies this area as


UKC... North East England
UKC1... Tees Valley and Durham
UKC11... Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees

I trust we aren't going to see agglomerations like 'Hartlepool and  
Stockton' appear in the database instead of the actual  
administrative regions.


Personally I am interested in having good boundaries for the regions,  
the ceremonial counties and the administrative units (county councils,  
unitary council etc). Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees are separate  
unitaries and have separate boundaries which I think is correct. For  
administrative purposes I believe that Harlepool is in the North West  
which is in England which is in the UK. Hartlepool is also in the  
ceremonial county of County Durham and also possibly in the UKC11 area  
but those are different and outside the core 'boundary=administrative'  
structure. Possibly someone might like to add the UKC11 boundary, but  
that is not one I have come across and doesn't appear to be in the  
hierarchy we are talking about. If NUTS does this then possibly it is  
not appropriate.


It should be said that the area we are talking about is one of the  
more complex in the UK given that the counties/unitaries don't fit  
neatly into a single region.




Regards,



Peter






--
Abi



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

[Talk-GB] Vandalism in Kent/London area

[Peter Miller]

I have found a number of damaged road and rail links done by this user  
who registered on June 2nd and has done a number of edits since then:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/liam123

I removed a spurious railway line in London yesterday and also  
corrected the position of a roundabout. I messaged him 24 hours ago  
asking politely if it was a mistake or finger trouble without any  
response.

Today I have corrected further damage, this time to sections of the  
M20 and HS1 although I have not checked all of the changes and am not,  
of course sure what it looked like exactly before the damage. Thurrock  
Railway station has been moved into the Thames. I haven't moved it  
back because I don't know where it should be.

Can I suggest that others go though the rest of his work and consider  
some cunning manual reversion if necessary?


Regards,



Peter

  

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

[Talk-GB] Tank=yes?

[Peter Miller]

I guess that when one sees a warning sign for 'Tanks turning' on a UK  
road one should tag it as 'tank=yes'!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterito/3619361478/

The joy of extensible tagging systems.



Regards,



Peter
  

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Authorities, boundaries and admin-levels

[Peter Miller]

On 13 Jun 2009, at 09:30, Peter Childs wrote:


2009/6/11 Ed Loach :

And here is the current OSM guidance:-
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:admin_level#admin_level

In order to tie in with NUTS and with guidance for other
countries
within OSM we might want to do the following for England
(Scotland
and Wales would be similar but would skip some levels):-

UK (admin_level=2)
England/Wales/Scotland (admin_level=4)
English regions (North East, East of England etc) (also
admin_level=4
as per NUTS)
Ceremonial counties - where they exist (admin_level= 5)
County Councils/Unitary Authorities (admin-level=6)
Districts  (admin-level=8)  districts / London boroughs /
metropolitan
boroughs.




Whats the simplest way of adding a boundary? I notice that Medway does
not have one, I know ruthley where it should be, but have no idea of
how to go about adding the relevant relation/way. I'm fine adding
Roads and smaller stuff but the boundary stuff just throws me.


It is better to use a relation for the boundary rather than way tags  
which used to be the only way to do it. Add the appropriate existing  
ways (rivers/roads etc) to a new relation. You may need to split roads/ 
rivers where the boundary diverges. For some sections of the boundary  
you will need to add new ways (where it goes across fields). I just  
add a 'note=administrative boundary' tag to those ways.


The only source of data we can legally use for the boundary to by  
knowledge is the NPE maps base which shows boundaries as a dotted line  
if you are lucky and if they have not moved in the past 50 years. I  
also check wikipedia as a cross check (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EnglandMedway.png 
) and then the official council website to see if there is general  
agreement on the shape and extent.


It isn't perfect - to be perfect our democratic government will need  
to persuade the OS to give its citizens the boundaries by which it is  
governed. Until now lets do the best we can and when people say they  
are wrong we will ask them to provide the information to correct it!


Btw, OSM and the UK Boundaries project got a mention on the Guardians  
data blog yesterday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/11/opensourc




Regards,


Peter





Peter.

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Authorities, boundaries and admin-levels

[Peter Miller]

On 13 Jun 2009, at 18:41, Peter Childs wrote:

> 2009/6/13 Peter Miller :
>>
>>
>> Whats the simplest way of adding a boundary? I notice that Medway  
>> does
>> not have one, I know ruthley where it should be, but have no idea of
>> how to go about adding the relevant relation/way. I'm fine adding
>> Roads and smaller stuff but the boundary stuff just throws me.
>>
>> It is better to use a relation for the boundary rather than way  
>> tags which
>> used to be the only way to do it. Add the appropriate existing ways
>> (rivers/roads etc) to a new relation. You may need to split roads/ 
>> rivers
>> where the boundary diverges. For some sections of the boundary you  
>> will need
>> to add new ways (where it goes across fields). I just add a
>> 'note=administrative boundary' tag to those ways.
>> The only source of data we can legally use for the boundary to by  
>> knowledge
>> is the NPE maps base which shows boundaries as a dotted line if you  
>> are
>> lucky and if they have not moved in the past 50 years. I also check
>> wikipedia as a cross check
>
> Given that Medway is less than 50 years old that could be a  
> problem.

I have added a start to the Medway boundary relation for the coastal  
section. There are some boundaries on NPE maps on the inland section  
that relate to the route of the current unitary boundary however it is  
not very clear.


Regards,



Peter


>
>
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EnglandMedway.png) and then the  
>> official
>> council website to see if there is general agreement on the shape and
>> extent.
>> It isn't perfect - to be perfect our democratic government will  
>> need to
>> persuade the OS to give its citizens the boundaries by which it is  
>> governed.
>> Until now lets do the best we can and when people say they are  
>> wrong we will
>> ask them to provide the information to correct it!
>> Btw, OSM and the UK Boundaries project got a mention on the  
>> Guardians data
>> blog yesterday.
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/11/opensourc
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

Re: [Talk-GB] [Spam] Counties and coasts

[Peter Miller]

On 22 Jun 2009, at 14:45, Chris Hill wrote:

> I'm interested the relations of the boundaries for counties.  I notice
> that some counties (and recently English Regions) include the way for
> the coastline (natural=coastline), and some coastal counties do not.
>
> I think that coastal counties would benefit from a way to close the
> boundary, but does it make sense to use the coastline?  The coastline
> way probably indicates cliffs or a sea wall, yet there is often some
> beach or tidal flats beyond this on the seaward side.  I understand  
> that
> councils are responsible for the beach so the county could be said to
> extend beyond what we currently mark as the coastline.  Does anyone  
> know
> where council boundaries actually end with respect to the sea and
> coastline?


Not sure about the answer, or what happens at estuaries. I do however  
notice that Map Mechanics offer a dataset where the:-
"The data has been reconciled with other Meridian layers to ensure a  
best fit so the districts match the coastline. Annual licence includes  
updates.
http://www.mapmechanics.com/digital-mapping-data/uk-admin-census-political-data.html

I certainly think the boundaries should be continuous and would  
suggest that we learn more about the official position around high/low  
water and estuaries. Using the coastline as a default seems reasonable.



