Re: [Talk-GB] Oxford Railway Station

[Richard Mann]

More correct than it was. I'm sure someone local will improve it ere long.

On 13 Oct 2017 12:46, "Dave F"  wrote:

> Hi
>
> Is there anybody familiar with Oxford Railway Station who could give it a
> check?  A user has made some amendments that don't appear correct. It's a
> few years since I've been & I'm aware there was some redevelopment in the
> area so feel ill-equipped to decide what's correct.
>
> Items I've noted:
> Is there still a short stay car park & a building?
> Buildings are duplicated
> Platform 2 is very narrow.
> Platform 1 drawing inaccurately & with unnecessary relation
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

[Richard Mann]

The classic shared space scheme in Haren:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.17312/6.60310

has no tags that I can see.

I'd go for something like shared_space=yes for the moment. It's a "special"
type of traffic calming.

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:

> Just like in the UK, the councils here make it up as they go along; a
> "shared space" has no special legal status, unlike a "woonerf".
>
> A general principle which has proved its worth is that to make things
> safer, you remove the safety features. Like white lines and kerbs. Everyone
> moans a bit, but in the mean time you slow down and watch out just that
> little bit more... Hence shared spaces, an apparent free-for-all that works
> well.
>
> On 2017-10-01 18:57, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> Not an answer, but a suggestion where there might be a bit more info...
>
> The Netherlands forum https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12
> might be worth a read, since the shared space concept was pioneered there;
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=54843 is directly about
> "shared_space" but a search for "woonerf" (aka "home zone") gets a whole
> bunch more hits.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

[Richard Mann]

I'd stick to tags on the relations, and not super relations. Relations are
not categories. Relations are for things that are in spatial *relationship*
to one another, not just a collection.

Richard

On 10 Feb 2017 13:37, "SK53"  wrote:

> I'm really not sure that we should be trying to map these at all. If we do
> I think Colin's approach is best: a super-relation of other admin entities.
> Not easy to create in the online editors but easy enough in JOSM.
>
> There is very little on the ground to allow verification, and I suspect
> many will be rather ephemeral entities.
>
> There are numerous other boundaries which might be of more interest, but
> still perhaps not suitable for OSM : school and GP catchment areas; police
> authority areas and community policing areas; NHS commissioning areas; etc,
> etc.
>
> As ever the question is where do we stop. I think a useful questions to
> ask are: "Are these boundaries principally used internally to an
> organisation with little or no use outside it?"; "Do the boundaries impinge
> on people external to the originating organisation such that reference to
> these boundaries is likely to be made regularly?"; "Can people tell you
> where roughly where these boundaries lie?.
>
> I can at a pinch tell you the catchment area of my GP surgery because they
> have a big map on the surgery wall, and once upon a time knowledge of NHS
> DHA boundaries was something I need to know professionally, but for the
> most part I dont know anything about the others.
>
> Jerry
>
> On 10 February 2017 at 12:01, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> On 2017-02-10 12:36, Brian Prangle wrote:
>>
>> H - that's one way I hadn't thought of. I was thinking of just adding
>> a tag to each boundary relation to indicate membership status along the
>> lines of west_midlands_combined_authority= constituent_member or
>> non-constituent_member as appropriate. It should work just as well and
>> won't fry my brain in trying to build a relation of that complexity
>>
>> The relations shouldn't be complex, certainly not brain-fryingly so..
>> Also a single relation for the WMCA would comply with the principle of "one
>> object in real life is one object in OSM" and give a unique starting point
>> for users to find the extent and the membership of the authority. Is
>> "non-constituent membership" limited to LA's in the vicinity of the West
>> Midlands? Anything to stop e.g. Cornwall Council from joining, if they so
>> desired?
>>
>>
>>
>> Counties might not be officially required but trying filling in an online
>> address form and see where it gets you if you omit county!
>>
>> Not really our problem! What county would you enter for Uxbridge?
>> Middlesex? Or Greater London?
>>
>>
>> And what admin status should we give to Local Economic Partnerships?  My
>> inclination is not to bother mapping them as boundaries but to add tags as
>> above along the lines of LEP= name
>>
>>
>> LA's can belong to multiple LEPs so this might get messy. Again I would
>> apply the principle of "one object..." and create a relation for the LEP,
>> and make the LAs members. This allows the LEPs to overlap without any
>> ambiguity and "not a semicolon in sight"...
>>
>> //colin
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Rendering of layers

[Richard Mann]

I'm not sure Reading is good, it's just a different approach.

Buildings (and indeed most areas) are typically rendered below lines, for
various practical reasons. So maybe it is better to think of building as
the ground-coverage, rather than the usable floor (or roof).

You might want to put covered=yes on the lines as they pass underneath
(this is what is done for covered walkways between buildings, for
instance). But anything is likely to be a compromise. Look at other
stations and see what seems to work best.

Richard

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Stuart Reynolds <
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:

> Personally I think that Reading is cheating.
>
> The outline that is called the railway station “building” includes the
> ticket halls, the bridge, and the platform surfaces to the extent that
> these stick out of the bridge area. I don’t agree with this - the last time
> I looked, a platform wasn’t a building; it is a platform. I would expect
> this to be a site relation - and in fact, Euston appears to be mapped that
> way, so it doesn’t look like I’m a million miles out with that thought.
>
> Next, the individual “platforms" have been mapped as edges alongside the
> satellite-visible parts of the platform areas. The platforms in OSM don’t
> extend under the footbridge - when in reality they do. Again, at Euston the
> platforms are areas (split in half to allow tagging of each platform
> number). Yes the bridge at Reading is marked as a bridge, which it allows
> it to go over the tracks. But it really is a bridge at Reading. At Gatwick
> it is a whole building over the tracks.
>
> So, to me, Reading looks like it has been mapped for the renderer, rather
> than representing what is physically on the ground.
>
> Regards
> Stuart
>
>
> 
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
> On 21 Jan 2016, at 10:34, Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Compare Reading - are you mapping a roof or a groundplan, or a pedestrian
> bridge?
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Stuart Reynolds <
> stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I made a number of adjustments around the transport terminus at Gatwick
>> Airport South Terminal yesterday. When this was first mapped, what is
>> actually three buildings (the railway station, the covered travelators from
>> the bus station & car parks, and the southern stairs from the railway
>> platforms) were all mapped as one building, and the platforms were
>> “inserts” into the gaps rather than being the continuous entities that they
>> are. So I have separated those all out, and made the platforms a continuous
>> block. I also added internal escalators and travelators, although that is
>> immaterial to the question that I’m about to ask.
>>
>> The buildings are all mapped as layer=1, and the platforms without any
>> layer tag (which should default them to layer=0, AFAIK). So why are the
>> platforms and rail tracks (which I haven’t touched) been rendered over the
>> buildings, rather than under them?
>>
>> See http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.15634/-0.16124
>>
>> Thanks
>> Stuart
>>
>>
>> 
>> Stuart Reynolds
>> for traveline south east & anglia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Birmingham New Street station re-opens

[Richard Mann]

Had a look round. The main upper-level (ie Grand Central) footways are
mercifully fairly simple, but of course the proliferation of shops on
multiple levels is going to be very hard to display.

My suggestion would be to focus conventional tagging on the main street /
concourse level, with a minimalist approach to the other layers/levels. I'm
thinking maybe do the layer 1 footways as highway=footway+bridge=yes, and
the layer 1 shops as level1:shop=xxx+level1:name=yyy.

Richard

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Richard Mann <
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Issues with the rendering are here:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto
>
> I couldn't see anything about platforms (except as a side-issue on
> something else that had been closed), but I didn't search exhaustively.
>
> Richard
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jerry - thanks for the post in the 3D forum. Richard (Mann)  where do I
>> check to see if a ticket has  been raised on the platform rendering?
>>
>> Rgds
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On 21 September 2015 at 21:16, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Brian,
>>>
>>> I've put a couple of messages, one in the UK forum & one here in the 3D
>>> mapping forum
>>> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=548662#p548662.
>>>
>>> It's all fairly standard bboard software: I think OSM user name works.
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>>
>>> On 21 September 2015 at 13:34, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Jerry
>>>>
>>>> I'm not familiar with OSM fora - how do I find out? Or can you give me
>>>> list and where they're found ;-)
>>>>
>>>> On 21 September 2015 at 12:13, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems a very sensible request. It may be worth posting this to the
>>>>> forums. Marek who is very active in both 3D buildings & indoor mapping
>>>>> tends to be there and not on mailing lists. There are both 3D building &
>>>>> indoor mapping subfora too,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jerry
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20 September 2015 at 19:54, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everyone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've blogged <http://www.mappa-mercia.org/blog> about this and the
>>>>>> complexities involved with this multi-level and multi-purpose building. 
>>>>>> It
>>>>>> would be good if we can plan how to map this sensibly and co-ordinate
>>>>>> effort in an agreed way and not just have a  free-for-all accretion of 
>>>>>> POIs
>>>>>> and ways which will end up as an indecipherable tangle (it's pretty bad
>>>>>> already).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Grand Central, the shopping mall on top of New Street station opens
>>>>>> this week on 24 September
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assistance welcomed from railway, public transport and 3D mappers. If
>>>>>> there's any enthusiasm for helping local mappers I'll start a wiki 
>>>>>> project
>>>>>> page where we can record agreed protocols.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ___
>>>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Birmingham New Street station re-opens

[Richard Mann]

Issues with the rendering are here:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto

I couldn't see anything about platforms (except as a side-issue on
something else that had been closed), but I didn't search exhaustively.

Richard

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jerry - thanks for the post in the 3D forum. Richard (Mann)  where do I
> check to see if a ticket has  been raised on the platform rendering?
>
> Rgds
>
> Brian
>
> On 21 September 2015 at 21:16, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> I've put a couple of messages, one in the UK forum & one here in the 3D
>> mapping forum
>> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=548662#p548662.
>>
>> It's all fairly standard bboard software: I think OSM user name works.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> On 21 September 2015 at 13:34, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Jerry
>>>
>>> I'm not familiar with OSM fora - how do I find out? Or can you give me
>>> list and where they're found ;-)
>>>
>>> On 21 September 2015 at 12:13, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Brian,
>>>>
>>>> Seems a very sensible request. It may be worth posting this to the
>>>> forums. Marek who is very active in both 3D buildings & indoor mapping
>>>> tends to be there and not on mailing lists. There are both 3D building &
>>>> indoor mapping subfora too,
>>>>
>>>> Jerry
>>>>
>>>> On 20 September 2015 at 19:54, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi everyone
>>>>>
>>>>> I've blogged <http://www.mappa-mercia.org/blog> about this and the
>>>>> complexities involved with this multi-level and multi-purpose building. It
>>>>> would be good if we can plan how to map this sensibly and co-ordinate
>>>>> effort in an agreed way and not just have a  free-for-all accretion of 
>>>>> POIs
>>>>> and ways which will end up as an indecipherable tangle (it's pretty bad
>>>>> already).
>>>>>
>>>>> Grand Central, the shopping mall on top of New Street station opens
>>>>> this week on 24 September
>>>>>
>>>>> Assistance welcomed from railway, public transport and 3D mappers. If
>>>>> there's any enthusiasm for helping local mappers I'll start a wiki project
>>>>> page where we can record agreed protocols.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Birmingham New Street station re-opens

[Richard Mann]

Well, it's going to be a struggle to get a good result while the default
rendering puts layer=-1 platforms on top of layer=0 footways. Has anyone
raised a ticket for that?

Richard

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:13 PM, SK53  wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> Seems a very sensible request. It may be worth posting this to the forums.
> Marek who is very active in both 3D buildings & indoor mapping tends to be
> there and not on mailing lists. There are both 3D building & indoor mapping
> subfora too,
>
> Jerry
>
> On 20 September 2015 at 19:54, Brian Prangle  wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone
>>
>> I've blogged  about this and the
>> complexities involved with this multi-level and multi-purpose building. It
>> would be good if we can plan how to map this sensibly and co-ordinate
>> effort in an agreed way and not just have a  free-for-all accretion of POIs
>> and ways which will end up as an indecipherable tangle (it's pretty bad
>> already).
>>
>> Grand Central, the shopping mall on top of New Street station opens this
>> week on 24 September
>>
>> Assistance welcomed from railway, public transport and 3D mappers. If
>> there's any enthusiasm for helping local mappers I'll start a wiki project
>> page where we can record agreed protocols.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Odd highway=primary_link changes in gyratory systems

[Richard Mann]

Rendering _links is a pain, and the default rendering isn't brilliant at it
(it renders all links under all non-links). So I'd definitely err on the
side of not using _links unless they are adding some real information.