Regards,



Peter



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Counties and coasts

[Peter Miller]

On 22 Jun 2009, at 15:14, Matthew Westcott wrote:

> On 22 Jun 2009, at 14:45, Chris Hill wrote:
>> I understand that
>> councils are responsible for the beach so the county could be said to
>> extend beyond what we currently mark as the coastline.  Does anyone
>> know
>> where council boundaries actually end with respect to the sea and
>> coastline?
>
>
> Entirely wild speculation, but logically I'd assume they ought to
> extend to the 12 mile boundary beyond the coastline which the UK
> claims as territorial waters...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-mile_limit
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

Here is a view from the Essex county boundary (pink) from the OS  
(Meridian) overlaid on Navteq coastline. The white area seems to be  
sandbanks and the edge of the pink seems to relate more closely to the  
coastline as on OSM. The administrative boundary for Essex on OSM  
relates reasonably closely to the Naveq coastline however it actually  
relates to sand-banks in the 1940's from NPE.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterito/3650048655/

Bing (Microsoft) also use the Naveq data and their coastline  
corresponds with the Navteq coastline data we show above however when  
one clicking on the aerial photography the coast moves in a lot to  
where Meridian says the coast is. Notice the nonsense on Bing around  
the Mersea Island where Bing shows a land bridge from the Island to  
the mainland which doesn't exist on aerial photography.
http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx? 
cp=51.7648917581035~0.9051542318286936&lvl=12

Google (using TeleAtlas) show the coast more closely related to the  
aerial photography and the OSM coastline.
http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=51.771877,0.943794&spn=0.088378,0.291824&z=12

The Sealand article makes no reference to Sealand being 'in Suffolk'  
or 'in Essex', but 'off the coast of Essex' and being now in  
'territorial waters'. I thought the Queen owned the land between high  
and low water anyway. The Three Mile limit article makes no reference  
to who 'manages' this area of sea.

No answers, just a review of what happens. Personally I would find the  
edge of dry land more useful than the edge of moving sandbanks and I  
would like the edge of Essex (and the coastline) to match up with  
where one starts to get wet! We then have a 'tUnited Kingdom  
territorial waters' boundary which is out to sea (which we do have)



Regards,



Peter


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Counties and coasts

[Peter Miller]

On 22 Jun 2009, at 15:59, Peter Childs wrote:

> 2009/6/22 Ed Loach :
>> The Essex one I traced from the dotted line on NPE. I'm not sure
>> about 12 miles for county boundaries - I don't think Essex would
>> want to have to maintain it's own navy to repel Suffolk encroachers
>> for example.
>>
>> Having said that, I think I read somewhere that UK beaches below the
>> high water mark are Crown property, so perhaps the county councils
>> just look after them for the Queen?
>>
>
> Yes but what about the pier (which sticks into the sea) and is
> therefore below the high water mark, Full of shops and licensed
> premises.

Navteq doesn't acknowledge the pier at Clacton, nor does TeleAtlas  
(from Bing); the OS county boundary from Meridian also ignores the  
pier. OSM shows the pier as 'man_made=pier' going out from the shore  
and Mapink renders it like land. I would suggest that it correct. As  
for whether it is 'in Essex' or not I suggest that a judge would say  
it was even though the OS say it is not!

>
> If Essex is worried about invasion from Sussex, We'll send a force in
> from Kent.
>
Or from Suffolk!


Regards,


Peter


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Counties and coasts

[Peter Miller]

On 23 Jun 2009, at 12:26, Paul Jaggard wrote:

>
> Bristol ("City and County") has an interesting boundary - it follows  
> the
> bank of the River Avon out to the Severn estuary, then takes a large  
> strip
> out of the Bristol Channel down to a pair of islands beyond Cardiff  
> and
> Weston-s-M.
>
> Seems that the water off the shore of a fair bit of North Somerset  
> belongs
> to Bristol.
>
> A BBC news article about it here:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7019663.stm
>
> I traced the boundary from NPE some time ago based on this, but I  
> notice
> that since then someone has redone the Bristol boundary and has  
> removed the
> relevant ways, chopping back the water boundary to the end of the  
> Avon.

That someone was me. I have been doing a lot of tidy-up work on  
boundaries across England, removing duplicate ways and parallel ways,  
adding coastal sections of boundary and have probably taken a few  
features backwards in the process for which I appologise.

One problem with OSM at present is that without citations for the  
information in Ways one doesn't know what the basis of a feature is  
and whether one has better information about it or not. Possibly their  
should be a section on the Bristol wiki page citing these sources or a  
'source:boundary' tag in the relationship although one might need  
multiple sources for a boundary.



Regards,


Peter

>
> Paul
> (southglos)
>
>
> -Original Message-
>
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:45:55 +0100
> From: Chris Hill 
> Subject: [Talk-GB] Counties and coasts
> To: Talk GB 
> Message-ID: <4a3f8b13.20...@yahoo.co.uk>
>
> I'm interested the relations of the boundaries for counties.  I notice
> that some counties (and recently English Regions) include the way for
> the coastline (natural=coastline), and some coastal counties do not.
>
> I think that coastal counties would benefit from a way to close the
> boundary, but does it make sense to use the coastline?  The coastline
> way probably indicates cliffs or a sea wall, yet there is often some
> beach or tidal flats beyond this on the seaward side.  I understand  
> that
> councils are responsible for the beach so the county could be said to
> extend beyond what we currently mark as the coastline.  Does anyone  
> know
> where council boundaries actually end with respect to the sea and
> coastline?
>
> Cheers, Chris
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Counties and coasts

[Peter Miller]

On 23 Jun 2009, at 13:08, Chris Hill wrote:

> Having looked at this and other counties elsewhere, the coastline in
> some places is clearly a poor choice for the county and regional
> boundary.  Off the Northumberland coast the Farne islands and the very
> substantial Holy Island are apparently in the UK, but not in
> Northumberland, which is patently wrong.  I think the county  
> boundaries
> need to be added just off the coast which would then allow the  
> diversion
> out into the sea to include the various islands around our coast.   
> I've
> emailed the East Yorkshire council (my local one) to ask them where  
> they
> think their boundary lies, but judging by past such requests it will
> take some time for them to reply.
>
> Was the alteration to Bristol part of the addition of the English  
> Regions?

I did add the English regions but did also do a lot of work on many  
county boundaries to remove obvious errors (such as overruns) and  
duplications and to create relations where the way tagging method was  
used. With regard to islands I created the Isles of Scilly as exclaves  
which works but is a bit tedious to achieve. We can either move the  
county boundary out to include islands, or include them as exclaves.  
Sounds like a good idea to ask a council about boundaries; lets see  
what they say.

I have been adding more relations to the UK Boundaries page as I find  
them. Do take a look and add any more you know about. Lots of them  
still need attention though.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/Boundaries

I decided that the place to stop with the main UK Boundaries page was  
at the district/borough level to avoid the page getting unmanageable.  
Information about wards and parishes should possibly go on the  
relevant county page.