A good use of _links is to distinguish between the main roads continuing
through at speed and the links between the main roads. If you don't have
flyovers/underpasses, _links aren't really adding anything (and just make
life hard for the data consumer).

Some people seem to use _links when a road divides in two approaching a
junction. This also causes problems, and I can't really see what value it
is adding.

Using _links on a simple roundabout is unusual, and unhelpful. What value
is it adding?

Richard

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Paul Bivand paul.biv...@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:

 Noticed some changes that I think odd that appear to derive from mapper
 urViator changing highway= primary to primary_link in a gyratory system in
 Strood. http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33203852


 As I understand the _link versions, these are for short parts of junction
 systems rather than substantial chunks of road in the sort of gyratory
 systems
 that traffic engineers surround town centres with.

 What's evident on the standard rendering is the odd overlaying on the _link
 roads of joining roads. I'd have thought that having joining roads was
 pretty
 much a sign that _link was not appropriate.

 What do people think?

 Paul Bivand (paulbiv)



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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge

[Richard Mann]

A quick scan of Oxford shows the colleges (and a few multi-building areas
such as the Science Area) as amenity=university, with buildings within
colleges and odd departments as building=university. So we have a lot of
universities too.

Other big difference is that we haven't generally added (University of
Oxford) to the end of all the college names...

I'd tend to go for amenity=university for a contiguous site with a single
name, with the occasional split site (eg on two sides of a public road) as
a multi-polygon. Then I'd add a *tag* to show that the site was part of a
collection making up the University (probably operator, though that feels
wrong, since the colleges are independent entities). It's *not* a candidate
for a relation because there are no geographical relationships between the
components.

Richard

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com
wrote:

 Hi Dan,

 Yes, Philip's right - I developed and continue to maintain the University
 map at http://map.cam.ac.uk (as well as doing all of the original street
 pattern mapping for Cambridge back in 2006). The University has put a
 considerable investment and negotiated permission for college access into
 the map and contributed tens of thousands of pounds of survey data into OSM
 - it's not just some of its maps, it's completely central to the
 University map, not just a casual effort.

 The schema for tags that make the University map work is at
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge
 (I've just realised I haven't updated that page with a recent, unrelated
 new bit, I must do so).

 As it happens, I was also thinking about this the other day. The three
 main things are that is (a) consistent and (b) doesn't change under our
 feet and break the map, (c) it needs a way to distinguish these buildings
 from others. It possibly wasn't the best decision to do it like this,
 though I still don't think it is a terrible way to do it. Relations would
 be awful: they are very hard to maintain accurately, and incidentally they
 are hard to work with in consumers because they come at the end of the data
 so you have to do multiple passes or keep lots of data in memory, and I
 think you'd lose most of the distinctive renderings off the OSM map, though
 since that's such an opaque process it's hard to know.

 building=university would work, but only if done in a controlled way so
 that we don't break the map while it's being done. But do you really want
 to spend your days in front of a computer changing all the university tags
 in Cambridge though?! I can think of more productive and helpful things to
 do. I did consider building=university, but like all things OSM, there was
 a camp that only wanted building=yes, and that is what the Map_features
 page then decreed (it has more now, but university isn't among them). The
 more critical tags from my point of view are the operator ones.

 This raises some other points though...

 1. What about the sites and the colleges? These are also tagged
 University, and there isn't an obvious alternative that won't mean the
 ordinary OSM maps don't show them. Fundamentally, is a part of a
 university a university? I think it's helpful to do it like that. Did you
 know the University of Nottingham has a branch in China - would it really
 be helpful to link these with relations spanning the world? I think there's
 cases both ways.

 2. What is a University anyway? Almost no university is in one physical
 area. Even campus universities like UEA have outlying premises (in UEA's
 case in London too). Do you really not want the campus area to be tagged
 university just because it isn't the whole thing? You said Anglia Ruskin
 was one of the two universities in Cambridge - no it isn't, it's HALF a
 university, the rest is in Chelmsford. I don't think it would do any harm
 and would be helpful to group them with relations, if that were
 maintainable sustainably, but not at the expense of losing the tags from
 the outline itself. And the building thing only extends this further. Is
 a University a geographical thing at all? It's an institution, which may
 have some buildings but really it's a concept not a physical object -
 ultimately everything on the map is just a part, not the whole.

 4. Constantly changing tags creates a moving target that is extremely hard
 to maintain for data consumers, and is a major off-putting factor in using
 OSM, especially if you can't manage the process because things just change
 under your feet. For example, there is a thread on talk discussing
 completely changing the amenities altogether, without regard for people who
 want to use this stuff in the real world. My view is that tags are merely
 tokens and too much is read into the words. They are part of the API and
 the fact you can change them because you prefer some other structure
 doesn't mean you should. The flexibility means we can introduce new things
 easily, but constant 

Re: [Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?

[Richard Mann]

My inclination is to draw them in (just on main roads for the moment) but I
add an adjacent=yes tag so that there's a basic flag that they're part of a
bigger street structure.

I started to do this when I wanted to mark crossings as linear features,
rather than just as dots.

Richard

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Stuart Reynolds 
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk wrote:

  Looking for some advice in Bletchley, specifically, but to answer a more
 general point about footpaths.

  Please look at http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.99530/-0.73751

  Bletchley Rail Station sits in the middle, and to the west is the main
 road, which is Sherwood Drive. There is also a footpath shown coming from
 the station and along the eastern side of Sherwood Drive, but not on the
 western side.

  This feels very wrong to me on a number of levels. For starters, the
 footpath doesn’t connect to Sherwood Drive except at the bottom, so it
 isn’t apparent that you can cross the road to go along Selwyn Grove, for
 example. Also, there is no footpath going north, nor is there a footpath on
 the western side of Sherwood Drive, despite it being quite clearly there on
 Streetview. In addition, Sherwood Drive already has the tag Sidewalk=both 
 which
 rather makes the footpath redundant, doesn’t it?

  My inclination would be to rip out the footpath and rely on the sidewalk
 tag, except that seems extreme and it isn’t wrong *per se.*

  So what is the guidance here? Ought the road have a distinct footpath
 both sides? Or not footpath, and use the tags on the road, or just
 connecting spurs from the footpath to the road at key points (e.g. opposite
 Selwyn Grove), or what…?

  Thanks
 Stuart


  
 Stuart Reynolds
 for traveline south east  anglia





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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Advice on footpaths - when should they be separate, when not?

[Richard Mann]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:22 PM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote:


 Usage of adjacent seems to be fairly localised in the UK:

 http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/6k7

 Yeah, probably just me (maybe nobody else feels the need to make the
distinction). I think there are some places in Germany where they have
separately drawn all the sidewalks, might be worth looking for/at.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits

[Richard Mann]

I guess the problem is that quarter/suburb just isn't a natural-english
hierarchy, whereas we do know what town/suburb mean.

What is certainly clear is that distinct town centres in the London suburbs
are not the same as other suburbs, and deserve a separate place type.
place=town has served that function for a while, and appears to be the
local style. It can be changed, but affects-lots-of-users changes like that
are better discussed (by just doing it and waiting for the reaction, if by
no other means).

Someone should add a note to the wiki about the fact that sometimes
place=town is used for major centres in a conurbation. I can't actually see
a better alternative at the moment.Using place=quarter in London is just
asking for further misunderstanding.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits

[Richard Mann]

I'd revert the changes.

The rule I worked to a couple of years ago, when I tried to iron out some
of the inconsistencies in London was to use place=town for places with a
sizeable retail centre (typically lots of clothes shops as well as food).

Richard

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:

 Hello there,

 As somebody who dislikes change, I was slightly horrified to see these
 edits:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26783815
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26795471
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26567938

 The user has changed a whole lot of places within London and Birmingham
 that were tagged as town / village / hamlet / etc. to place=suburb. He
 appears to be following the advice now given on the wiki, that:

 Areas of a town/city should not be tagged with place=town, place=village
 or place=hamlet. These should only be used for distinct settlements.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb

 Apart from the fact that I cannot stand it when the work of self-appointed
 wiki editors leads to somebody making sweeping edits of others' work, I
 also really don't like losing the hierarchy of place implicit in Wimbledon
 being marked as a town, Forest Hill a village, Belleden a hamlet, and so
 on, and them all just becoming 'suburb'. Apart from the fact that many
 places in London were historically towns in their own right, they are often
 also regarded as town centres.

 But should we swallow this and move to the use of
 place=suburb/quarter/neighbourhood?

 If so, I'd like to do this properly, instead of the process that this user
 has gone through to just make everything 'suburb'.

 Regards,
 Tom



 --
 http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Stansted - cartography vs routing, and levels

[Richard Mann]

Layers are _relative_, so I'd use layer=0 (ie default) for the layer with
the most detail (probably the public area of the terminal building), and if
that has to use stairs or escalators to fit in with adjacent layer=0 areas
then so be it.

Richard

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Stuart Reynolds 
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk wrote:

  Can you help?



 I have a problem with Stansted, and don’t know how to go about sorting it.
 Fundamentally, it is drawn so that it looks nice cartographically, but
 there are no routeable connections between the rail station and the coach
 station, or up into the terminal building. So I need to add some in, but
 levels keep getting in the way.



 The coach station is at ground level. Really ground level. Currently all
 the bays are shown, but behind the coach station there isn’t a footpath,
 but there is a roof. Unsurprisingly, pedestrians cannot use roofs! I can
 put a footpath underneath that, though, so it isn’t really a problem. The
 problem starts to come when you go into the terminal building, which you do
 just behind the coach station in a number of places (where the
 north-projecting bits of roof are).



 For those of you who don’t know Stansted, the terminal building sits atop
 a built up bank. So the entrance has all the appearance of being at ground
 level, as it is just like a mini hill, but is really at level 1, as can be
 seen if you view the terminal from the air side, with all of the baggage
 handling areas on the true ground floor. The entrances from the coach
 station go in at true ground, there are then
 footpaths/ramps/lifts/escalators down to the rail station at level -1, and
 up to the terminal building. The terminal building, though, is currently
 set to level 0 and I am loath to change it in case that makes it appear to
 be up in the air - and as I said, the air side of the terminal really does
 sit on the ground, and it is mapped as one building. The only part of the
 terminal that is currently mapped as level 1 is a passenger air bridge,
 which really is a walkway over a road. But it is a flat walk out of the
 level 0 terminal!



 I don’t want to break it, but I need to reflect the routing options,
 lifts, escalators, ramps, etc. But how should I enter these? As “visible”
 elements, or as hidden elements? And how should I show the tunnels from the
 ground level coach station under the terminal building as tunnels, and…



 You can see why I am confused!



 Many thanks

 Stuart



 ---

 Stuart Reynolds

 For traveline south east  anglia



 email: stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk

 mob: 07788 106165

 skype: stuartjreynolds





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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK use of highway=living_street

[Richard Mann]

Block paving is very common for residential streets in the Netherlands, so
that's not really enough to distinguish a living_street.

I'd keep highway=living_street for (at minimum) single surface, no clear
distinction between where cars and pedestrians go, and no clear straight
route for cars.


On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all,

 By coincidence, I've just got home from mapping a home zone
 signposted area - first time I've seen one. I'm tagging it as
 living_street. Here it is:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4004201

 I would say do not use the tag just because of seeing block paving on
 the street. As far as I'm aware, there's no rule that motorists have
 any obligation to interpret block paving in a particular way. In
 practice, I guess it does influence them, but as a nudge not a rule,
 so it seems to me that highway=residential and surface=paving_stones
 (as you suggest, Rob) is a good fit for the merely block-paved.