Regards,



Peter


>
> Cheers, Chris
>
> Paul Jaggard wrote:
>> Bristol ("City and County") has an interesting boundary - it  
>> follows the
>> bank of the River Avon out to the Severn estuary, then takes a  
>> large strip
>> out of the Bristol Channel down to a pair of islands beyond Cardiff  
>> and
>> Weston-s-M.
>>
>> Seems that the water off the shore of a fair bit of North Somerset  
>> belongs
>> to Bristol.
>>
>> A BBC news article about it here:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7019663.stm
>>
>> I traced the boundary from NPE some time ago based on this, but I  
>> notice
>> that since then someone has redone the Bristol boundary and has  
>> removed the
>> relevant ways, chopping back the water boundary to the end of the  
>> Avon.
>>
>> Paul
>> (southglos)
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>>
>> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:45:55 +0100
>> From: Chris Hill 
>> Subject: [Talk-GB] Counties and coasts
>> To: Talk GB 
>> Message-ID: <4a3f8b13.20...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>
>> I'm interested the relations of the boundaries for counties.  I  
>> notice
>> that some counties (and recently English Regions) include the way for
>> the coastline (natural=coastline), and some coastal counties do not.
>>
>> I think that coastal counties would benefit from a way to close the
>> boundary, but does it make sense to use the coastline?  The coastline
>> way probably indicates cliffs or a sea wall, yet there is often some
>> beach or tidal flats beyond this on the seaward side.  I understand  
>> that
>> councils are responsible for the beach so the county could be said to
>> extend beyond what we currently mark as the coastline.  Does anyone  
>> know
>> where council boundaries actually end with respect to the sea and
>> coastline?
>>
>> Cheers, Chris
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

[Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Railway route relations

[Peter Miller]

--- Cross posted from Talk West Midlands


On 1 Jul 2009, at 19:39, Brian Prangle wrote:


Hi everyone

I've added a railway relation for the West Coast Mainline  as it  
runs thoruh New Street - so far I've got as far from Rugby Junction  
to Sandwell & Dudley station.  I've named it as Strategic Route 17  
Primary- SRs are what Network Rail use to label their network. The  
West Midlands is Route 17. The problem is ALL the railway tracks in  
the WM are Route 17 and are differentiated into primary, secondary,  
rural and freight - so I'm not too sure how to proceed in  
classification afte I've competed the WCML through to Wolverhampton.  
I've done this mainly to see the rail routes renderd in the  
opnvkarte public transport map.  Relation No is 164889 Tagging is as  
follows









You can see the full document from Network Rail at :

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse documents/StrategicBusinessPlan/ 
RoutePlans/2007/R17 - West Mids



ITO also have someone working on this nationally and he has a useful  
wiki on his OSM user page at:



http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:JossSmithson/UK_railways


We were about to move this article to the main wiki at a new URL and  
ask for community help completing it so thanks for making a start!  
When it is more populated I suggest that we replace the current UK  
railway article with it.


In order to stop the relations getting too big for the very long rail  
routes should the ways be first aggregated into SRS sections and then  
these relations be grouped into a relation for the whole route? Fyi,  
there are articles on Wikipedia with SRS details for some, but not all  
routes. To be super safe about copyright of sources in OSM I suggest  
that we first add the SRS details into Wikipedia  (referenced back to  
Network Rail) and then build the OSM data from Wikipedia.


The rail route tables in Wikipedia is here. Red links need to be  
created!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail#Route_plans


Regards,


Peter



Anyone else want to help?  I think the first task is to agree  
probably via talktransit on how we should tag the relations for  
Route 17and maybe use that as a template. I've not added ref=17 yet  
but that's trivial to implement, if we agree that's how we want to  
go. For instance Route 17 covers the physical infrastructure but how  
do we ( do we want to?) add relations for the passenger operators  
( e.g Virgin and London Midland (and the new operator from  
Shrewsbury) as they run services over the same tracks just like bus  
operators on roads. Can  the folks at opnvkarte ( who have the  
luxury of just DeutscheBahn running trains in Germany) cope with  
multiple operators?


btw route 17 not rendered yet on opnvkarte

Also railway platforms are now rendered so here's your chance to  
survey them!


Regards

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


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

[Talk-GB] UK Boundaries progressing really well, however why is Hampshire, England not rendering?

[Peter Miller]

There is loads of work going on around the country on the boundaries  
project which is great to see. Here are a list of all the main  
administrative boundaries (for England and Wales) and the status of  
those boundaries. Scotland is a blank canvas if anyone feels motivated  
to do the work:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/Boundaries

Using the Geofabrik boundary viewer one can see all the completed  
boundaries (disable admin-level 2 and 4 for more clarity).
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=boundaries

However, Hampshire (England) is not rendering. I have looked at the  
data with various tools and can't see what is wrong.

The best tool for finding errors in boundaries is this one, but it  
fails for Hamphire for some reason:-
http://osm.cdauth.de/route-manager/relation.php?id=76228

This tool seems to think it is good but doesn't show some sorts of  
error:-
http://betaplace.emaitie.de/webapps.relation-analyzer/analyze.jsp?relationId=76228

It looks ok here:
http://betaplace.emaitie.de/webapps.relation-analyzer/osm.jsp?relationId=76228

Is also looks ok here (but this doesn't highlight many errors):
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/76228



Regards,



Peter




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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Boundaries progressing really well, however why is Hampshire, England not rendering?

[Peter Miller]

On 2 Jul 2009, at 13:29, Ed Loach wrote:

>> However, Hampshire (England) is not rendering. I have looked at
>> the
>> data with various tools and can't see what is wrong.
>>
>> The best tool for finding errors in boundaries is this one, but
>> it
>> fails for Hamphire for some reason:-
>> http://osm.cdauth.de/route-manager/relation.php?id=76228
>
> It seems to fail for Essex as well, and I'm fairly sure that is OK,
> so I suspect the tool has problems (though perhaps a sample of two
> relations is insufficient).

Yes, I believe it is a problem with the tool - it seems a bit random  
about where it works and where it doesn't
>
> I suspect (as I managed to email direct), that the problem is
> related to the pink way on the geofabrik page which it says is
> always an error. That way was tagged as both boundary=administrative
> and natural=coastline and the nearby ones I checked are only tagged
> as natural=coastline; as the way is in three different levels of
> administrative boundary I removed the tags from the way itself.
> (Note to Chris Hill, it is (or should be) fine if boundary relations
> follow non boundary ways if for example the boundary does actually
> follow the middle of a road or river).

There is no need for any tagging on the ways if one is using a  
relation, however some people prefer to add tagging to the ways as  
well, although way tagging doesn't work for multiple admin-levels on  
the same way. It seems to be considered good etiquette to tag the ways  
simply with boundary=administrative which is also required for the  
boundaries to show up on Geofabrik - check the ward boundaries in  
Ipswich where there are ward boundary relations but little tagging on  
ways and you will see that the boundaries are recognised by Geofabrik  
but there are no actual boundaries shown. I am adding  
boundary=administration to the ways to make them look better.

It is ok to tag was as boundary=administrative and also  
natural=coastline - it happens in many places. Some people lay an  
additional  way on top of the road/river/coast for the boundary and  
some integrate the other feature as the boundary - both work fine.

Ed: I notice you have tweeked the 'non-simple' way today. Do you think  
it is now simple? If not do you want to try and sort it.
.

>
> I don't know how often geofabrik update their data, but as far as I
> can see the boundary itself is fine, as evidenced by all the links
> you sent where it looks OK, but to see whether it was just the pink
> way upsetting it will probably take until after their next update.

The date of the OSM dataset used is always at the bottom of the page  
and generally shows up in the early afternoon for the previous day.

We should therefore see a resolution to the issue tomorrow afternoon  
assuming the non-simple way is fixed. I am also sure that is the  
problem because the other two boundaries that rely on the way are also  
broken, ie South East and Fareham - the South East certainly used to  
work at some point.