 Best
 Dan

 2014-08-31 19:56 GMT+01:00 Amaroussi-OSM kurias...@gmail.com:
  As far as I know for minor roads, I always default to using unclassified
 or residential (depending on the surrounding area’s predominant land use).
 I only use “Pedestrian” where such sign exists, and “Living streets” for
 actual home zones with “home zone” signs, if I ever found one.
  ___
  Talk-GB mailing list
  Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] City names translation

[Richard Mann]

This thread is already too long (though Fred's contribution was a classic).

If people want to add transliterations (or genuinely different names) by
hand, then let them. As long as no-one starts doing mass automated
transliterations, then it doesn't matter very much.

Richard (M)


On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Pavlo Dudka pavlo.du...@gmail.com wrote:

 I assert that it is much better to use a single service, because it is
 easier to add 100 osm-tags than implement communication with external data
 sources.
 Nominatim use osm-data, it should not(and I hope will never) use any other
 data from Wikidata or other projects.
 Mapnik allows to process .osm data without using any external data sources.
 There is also nice project Multilingual Map created as part of
 Multilingual maps wikipedia project(
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_maps_wikipedia_project).
 Can any of this services be easily modified to use Wikidata? No.

 I don't ask anyone to waste his time to modify UK place-nodes. That's how
 I want to spend my own time. But I want to be sure that SomeoneElse_Revert
 or someone else will not revert my changes.

 OSM-community tries to avoid any imports. I would like to check all cities
 one by one. I will check its spelling in ukrainian spelling dictionary,
 wikipedia, web articles.

 Note, half of UK cities don't have any reference to Wikipedia.

 http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=node[%22is_in:country%22=%22United%20Kingdom%22][%22place%22=%22city%22][%22wikipedia%22!~%22.*%22];out%3BR
 I can fill them too while adding name:uk=*.


 2014-08-05 12:42 GMT+03:00 Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk:

  Not, it is not a job for external services. It is much better to use
 single
  service(OSM) rather than multiple(OSM+Wikidata).
  OpenStreetMap supports multiple names - let's use it. If you don't like
  someone use some tags - just ignore those tags.

 You assert that it is much better  to sue a dingle service, rather
 than using linked open data as it is meant to be used; but you present
 no argument for that assertion.

 It is ot a case of not liking some tags, but of not wanting to
 squander vouneteer hours repeating work that has already been done -
 effectively and better - elsewhere.

 Even were your assertion true, the data is, in many cases, already in
 Wikidata and freely available for import.

 --
 Andy Mabbett
 @pigsonthewing
 http://pigsonthewing.org.uk



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import

[Richard Mann]

Just my tuppence, since I used the Naptan stop data to make a printed map.
Electronic version here: http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/busmap/

My memory is that I corrected a lot of minor positional errors, and the
occasional name/bearing. I had to add in a few stops that weren't in
Naptan. I wouldn't want to lose these changes, but I'd quite like to fill
in stuff from Naptan that has been updated/corrected. Perhaps we need a
viewer that does comparisons both ways, so both sides can accept changes
from the other side if they look better.

I created almost all the route relations from scratch (which was painful,
but would probably have been easier if I'd used the german editor). Anyway,
it basically only has to be done once, and needs human review, so I'd
probably recommend doing them by hand, rather than attempting to generate
them automatically from a timetable.

I used service to distinguish between city/country/express services.

I put frequency on the route relation (ie typical off-peak weekday
per-hour frequency), such as this one:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/143161

If it's less than once per hour I put journeys (ie per weekday) on the
route relation. Sometimes I put journeys on stops (as a flag for not
rendering them).

The frequencies can be summed/combined for particular ways, if required. I
had to bodge that a bit for my map, but I'll probably do it properly when
(if) I update it, since Maperitive now has a python capability.

Richard





On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Stuart Reynolds 
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk wrote:

  The TNDS data isn’t going to be based on what is already in OSM, if I’ve
 understood you correctly Oliver. Rather, in our bit, we import the GIS,
 route on it using proprietary (to our contractor) routing engines and
 manually adjust where appropriate, and then we can export the track
 coordinates as OSGR into the TNDS data.



 I haven’t looked at the service tags in any detail, so what I’m about to
 say may well be there already. But if we want to represent the complexity
 then we either have to capture the individual departures at a stop or, more
 likely, try and represent the frequency/regularity of a service on a link.
 Then renderers could show dotted/thin lines, or put the service number in
 different colours for infrequent services. Of course, there are plenty of
 issues around that as well!



 Stuart



 *From:* Shaun McDonald [mailto:sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk]
 *Sent:* 01 August 2014 3:57 PM
 *To:* Oliver Jowett
 *Cc:* Stuart Reynolds; Talk GB
 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import



 I see it as being better to put the right hints into the OSM data and the
 routing algorithm so that they can be automatically chosen from the TNDS
 data, rather than having the data in OSM, which is hard to represent some
 complexities such as a few journeys go via a school, some are part route,
 etc



 Shaun



 On 1 Aug 2014, at 15:32, Oliver Jowett oliver.jow...@gmail.com wrote:



   Right - I was just trying to understand which was the canonical source.
 One of the things I've been wanting to try (but never have the time) is
 repair the OSM bus route relations based on the TNDS schedule info - which
 sounds very much like your track-finding system. But that gets dangerous if
 TNDS is indirectly pulling data from OSM itself..



 Oliver



 On 1 August 2014 14:20, Stuart Reynolds stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk
 wrote:

  Oliver,



 TNDS data (Traveline National Data Set, for other’s benefit - national set
 of bus  coach timetables) does not currently have the route detail - known
 in TransXChange as tracks. This is because up to now there have been issues
 of IPR with OSGR coordinates derived from OS and/or Navteq data.



 Certainly from our point of view - and by “us” I mean the traveline
 regions of South East, London, East Anglia, South West, East Midlands and
 (shortly) West Midlands - we are all now on a merged system using OSM data
 so those problems have gone away. But I still won’t be exporting Tracks
 until TNDS asks me to.



 Even then, it still has the issues of “is this right”. Most of the time it
 is, but we do get some routes which find a shorter path along a back street
 rather than down the main road.



 Cheers

 Stuart



 *From:* Oliver Jowett [mailto:oliver.jow...@gmail.com]
 *Sent:* 01 August 2014 1:51 PM
 *To:* Stuart Reynolds


 *Cc:* Talk GB
 *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] NaPTAN (stop) import





 On 1 August 2014 11:17, Stuart Reynolds stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk
 wrote:



   In terms of bus routes, we also compute the most likely route between
 stops, and could use that to update the services on each link. But that is
 a whole different ball game - we have to make sure our data is good
 quality, and I will need to think what to do when a bus turns off halfway
 along a road that is mapped as one line, for example, - and I’m not about
 to get into that for now! Although I would like to, eventually!



 Where does TNDS fit 

Re: [Talk-GB] Life Ring - British English

[Richard Mann]

en-gb is probably lifebuoy

I've never heard it called a life ring - that's too vague a name. Most
people would probably refer to it by starting to describe it - one of those
red ring things that you can use to help someone who is drowning.


On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote:

 I'm trying to clean up the emergency tags in the Wiki and found
 emergency=life_ring as well as some less used other tag combinations with
 amenity and buoy.

 Is life ring how it is commonly referred to in British English. Just
 wanted to make sure it's not literal translation from German and isn't used
 in the UK at all. Wikipedia lists a lot of different names. I guess
 lifebuoy is more American? And is it written life ring or lifering? Both
 correct?

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dlife_ring
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifebuoy
 __
 openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis updated with May 2014 OS Locator data

[Richard Mann]

There's one like that in Oxford (for about 30 metres) - street addresses
different on the two sides. For the moment it has name=St Clements
Street, alt_name=London Place, and a separate footway with name=London
Place (plus a name:note).

So my suggestion - draw separate footways, and give them names. Use
name/alt_name on the road, or name = one name / other name if both seem
equally valid.

Richard


On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.comwrote:

 Hello,

 It's interesting and highlights a few problems local to me, some I had
 buried my head in the sand temporarily because I don't know how to fix them
 correctly. My biggest problem when tagging roads is what to name a road
 when either side of the road is a different street. For instance the
 analysis highlights Myrtle Grove as missing here:
 http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/map_browser?bbox=415474,536751,415809,537148referrer=area

 Myrtle grove is the South side of the road labeled Chestnut Grove and
 continues around to where the Road is labeled Elm Gardens. Almost all of
 the streets in the estate are like this, where it is very misleading
 because opposite sides of the road is a different named street. How should
 this be mapped, I have steered clear of fixing it because I couldn't find
 any guidance on how it should be labeled and technically is it even wrong.
 The actual building footprints I have added the correct addresses to.

 I use various OS products in my day job and interestingly OSM labels the
 streets exactly the same as Vectormap Local does, anyone looking at either
 OS or OSM maps would not be able to find Myrtle Grove. Another street where
 I have always though was labeled wrong in the village is Roddymoor Road,
 there is no street sign and I have near heard anyone refer to it as this.
 The street on part of this road is not labeled (buildings are) it is East
 Terrace and that's how anyone describing it or looking at signs would
 describe it. Again OS do this the same which is probably why OSM has it
 tagged like this.

 All of this highlights that while OS Locator may have a difference and is
 fantastic for finding potential problems, changing it so OS Locator
 comparisons are 100% may not be the correct solution?

 Any help appreciated and apologies if I should ask in a different list,
 surely this is an incredibly common problem that I have somehow missed the
 obvious solution to.

 regards,
 Steven


 On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk
  wrote:

 ITO’s OSM Analysis has been updated with the latest OS Locator data. Most
 places have dropped out of the 100% completeness compared to OS Locator.
 There’s now 18 places which have less than 95% completeness.

 http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main

 Shaun McDonald
 Developer
 ITO World
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




 --
 www.stevenhorner.com  http://www.stevenhorner.com
  @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner
  0191 645 2265
  stevenhorner

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Town v City

[Richard Mann]

I added a population tag to some of the dubious ones (primarily the larger
non-cities) to enable them to be identified by the renderer.

Rochester/Chatham is complicated (not least by the fact that Rochester
managed to lose its City status by accident).


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Andy Street a...@street.me.uk wrote:

 On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:13:59 +
 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:

  If anything, I'd like to amend the UK use of place=city to come up
  with a use of the tag that fits in with global OSM usage. We can add a
  tag for 'ceremonial status' or similar to indicate they are a 'city'
  according to the weird UK rules but aren't actually cities in the main
  meaning of the word. So long as it's all agreed and documented, I'd be
  in favour of a change.

 +1

 I see similarities between this and admin areas where I've tagged
 admin_level=* to denote place within a global hierarchy then
 supplemented it with designation=unitary_authority etc. to record
 regional intricacies.

 Perhaps we could use designation=GB:city in this instance?

 --
 Regards,

 Andy Street

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Possible vandalism? New Forth Road Bridge being changed to motorway from construction

[Richard Mann]

These users probably want a rendering. It's too easy to change the data,
wait for it to render then grab the result.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence

[Richard Mann]

You need to formally ask:  Any other dataset published under the OS
OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or
by OS if any).

is unclear: ask who?

Ask the organisation doing the publishing (eg Norfolk CC), or OS?

My impression of the Mike Collinson dialogue was that OS basically agreed
that *indirect* use of their mapbase in this fashion as the context for
someone else's data was OK, but that the someone else also had to agree,
not that OS had to be asked each and every time. Robert's interpretation is
that OS have to be asked every time.

Perhaps the wiki text could be made more explicit.


On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 24 January 2014 14:25, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote:
  By all means say OSMf/LWG consider that OSGB OGL data can be included
 in OSM, but
  I personally avoid doing so ...

 But as far I I know, that would be incorrect. According to Michael
 Collinson's post at
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-July/015028.html

 LWG view on use of data in OSM under OS OpenData License:

 Yes: OS OpenData product except CodePoint

 No:  CodePoint (a Royal Mail response to Chris Hill needs further
 investigation)

 You need to formally ask:  Any other dataset published under the OS
 OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or
 by OS if any).