Thanks,



Peter

>
> Ed
>
>


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Boundaries progressing really well, however why is Hampshire, England not rendering?

[Peter Miller]

On 2 Jul 2009, at 14:27, Ed Loach wrote:

>> Ed: I notice you have tweeked the 'non-simple' way today. Do
>> you think
>> it is now simple? If not do you want to try and sort it.
>
> I checked the way quite a bit. It shares most of its nodes with a
> section of a beach area, but that shouldn't be an issue.

It is certainly fine for it to share with a beach, it is a great way  
to do a beach!

> None of the
> nodes are included in the way twice as far as I could tell (I copied
> all the ids into Excel and sorted them). Most of the links you gave
> showed the way as OK

Makes sense.

> I could only think it was the geofabrik
> validation not liking the way for some reason, and as it shows
> coastlines and admin ways as separate checkboxes I've tried bringing
> the tags on the way down to just coastline (and source) as exists on
> the boundary relations members slightly further along the coast. If
> this doesn’t help (as you suggest we'll find out tomorrow) I can
> revert the way and try something else.

Fine. To avoid confusion and having two people fiddling with it are  
you happy that we leave it to you to do the changes if it still fails  
tomorrow? If we get really stuck we could report it to Geofabrik who  
are very helpful or you could talk further on the list. One approach  
would be to rip the way up and build a new one in the same place but  
we won't learn a lot by doing that. Its a shame the coastline checker  
is down.



Regards,


Peter



>
> Ed
>
>


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

[Talk-GB] The DfT Cycle journey planner

[Peter Miller]

I notice that councils across England are being encouraged to  
contribute to the cost of collecting data for the national cycle  
journey planner based on ITN data from the OS. It seem particularly  
strange that local councils are now being asked to pay to collect data  
for the national mapping agency even thought the data can only be used  
with data from the national mapping agency!
http://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Environment/915276/Call-councils-sign-online-cycle-planner/

Details about the journey planner can be found on the DfT website here:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/encouraging-cycling/journey-planner/

This FAQ does make passing comment that there are other planners, but  
makes no mention of OpenStreetMap or CycleStreets or OpenCycleMap etc
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/docs/journey_planner_faqs.pdf

These 'terms of data collection' make interesting reading
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/standard_terms_for_data_collection.pdf

OSM coverage of cycle demonstration towns is pretty good already and  
it would be truly weird for the Cambridgeshire County Council to pay  
for someone to survey Cambridge! Not all data is good, Darlington in a  
'UK Mapping Priority' and some of the places have gaps. Should we have  
a project to complete these towns?

I have created an article the demonstration towns here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycling_demonstration_town

I have also created a category for the towns and added them to it.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Cycling_demonstration_town

Fyi, when I tried the DfT planner from  Manchester Piccadilly Station  
to the Manchester Oxford Road University Site it suggested I use a  
narrow cycle lane on the A6. I am pleased to say that CycleStreets and  
other OSM related planners suggested something better.

I really can't see how the DfT are going to be able to compete with  
OSM in this space and I am wondering how we can get them on side.




Regards,



Peter




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

Re: [Talk-GB] [Spam] Re: The DfT Cycle journey planner

[Peter Miller]

On 7 Jul 2009, at 11:51, Richard Mann wrote:

If I understood the cyclestreets people correctly, they've been  
developing it using some funding from the Cycle Demonstration Towns  
project, so maybe DfT are hedging their bets.


According to their website the only funding they have received from  
government has been from the Scottish Government's Sustainable  
Transport section

http://www.cyclestreets.net/about/

Possibly they can provide more information. I will forward the thread  
to them.



Regards,



Peter




Richard
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Peter Miller > wrote:


I notice that councils across England are being encouraged to
contribute to the cost of collecting data for the national cycle
journey planner based on ITN data from the OS. It seem particularly
strange that local councils are now being asked to pay to collect data
for the national mapping agency even thought the data can only be used
with data from the national mapping agency!
http://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Environment/915276/Call-councils-sign-online-cycle-planner/

Details about the journey planner can be found on the DfT website  
here:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/encouraging-cycling/journey-planner/

This FAQ does make passing comment that there are other planners, but
makes no mention of OpenStreetMap or CycleStreets or OpenCycleMap etc
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/docs/journey_planner_faqs.pdf

These 'terms of data collection' make interesting reading
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/standard_terms_for_data_collection.pdf

OSM coverage of cycle demonstration towns is pretty good already and
it would be truly weird for the Cambridgeshire County Council to pay
for someone to survey Cambridge! Not all data is good, Darlington in a
'UK Mapping Priority' and some of the places have gaps. Should we have
a project to complete these towns?

I have created an article the demonstration towns here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycling_demonstration_town

I have also created a category for the towns and added them to it.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Cycling_demonstration_town

Fyi, when I tried the DfT planner from  Manchester Piccadilly Station
to the Manchester Oxford Road University Site it suggested I use a
narrow cycle lane on the A6. I am pleased to say that CycleStreets and
other OSM related planners suggested something better.

I really can't see how the DfT are going to be able to compete with
OSM in this space and I am wondering how we can get them on side.




Regards,



Peter




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

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] The DfT Cycle journey planner

[Peter Miller]

On 7 Jul 2009, at 11:51, Richard Mann wrote:

If I understood the cyclestreets people correctly, they've been  
developing it using some funding from the Cycle Demonstration Towns  
project, so maybe DfT are hedging their bets.


Cycle Streets have just confirmed that they have not received funding  
from the Cycle Demonstration Towns project for our journey planner



Regards,


Peter




Richard
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Peter Miller > wrote:


I notice that councils across England are being encouraged to
contribute to the cost of collecting data for the national cycle
journey planner based on ITN data from the OS. It seem particularly
strange that local councils are now being asked to pay to collect data
for the national mapping agency even thought the data can only be used
with data from the national mapping agency!
http://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Environment/915276/Call-councils-sign-online-cycle-planner/

Details about the journey planner can be found on the DfT website  
here:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/encouraging-cycling/journey-planner/

This FAQ does make passing comment that there are other planners, but
makes no mention of OpenStreetMap or CycleStreets or OpenCycleMap etc
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/docs/journey_planner_faqs.pdf

These 'terms of data collection' make interesting reading
http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/site/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/standard_terms_for_data_collection.pdf

OSM coverage of cycle demonstration towns is pretty good already and
it would be truly weird for the Cambridgeshire County Council to pay
for someone to survey Cambridge! Not all data is good, Darlington in a
'UK Mapping Priority' and some of the places have gaps. Should we have
a project to complete these towns?

I have created an article the demonstration towns here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycling_demonstration_town

I have also created a category for the towns and added them to it.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Cycling_demonstration_town

Fyi, when I tried the DfT planner from  Manchester Piccadilly Station
to the Manchester Oxford Road University Site it suggested I use a
narrow cycle lane on the A6. I am pleased to say that CycleStreets and
other OSM related planners suggested something better.

I really can't see how the DfT are going to be able to compete with
OSM in this space and I am wondering how we can get them on side.