 So unless something has changed since then that I'm not aware of, LWG
 consider that data licensed under the OS OpenData Licence *cannot* be
 included in OSM, unless it's either one of the specific OS OpenData
 products (except CodePoint Open) or you formally ask for permission
 from the rights holders.

 Robert.

 --
 Robert Whittaker

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Upcoming changes to OpenStreetMap.org website

[Richard Mann]

At least they could have the grace to spell licence correctly.


On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote:

 +1 for a close button.  That box just screams at me to be closed - my
 brain wants to see what's behind it!  Not sure what communication went out
 about this notifying the community of the date of implementation - I
 certainly wasn't aware of anything. I saw lots of discussion about the
 design but the first I knew about implementation was when I saw it live.
 Surely we can do better than this?

 Regards

 Brian


 On 1 December 2013 18:03, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:

 
  In regards to the comment about wanting a [x] button on the welcome
 text,
  it does disappear for logged in users and small screen devices. As for
 non


 Now it has gone live, I have to say that it is a disaster and likely
 to turn me and others from OSM. We take all this trouble to create
 a beautiful and useful map and it is ruined by this stupid permanent
 window obscuring a large part of the map on small screen devices.

 It is a waste of time to login when I am not actively mapping and
 seriously unfriendly. Not to mention the bother of looking up my
 password (which is quite strong) each time.

 Now what was the fork of OSM called? Informationhighway?

 ael


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



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Primary or Trunk?

[Richard Mann]

At least we don't have the situation in Copenhagen, where route 16 goes
from being a motorway to a primary to a trunk to a primary to a trunk to a
tertiary. It's wider than Euston Road as it goes past the centre of the
city...

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/55.6940/12.5479
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Unclassified and Tertiary Roads

[Richard Mann]

If in doubt, unclassified. Use tertiary if it's consistently built to a
cars-can-pass-one-another-easily standard (which usually means a clear
through route between main roads, or the access route to a significant
village).

Might be different in parts of Britain where even main roads get to be
single track, though.


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.comwrote:


 Hi

 In Upper Hulme (Old Buxton Road and Roach Road) and on roads above (Back
 of the Rocks) and below (Blackshaw Lane) there seem to be odd changes
 between Unclassified and Tertiary Road tags.

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/53.1444/-1.9821

 I've no experience with regard to tagging highways so I was wondering what
 information there is available to check whether this is correct of whether
 it is a judgement call?  Roach Road is mostly single track and has a gate
 on it.

 Any assistance would be appreciated.

 Regards

 Dudley



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes

[Richard Mann]

IIRC a lot of those tags were added by Chriscf, without any local
surveying, and since the value was derived from the speed limit, there's
little added value in having separate maxspeed:type values. It's just
clutter. What matters to the data user is the maxspeed tag. The
maxspeed:type tag is probably only of use to mappers. And not much use to
them either.


On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:26 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.ukwrote:

  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.

 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, 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 
 policyhttp://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.

 Cheers,

 Andy

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


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Trunk vs green-sign routes in the UK

[Richard Mann]

the wiki is the long-accepted approach: use highway=trunk for green signs -
ie the primary (sorry) route network


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 2:44 PM, David Fisher djfishe...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 This is kind of a tagging question, but is UK-specific and pretty
 straightforward so I thought I'd post it here -- apologies  happy to
 re-post if felt inappropriate.

 I've noticed a couple of roads in the UK being downgraded in OSM from
 trunk to primary on the basis that they are not trunk in the County
 Council / DfT maintenance sense.  They are, however, green-sign primary
 routes and are clearly of greater importance than your average white-sign
 route.  The ones I've noticed are the A354 (Salisbury-Blandford) and A22
 (Greater London boundary to E Grinstead).

 Strictly speaking these changes are correct, as trunk in the UK implies
 being run by the DfT rather than local councils (N.B. a large number of
 former trunk routes have been devolved in the past 10 or 20 years).  But
 the OSM Wiki says to use the trunk tag for primary A road (green
 signs), and this would certainly make more sense from the road-user
 perspective.  Is there a consensus on this?  If not, might it be a good
 idea to introduce a new tag signifying a UK green-sign route, and for
 these to be rendered as such in Mapnik (i.e. in green, the same as trunk
 routes)?

 Thanks,

 David.




 ___
 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] Ambiguous restrictions sign

[Richard Mann]

You probably want one of these: http://goo.gl/maps/2K3XR at the closed end
and one of these at the access-for-loading end: http://goo.gl/maps/AVJ8h


On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:04 PM, David Fisher djfishe...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Shaun,

 I take it you're referring to Ipswich?  In which case, I can sort of see
 the logic.  It's not one-way, it's no entry, so when the excepting
 conditions are satisfied it becomes two-way.  In Croydon's case there's
 that no motor vehicles sign at one end, with a no entry sign at the
 other with no excepting conditions -- so presumably the intention is for
 the street to be one-way even for cyclists.  (which is odd, given that
 there's nowhere else obvious to go coming southbound on a cycle.)

 I'm now in contact with the local cycling advocacy group, so will see if I
 can get a (more) official position on Croydon in the same way as you have
 for Ipswich.

 Thanks,

 David.



 On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Shaun McDonald 
 sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.ukwrote:


 On 31 Oct 2012, at 16:02, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:

  On 31/10/2012 15:29, Andy Robinson wrote:
  Shaun McDonald [mailto:sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk] wrote:
  Sent: 31 October 2012 15:21
  To: Matt Williams
  Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
  Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ambiguous restrictions sign
 
 
  On 31 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:
 
  On 31 October 2012 14:37, David Fisher djfishe...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi all,
 
  The pedestrianised main shopping street in Croydon has a sign with
  the following wording: Pedestrian Zone.  No vehicles except cycles
  and for loading 6pm-10am.
  How would you interpret that?  I see at least 3 possibilities:
 
  (a) Cycles permitted at any time; loading only permitted 6pm-10am
  (this is what I guess is the correct one)
  (b) Cycles and loading only permitted 6pm-10am (this would also make
  sense; i.e. cycling only outside shopping hours)
  (c) Restrictions apply 6pm-10am (clearly ludicrous!)
  (d) Something else?
 