Regards,



Peter




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

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] [Spam] More on coasts and counties

[Peter Miller]

On 7 Jul 2009, at 20:35, Chris Hill wrote:

> [long-winded local info follows]
>
> I asked my local county for information on where the county ends at  
> the
> coast and in the Humber estuary, using the FoI act.  Their answer is
> interesting.
>
> Firstly, the county ends at the mean high water mark of the North sea.
> This is extended to the low water mark in East Yorkshire by renting  
> the
> land between the mean high water and the mean low water mark.  This  
> land
> is rented on a long term lease from the Crown Estates.  The Crown
> Estates own about 55% of this foreshore around the UK and rents this  
> out
> councils and other bodies. [1]  The Crown Estates owns the land out to
> the 12NM limit, beyond that it is regarded as international waters.

Great stuff!

So... should we show the counties ending at high-water mark, or at the  
boundary of the area they lease? Personally I would suggest we keep  
the official boundary as high-water mark and the separately map the  
crow estates land, Duchy land etc.
>
> In the river estuary from Spurn point inland the same situation  
> applies
> to a point about 580m east of the Humber bridge, ie the county  
> boundary
> extend to the mean low water mark.  In the Humber this is a  
> substantial
> area of mud flats at low tide, but it does mean that the county  
> boundary
> does not abut the county boundary of North East Lincolnshire at all  
> and
> only abuts the county of North Lincolnshire from about the Humber  
> bridge.
>
> There are two forts in the Humber, effectively man-made islands.  Bull
> fort is in East Yorkshire, Haile Sand Fort is in Lincolnshire, both
> beyond the low water mark.
>
> I'll digest the detail further then try to adjust the boundaries to  
> fit.
>
> I think this enquiry was useful, once I've worked on this I think I'll
> see if I can get similar details for other counties or maybe other  
> might
> like to.  I expect many counties will be similar, but some are
> definitely different.

Should we ask Crown Estates for all the details rather than bothering  
some 100 local authorities?

Thanks for all your work and your offer to keep working on this subject.


Regards,


Peter

>
> [1]  http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm
>
> Cheers, Chris
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

[Talk-GB] boundary for Wales?

[Peter Miller]

So.. where is the coastal boundary of Wales? Is it at the high-water  
mark, or somewhere further out. Any ideas?

In order to get something on the map I have created a complete  
boundary for Wales using high-water mark and included islands as  
exclaves. Happy for evidence that I am wrong and for people to correct  
it.


Regards,



Peter



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

Re: [Talk-GB] [Spam] Re: boundary for Wales?

[Peter Miller]

On 9 Jul 2009, at 10:52, Chris Hill wrote:

Try emailing the Welsh civil service under the Freedom of  
Information act and asking them.  You should get an answer within 20  
days.


Happy for someone else to do that if they wish. I have made a note on  
the Welsh wiki page about the issue.



Regards,


Peter




Cheers, Chris

Peter Miller wrote:


So.. where is the coastal boundary of Wales? Is it at the high-water
mark, or somewhere further out. Any ideas?

In order to get something on the map I have created a complete
boundary for Wales using high-water mark and included islands as
exclaves. Happy for evidence that I am wrong and for people to  
correct

it.


Regards,



Peter



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




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

[Talk-GB] RRe: The DfT Cycle journey planner / CycleStreets

[Peter Miller]

On 14 Jul 2009, at 20:04, Martin - CycleStreets wrote:

>
>
> Nice to meet you all at SOTM!
>
>
> Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> OSM coverage of cycle demonstration towns is pretty good already  
>> and it
>> would be truly weird for the Cambridgeshire County Council to pay for
>> someone to survey Cambridge!
>
> As a resident of Cambridge, I can tell you that such mapping is  
> already
> happening..
>
> As with the other Cycling Demonstration Towns, this is apparently  
> coming
> from the Cycling England budget rather than local taxation.

I understand that the next batch of mapping will be paid for 50% by  
the local council and 50% by DfT as per the link in my previous post.  
I recollect that the original Cycling Demonstration Town bids also  
required local authority to provide matched-funding which would mean  
the Cambridgeshire tax payers are paying through local taxes for this  
although I might be wrong on that. Also, the funding that comes from  
Cycling England is originally from the DfT and not charitable funds so  
is central taxation.

To be clear, I also think the project is an excellent one, its just  
the way the mapping is being done that is insensitive and ineffecient.

>
> I do not know how much money is involved for the first tranche of  
> towns
> being surveyed. I believe the next round to do many more places  
> involves EU
> Tender -level funds and that that process is at an advanced stage.
>
> I have suggested to a contact I have at Cycling England (a body I  
> generally
> have a lot of respect for) that the data they are collecting into the
> CycleNetXChange "standard" be done in such a way that it is not
> OS-comingled until after the point it gets into that format. I  
> understand
> from Peter Miller that the standard was written in such a way that  
> the data
> collection could be undertaken without pollution by OS data. Peter -  
> can
> you confirm?

I agree that any data collected by the DfT/local taxpayer should be  
available to third parties and should therefore not be mixed in with  
OS data at the outset.

Personally I suggest that local authorities should be encouraged to  
use OSM data and support the local OSM group for all its data (roads  
and paths) where there is an active group and the data is already in a  
good state.

> Whether or not CycleNetXChange -formatted data would be of use to  
> OSM, I
> don't know myself. But I imagine it could be useful for other  
> purposes,
> e.g. cycling groups knowing about cycle lane widths for campaigning
> purposes, etc. I would merely be interested in the principle that  
> new data
> being collected at taxpayer expense be compatible with open data  
> principles
> at the very least.

I agree completely!


Regards,



Peter

>
>
> Richard Mann wrote:
>
>> If I understood the cyclestreets people correctly, they've been
>> developing it using some funding from the Cycle Demonstration Towns
>> project, so maybe DfT are hedging their bets.
>
> As previously confirmed, there is no money going into the CycleStreets
> journey planner from the DfT / Cycling England.
>
> .. Funding from other sources is being investigated though!
>
>
> PS As this is my first posting to the list, thanks to all the  
> mappers, who
> enable CycleStreets to exist!
>
>
> Martin, **  CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By  
> Cyclists
> Developer, CycleStreets **  http://www.cyclestreets.net/
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Municipal boundaries

[Peter Miller]

On 15 Jul 2009, at 14:13, Abigail Brady wrote:

This is certainly worth pursuing.  Unfortunately, the real problem  
comes in rural areas where, for example, boundaries are defined to  
be the paths of things like hedges that aren't there any more,  
previous courses of rivers, etc.  There are some boundaries where  
the 'master definition' is defined by law with reference to an OS- 
derived map, without a textual description...




I think we should treat the whole boundaries projects as a 'best  
endeavours' project where we assembly the best complete boundary lines  
we can in each instance and accept that it is not as accurate as it  
could be if we had access to the official data. Personally I see this  
as a way to encourage the powers-that-be to unlock the safe and give  
us citizens (or possibly we are 'subjects') the real data. Until they  
do that people will be forced to us the data we can collect.


What I do know is that there are lots of things we can do with  
approximate boundaries that we can't do with no boundaries or  
incomplete boundaries, hence the encouragement to get something into  
OSM even if it is tagged as 'this is guess at the boundary at this  
point'. If we get every village into the right county that would be a  
good start.




Regards,


Peter




On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Mike Collinson   
wrote:
I don't know whether this has been explored before, but a tit-bit  
from Bob Barr who gave a SOTM key note last year and enjoyed himself  
so he came again.


Bob is councillor in ?Warrington and once asked all the councils in  
the greater Manchester area for boundary data.  All supplied him OS- 
derived data except Stockport which gave him a copy of original  
definition which is text based ("The boundary goes down the centre  
of WhatNot Street and then turns left along Kirk Lane ...") and  
therefore free of  OS copyright issues. Each area in the country  
should have one of these document BEFORE the information is  
transcribed into coordinates. He suggests asking the Boundary  
Commission under the Freedom of Information Act for the whole set.


As far as I can tell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Commissions_%28United_Kingdom%29 
, there is one Commission for England http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/default.asp 
, one for Scotland etc.


Anyone tried this? Anyone game?


Mike



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

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] [Spam] Re: Municipal boundaries

[Peter Miller]

On 15 Jul 2009, at 15:50, Chris Hill wrote:

I asked the boundary commission recently for boundary data, though I  
didn't ask for it in the English rather than geographic form.  their  
answer was that they define the boundaries but the OS draw them on   
behalf of the Boundary Commission, therefore the OS own the  
copyright of the drawings.  (I've paraphrased a lengthy email  
here).  They refused to release the data.  they also pointed out  
that they are responsible for Parliamentary constituencies, "and  
plays no part in the setting of county, district, ward, parish or  
any other boundary."


Great stuff.

You are right that the Boundary Commission set parliamentary  
boundaries, authority boundaries are managed by the Boundary  
Committee' a completely different body! Possibly it would be worth  
asking them. Here is some info about them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Committee_for_England


Regards,



Peter Miller




Councils may indeed have the English written versions - it would be  
worth asking them


I have had more success with the Crown estates who were very  
helpful, but once again their GIS system is based on licenced OS  
data and therefore copyright.


Cheers, Chris

Mike Collinson wrote:


I don't know whether this has been explored before, but a tit-bit  
from Bob Barr who gave a SOTM key note last year and enjoyed  
himself so he came again.


Bob is councillor in ?Warrington and once asked all the councils in  
the greater Manchester area for boundary data.  All supplied him OS- 
derived data except Stockport which gave him a copy of original  
definition which is text based ("The boundary goes down the centre  
of WhatNot Street and then turns left along Kirk Lane ...") and  
therefore free of  OS copyright issues. Each area in the country  
should have one of these document BEFORE the information is  
transcribed into coordinates. He suggests asking the Boundary  
Commission under the Freedom of Information Act for the whole set.


As far as I can tell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Commissions_%28United_Kingdom%29 
, there is one Commission for England http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/default.asp 
, one for Scotland etc.


Anyone tried this? Anyone game?


Mike



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



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] [Spam] Re: Municipal boundaries

[Peter Miller]

On 16 Jul 2009, at 11:17, David Earl wrote:

> Chris Hill wrote:
>> Since this is a Freedom of Information Act request, and they have  
>> refused to supply me the requested information I'll ask the Office  
>> of the Information Commissioner for a ruling.  Not expecting much,  
>> but you never know.

Its strange that they didn't mention the textual description of the  
boundaries that have been mention by Bob Barr and also by other people  
who should be in a position to know.
>
> Even if they did or do supply it, doesn't mean you could do anything  
> useful with it - copyright still applies to data provided under FoI.

Can I suggest that people add any information they glean about this to  
the UK Boundaries page on the wiki. The boundaries page used to have a  
list of all the actual boundaries. I have moved the lists to the  
England/Wales/Scotland pages where it will be more useful which also  
frees the boundary page for the 'meta discussion' about the rules  
around boundaries, where they are on the coast and where we can also  
list all the enquiries we have made and the responses.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/Boundaries


Regards,




Peter

>
> David
>


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Municipal boundaries

[Peter Miller]

On 16 Jul 2009, at 11:31, Chris Hill wrote:

> David Earl wrote:
>> Chris Hill wrote:
>>> Since this is a Freedom of Information Act request, and they have  
>>> refused to supply me the requested information I'll ask the Office  
>>> of the Information Commissioner for a ruling.  Not expecting much,  
>>> but you never know.
>>
>> Even if they did or do supply it, doesn't mean you could do  
>> anything useful with it - copyright still applies to data provided  
>> under FoI.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
> I understand that copyright still applies, but part of the reason  
> I'm doing this is to apply pressure to release this boundary  
> information.  There was a big push when OS asked for comments to  
> release boundary information, partly for democratic reasons and  
> partly because it is damned hard to gather accurately by any other  
> means.  I think extra nudges of such bodies might just help.  Feel  
> free to join in. :-)

I suggest that documenting our efforts to collect data on the UK  
Boundaries page (be they successful or not) will help put pressure on  
the release of the official data that we need.

We did the same thing with the the Gaza project. It didn't immediately  
result in the necessary data being released, but has probably helped  
stir up a discussion. It is worth looking at how the wiki page was  
used to discuss data sources and requests - note that there was no  
talk list dedicated to the area so the wiki was the main medium of  
communication for this project.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Palestine_Gaza



Regards,


Peter



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage

[Peter Miller]

On 19 Jul 2009, at 11:54, Chris Hill wrote:


Peter Reed wrote:


Of the authorities I have managed to measure, the following all  
show more road mapped than the DfT believes exists:


Having mapped every road in Hull (Kingston-upon-Hull since today is  
a Sunday), some are fairly new and may not appear on the DfT  
figures.  How did you account for dual carriageways?  If you counted  
both carriageways and DfT only counted the road once that might  
account for some the difference.  Some of the dual carriageways in  
Hull use the dual_carriageway relation, though not all - I confess  
that I gave up adding it when it seemed to be completely unused.


Firstly can I say thank you Peter! This is a great example of how OSM  
progresses with people popping up with new ideas and innovations where  
the first you hear of it is when the person has done it. I agree that  
dual carriageways are a potential source of over-counting. non-adopted  
roads might be another. Are you clipping roads at the boundary yet? If  
not there you may be including road sections that are only partly in  
the county.


With regard to dual-carriageway relations, I think it is only a matter  
of time before they are taken up and then there will be a rush to add  
more as with the cycle routes and OpenCycleMap. I have added relations  
for dual-carriageways in my area as well.


Could you publish a table of authority boundaries in the UK, their  
name, their admin-level and if you consider them to be complete or  
not? There are various manual boundary checks but none of them seem to  
work all the time and some say things are ok when other ones don't. We  
still don't understand why Hampshire is not recognised by Geofabrik  
boundaries viewer for example.


I added some more boundaries to the England page today (ie some more I  
found on the map rather than ones that I added).

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_England

Btw,  are people ok if I go through the existing ceremonial boundaries  
(the ones that are only ceremonial and not administrative) and change  
there tagging to boundary-ceremonial (rather than  
boundary=administrative)?


A final point. How does one create relations containing relations?  
There is a relation for 'London Boroughs'. I wondered if we should  
produced one for 'Regions of England', and 'ceremonial counties of  
England' and add the appropriate relations to them.


Here is the 'London Boroughs' relation as an example. I like the map  
that is produced from it.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/51908



Regards,



Peter




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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Estimating coverage

[Peter Miller]

On 19 Jul 2009, at 12:44, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Peter Miller wrote:
>> There is a relation for 'London Boroughs'. I wondered if we should  
>> produced one for 'Regions of England', and 'ceremonial counties of  
>> England' and add the appropriate relations to them.
>
> Generally, relations that just serve the purpose of collecting  
> things are frowned upon. Relations are not meant to be a substitute  
> for categories.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories
>
> For example, you would not do a relation "buildings by Norman  
> Foster" because that can be simply done by adding a tag  
> "architect=Norman Foster" to the buildings. If "Regions of England"  
> is exactly a collection of relations with a certain admin level and  
> location, then it carries no extra information and should not be  
> created. (Rule of thumb: If you feel the desire to run a script that  
> would automatically add and remove things to/from a relation based  
> on their location and tagging then your relation is probably a  
> collection relation that does not add value.)
>

Ok, thanks for that Frederik. You never know who will be on a list!
One limitation of OSM at present is that the category=Region_in_Engand  
doesn't work if one also wants to tag the same relationship as  
something else, for example as 'administrative county in England' or  
as 'ceremonial county in England' or anything else. So would it be  
appropriate to tag it as 'Region_in_England=yes'?

> Having said that, it's all evolution, and if people really feel  
> there are advantages to using relations as collections then there's  
> probably nothing I can do against that ;-)
>
>> Here is the 'London Boroughs' relation as an example. I like the  
>> map that is produced from it.
>
> Yes, I have the impression that people often do collection relations  
> because they enjoy being able to simply request a relation/full OSM  
> document from the API and retrieve all the objects, rather than  
> having to find a working XAPI server and formulate a query. However  
> this is *really* something that should be done at search time and  
> not in the database - if we had grouping relations for everything  
> that someone possibly wants so search for... hm, ok, the "slippery  
> slope" argument doesn't help.

What is good about relations is that a thing (way/relation) can be  
part of many other things and there isn't another neat way of doing  
that in OSM (other than using tag=yes where 'tag' is the category  
name). Possibly that is good enough, but if so then it should be  
outlined on the 'relations are not categories'  page and it would of  
course be good to have a way of displaying all relations which match a  
search string. Should we suggest that the 'Footways in East Anglia',  
or more usefully 'long distance footpaths in England' should be tagged  
as 'long distance footpaths in England'=yes.

Here is the Wikipedia category:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Long-distance_footpaths_in_England


Regards,




Peter


>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09"  
> E008°23'33"


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

[Talk-GB] Liam123 is still active unfortunately

[Peter Miller]

Liam123 is back and still being disruptive. I was doing adding some  
attributes to railways yesterday and came across more damage by him.  
There are currently 164 ways around London/Kent/Essex where he is the  
last editor. Here are details of his recent edits :
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/liam123/edits

Can we automatically revert all these changesets? Is that possible? If  
we don't revert his edits now we will have to get his permission to  
update the license which seems unlikely!

Btw, I did have a problem with Potlatch where it appeared to revert  
the ways, but when I reloaded the data into Potlatch then a node  
(Upminster railway station which was at the end of a bunch of ways)  
had 'reverted' to the position he left it and wasn't where Potlatch  
had shown it when I pressed save if that makes any sense.

We really need some better tools for reverting this sort of nonsense  
and a way of patrolling the edits of new contributors . This isn't a  
discussion for talk-gb really, but possibly it is a good place to start.



Regards,


Peter



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

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

[Peter Miller]

On 19 Jul 2009, at 23:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Peter Miller wrote:
>> We really need some better tools for reverting this sort of  
>> nonsense  and a way of patrolling the edits of new contributors .  
>> This isn't a  discussion for talk-gb really, but possibly it is a  
>> good place to start.
>
> See also the recent discussion on talk that started with this:
>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/038575.html
>
> where the author asked
>
> "Now we have the changesets like
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1815935 ... Is it  
> possible to add an "undo request button" or "spam button" to this
> page?"

Thanks Frederik. I have read the thread, but there doesn't seem to be  
a conclusion yet? I will continue the discussion about this problem  
there.



Regards,



Peter

>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09"  
> E008°23'33"


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

[Talk-GB] Reverting all Liam123's edits

[Peter Miller]

I am proposing that we get all Liam123's edits removed from OSM.

My reasoning is firstly many of his edits are clearly just plain wrong  
and are certainly breaking previously good maps. Secondly that he has  
failed to respond to a polite message asking him for an explanation.  
Thirdly, given that he is not responding to messages he is unlikely to  
agree to the new license!

To be clear, this is likely to also result in loosing any subsequent  
work on the ways he touched. I suggest that most of these edits are  
attempts to sort out the mess anyway.

Do I have some support for this?

Does anyone object?


Regards,



Peter



___
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]

On 20 Jul 2009, at 22:32, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Peter Miller wrote:
>> My reasoning is firstly many of his edits are clearly just plain  
>> wrong  and are certainly breaking previously good maps. Secondly  
>> that he has  failed to respond to a polite message asking him for  
>> an explanation.  Thirdly, given that he is not responding to  
>> messages he is unlikely to  agree to the new license!
>
> I cannot say anything about #1 and #2, but #3 must not come into the  
> picture. It would be absolutely wrong to judge someone's  
> contribution today, even if only in an ancillary way, based on  
> whether or not he is likely to agree to some new license which we're  
> not even sure will ever be implemented.

That was not my point which was that there are two ways to removed  
vandalism once one has determined that it is vandalism- the first is  
to repair the damage by moving things back to where they should be and  
re-entering the correct information in tags, the other is to revert  
the data to before the person touched it. In the situation where there  
is a potential license change coming up the later seems the best  
approach once one has determined that it is vandalism.

Currently people are using a mixture of repairing the damage which  
leaving the person in the IPR chain, and reverting ways one by one  
which is slow. However... there is too much damage to efficiently do  
this manually, hence my question with regard to a programatic removal  
of the edits which I understand is possible.

To be clear, this person has probably damage about 1000 ways in ways  
that are visible and/or damage routing. He comes back to do more work  
from time to time and we are having difficulty agreeing to have it  
removed.

I will ask again. Does anyone support a programatic removal of all  
this person's edits? Does any object to a programatic removal of all  
this person's edits. Before saying you object please check a selection  
of his changes and note that some have been reverted already so might  
look ok, but were not ok at the time.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/liam123/edits



Regards,



Peter


>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09"  
> E008°23'33"


___
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]

On 21 Jul 2009, at 09:31, Dave Stubbs wrote:

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:16 AM, David Earl > wrote:

For the record: I agree with Peter that we need to undo this user's
changes, however it is done, and that it could cause large parts of  
East
Anglia to be wiped out if data that happened to have his name on  
were to
be removed because of the license process. We need a way to deal  
with this.



You're exaggerating in this case. But if you're going down that road  
then liam123 is the least of your worries.
Anyway, that's a legal question for a license switch, and the moment  
he (or anybody else for that matter) touches a node/way/relation it  
doesn't matter how we revert, we'll still have the problem. The  
bonus of exact reverts is that they should be pretty easy to detect  
and discard, but radical changes moved roughly back might not be  
that hard.




He keeps coming back, day after day, making nonsense edits, but not  
in a

random way. It's not just scribbling.


Frederick put the revert scripts in svn a while back if you want to  
take a look.


I think this discussion is actually about the process of deciding that  
we want to make a change, not the technical ability to do so. Let's  
deal with the social side first and then do what we decide using the  
technology which is evidently available.


There seem to be two options available:

1) Revert all changes for which the vandal (whoever they are) is the  
last editor to the value before the change was made. Or...
2) Revert all ways which the vandal touch within an agreed date-range  
to the information prior to the edits even if further edits have been  
made over the top since them. To achieve this second we would need  
agreement from the people who subsequently tried to repair by hand. I  
suggest we should *not* consider this further at this point, instead  
we should watch more carefully for malicious edits, especially from  
new users, catch them more quickly and have an agreed way of getting  
consensus that a revert and do the deed prior to too much repair work  
taking place or new rendering to have be done.


I am not hearing anyone saying we should not revert all Liam123's  
edits for which he is still the most recent editor. Can someone do it?


Should we set up a vandalism response process and team for England, or  
the East of England, GB or UK which can deal with UK related  
vandalism? One reason for doing this on at a territorial level is  
because issues will be different in different territories - the middle  
east and Cyprus have different issues from this part of the wold.  
Possibly we start with the GB area (to match with talk-gb) and then  
consider breaking it out to England, Scotland and Wales at a later  
point if necessary and possibly into regions but only if there is a  
good reason.


To be clear, we should only apply a revert to malicious edits; newbies  
errors should be tweeked and dealt with much more sensitively  
(speaking as one who has broken the coastline and sunk the east coast  
on more than one occasion).


For licencing purposes I suggest we would should to recognise the  
special case where a way had been reverted to exactly what it was  
before an edit was done and then remove the person from the IPR chain  
for that way in those circumstances.



Regards,



Peter Miller





Dave




___
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]

On 21 Jul 2009, at 10:05, Alice Kaerast wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:00:25 +0100 (BST)
> Steve Hill  wrote:
>
>
>> If there is a user who (by general consensus) is making nonsense
>> edits and is continuing to do so after having been taken to task by
>> email, I would have thought the first thing to do is to ban the user
>> from making edits before considering what to do about the edits they
>> have already made. Bonus points for being able to display a message
>> explaining *why* they've been banned when they next try to edit
>> stuff, with details of who to contact to resolve the situation.
>>
>
> That's the most sense anybody has spoken on this so far!  Clearly the
> user needs banning from making edits until we decide whether or not to
> revert all the edits.  I have heard nobody suggest that this user's
> edits are not nonsense, so why are we still arguing over what to do
> about this?!

Personally I would prefer not to ban them until we have a better  
process for dealing with vandalism and stopping malicious  
contributors- if we ban them they will probably register with a new  
user-name. I am watching Liam123 at present, but am not watching all  
new users in the South East!

I would like to have an ability to take an RSS feed for contributions  
in an area listing contributors with then ability to hide information  
from users who I have classed as 'trusted'. This would require me to  
be able to set a user's status to 'trusted' when I am happy that their  
edits are constructive. I may continue to monitor newbies who might  
need help and also potential trouble-makers.


Regards,


Peter



>
> - --
> Alice
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJKZYTUAAoJEK/Rrn18ahlCdAQP/3rKpFE1OmMRi4V5AwwI3ILl
> wiQFH5NpdwNB1+6Jq7qxbc7r+BxPg5O81PbAeM1wRV1Ay4ZDcIDLUX3+psU/6GPm
> 7JaoyK99sjBcB6VmJTVXYBmMzMMH2drCOpkRsW2/uu5EusbF12SbqboSxmBhroH0
> Bqj5unwf0S6u+KzuY7DBeW/xbnKMaYO+1lvrgQDRgRKR1vdefozhQLO8dkd3dXmL
> WwAVRB5p3GgpJgKQbvqVU1Y2nntT8q+mTu4fcGt+92WXKY713VDz0zUqV3AAwV8z
> LZLOAst5Dj3YwzcpMyJ9IDU97i2nqt6Zm7u5JmwbB4G/xMSxbvJ9lkx/DVrrpECd
> hcnt2TDNqLgPls3ykDu9pns/SIhq7ZtBggCQM8pzobWUUEUzPs9Lz3YAGlYtNox0
> pt5plPgSfL1U5ctDshFdfHeWV40vNb4jBs/e5B40kxWKM7xfLhpaet1DzABccOLz
> bCywwaEvkYypuDiyqijIUQDFk3Mocatj0fDjo2gHymIPhgFJWqU7GgiFC5uCWPFB
> F4bUxUVJ70JzITsYvLuZbQ/BaCDvYmJtdFEBGu4wFVZnBWeul8KohZsK+a9IpwTt
> i1H62610B5VzkMV9vPDQHmXA5rVyz+xgYhhBs6LKlAQ6wAzHh/5U2x0egs4BMiPV
> GU65gJLIC+P7YSr4nHXF
> =uzdq
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
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]

On 21 Jul 2009, at 10:24, Tom Hughes wrote:

> On 21/07/09 10:10, Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> I am not hearing anyone saying we should not revert all Liam123's  
>> edits
>> for which he is still the most recent editor. Can someone do it?
>
> That will be up to the Data Working Group surely?


Possibly.

>
>> Should we set up a vandalism response process and team for England,  
>> or
>> the East of England, GB or UK which can deal with UK related  
>> vandalism?
>> One reason for doing this on at a territorial level is because issues
>> will be different in different territories - the middle east and  
>> Cyprus
>> have different issues from this part of the wold. Possibly we start  
>> with
>> the GB area (to match with talk-gb) and then consider breaking it  
>> out to
>> England, Scotland and Wales at a later point if necessary and  
>> possibly
>> into regions but only if there is a good reason.
>
> It's called the Data Working Group and it already exists and is due  
> to meet in the near future - I assume this will be on the agenda.

Thanks Tom.

The vandalism page says one should 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism):-
" 1. Make direct human contact. Be polite and assume the best. Wait  
adequate time for response. This is always the first course of action.
"2. Consult with lists and/or trusted individuals and the local  
community to examine problem. If necessary the data working group will  
help identify "investigators" within the community who can research  
the issues.
"3. Report vandalism to the data working group  
(d...@osmfoundation.org). This should be the last resort!

Fyi, we have done 1. We are in the process of doing 2. We should then  
do 3, but only after we have agreement on 2. I think we are also  
talking about how we should "Consult with lists and/or trusted  
individuals and the local community to examine problem" in the UK in  
the future to quickly get to the point where we agree a revert is  
needed.

My intention would be that it should then be pretty much a matter of  
pressing the 'revert' button by someone in the data group after the  
local group has reached agreement.

I would hope that the revert could happen within hours of the report -  
it should not required to wait for a meeting by which time the  
vandalism will have filtered out onto the rendering and into weekly  
planet files etc etc.

I suggest that most of the work of the Data Working Group will be  
dealing with complex issues with potential mass copyright infringement  
or robot-based mass damage. I really hope that this central working  
group doesn't get distracted by every clown in the world who messes  
with an area for a few hours after an evening in the pub!

Btw, would it be worth creating a 'Data Working Group' wiki page (I  
think this is slightly different from vandalism) and there is  
currently no wiki page for it that I can find.



Regards,



peter



>
>> To be clear, we should only apply a revert to malicious edits;  
>> newbies
>> errors should be tweeked and dealt with much more sensitively  
>> (speaking
>> as one who has broken the coastline and sunk the east coast on more  
>> than
>> one occasion).
>
> I'm still not clear on what this user has been doing and what the  
> evidence is that it is indeed malicious. This whole thread started  
> with the statement that "Liam123 is still active unfortunately"  
> which implies there is some history, but I have no memory of that  
> history and there doesn't seem to have been any clear statement in  
> this thread of what he has been doing and why it is thought to be  
> malicious.
>
> Tom
>
> -- 
> Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
> http://www.compton.nu/


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