  I'm guessing it's meant to be (a), but just thought I'd canvas
  opinion before tagging.
 
  I think I agree with (a). I would find it a little strange to
 disallow
  cycling just during the day (why not just ban it entirely?).
 
  The centre pedestrianised bit of Ipswich has cycling banned from
 10:30am -
  4:30pm. It does get pretty busy during that time.
  http://goo.gl/maps/ouha1
 
 
  I'm not sure that's correct? Is it not just banning cyclists from
 cycling
  against the traffic flow during this period? The sign at the other end
  suggests its open to cyclists at all times in the direction of normal
 flow.
 
  (from your corrected link http://goo.gl/maps/SM2y9 )
 
  The key thing here is the sign it is underneath. The reference to
 cyclists in the text is superfluous (and presumably not authorised by the
 DfT) because the 'low flying motorbike' sign means no MOTOR vehicles, and
 a bike isn't a motor vehicle. That's not just pedantry: there is a separate
 sign for banning ALL vehicles, a simple red roundel with nothing inside it.
 There is no restriction on bikes at any time according to that sign.
 
  Their traffic engineer needs sending back to sign school.
 

 So some more info on this situation.

 The intention was to allow cycling in both directions between the hours
 of 4:30pm and 10:30 am. With vehicles for loading and service access in one
 direction only during those hours. However it's more recently turned out
 that it's not possible to legally sign a road like that.

 Unfortunately there are a few cyclists who are spoiling it for everyone
 else, by cycling dangerously during the busy period, thus the probable plan
 is to not allow cycling all the time in terms of signage. (The police are
 happy to allow sensible cycling even if not allowed).

 Shaun


 ___
 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] road names along the A50 (and elsewhere)

[Richard Mann]

I'd use alt_name. At least it's an established place to look for
alternative stuff.


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:

 Rovastar wrote:
  Fos­ton Hat­ton Hilton Bypass, etc  don't as far I I know appear on
  the ground however I think the some record should appear in
  OSM. I am worried about the trend in this case of placing them
  as the name of the road as what reference point would people
  use for these.

 Having lived near there (part time) for six years, certainly I never heard
 anyone call it that.

 I tend to tag C-roads with admin_ref rather than ref, on the basis that
 it's
 a reference for administrative purposes rather than general usage. By the
 same token, maybe admin_name would work here, or something like it.

 cheers
 Richard





 --
 View this message in context:
 http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/road-names-along-the-A50-and-elsewhere-tp5749880p5750003.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] Fowey estuary coastline problem

[Richard Mann]

Best advised to leave the natural=water in place (with a fixme note) until
the coastline re-renders (which could be a few weeks)

Richard


On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Jason Woollacott wool...@hotmail.comwrote:

   This relates to some work I did on the Cornish county boundary a while
 back,  the same also has happened at Newton Ferrers, just south of Plymouth.

 Whilst remapping the boundary, I also pushed the coastline further up the
 channel.The new boundary has rendered,  and the removal of the original
 ‘water’ tag has gone,  but the planet file doesn’t seem to have generated a
 new coastline yet.

 Does anybody know if a new coastline will be generated soon?  as this
 should address the problem.

 Jason (UniEagle)

  *From:* cotswolds mapper osmcotswo...@gmail.com
 *Sent:* Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:17 PM
 *To:* talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
 *Subject:* [Talk-GB] Fowey estuary coastline problem

 Just been looking at Fowey on OSM and noticed (well it was hard to miss)
 that there's something wrong with the coastline in the Fowey estuary.  I
 don't have any experience of coastlines, so I trust someone else can fix
 this.

 Rob

 --
 ___
 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] Rendering of disused railway stations

[Richard Mann]

One in London has had disused: put in front of the tags

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1528661184


On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Bogus Zaba bog...@bogzab.plus.com wrote:

 Has anybody else noticed / been annoyed by the way that disused railway
 stations are rendered just like regular railway stations on the cycle map,
 transport map and MapQuest open views of OSM?

 Mapnik seems to know the difference and renders the disused stations with
 a smaller symbol and grey label, but viewing the other three layers leads
 you to the conclusion that these are all regular stations.

 For an example see this (http://www.openstreetmap.org/**
 ?lat=53.43943lon=-2.96918**zoom=15layers=Chttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.43943lon=-2.96918zoom=15layers=C)
 in North Liverpool where I was cycling using the cycle map recently. Bank
 Hall and Kirkdale are regular stations which are both useful landmarks for
 a cyclist and offer a potential ride home whereas Spellow and Walton 
 Anfield do not exist.

 I understand that there are enthusiasts out there who are interested in
 historic maps, but the features which are important for that type of
 mapping can just get in the way of useful everyday find-your-way-around
 maps.

 Anybody know where should this be reported as a rendering bug?

 Thanks

 Bogus Zaba

 __**_
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Queen Elizabeth II playing fields

[Richard Mann]

Ha - we've already got a King George's Playing Field. Might have to add
the designation tag!

I suspect prone_to_flooding=yes might also be appropriate...


On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.comwrote:


 http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10086205.Tribute_to_Queen_safeguards_Oxpens_Meadow/
 
 I've added the name of the meadow mentioned in this article, but does
 anyone
 have a suggestion how to tag that it's been designated a QEII Field?  I'm
 not actually sure what it means, even after reading
 http://www.fieldsintrust.org/QEII.aspx and following links, but it looks
 like there's quite a few.
 
 s

 --

 Hi

 Good spot. I read the Fields in Trust (FIT) website with interest. In
 summary, FIT is the new operating name for the National Playing Fields
 Association, which is the trustee of the King George Fields Foundation.
 This foundation was responsible for establishing playing fields as King
 George's Fields where the landowner entered into a Deed of Dedication
 declaring that the recreation ground shall be preserved in perpetuity. As
 such these playing fields are legally protected and as such I believe that
 the designation tag is suitable:

 * designation = King George’s Field

 It looks like a similar legal designation will be made for the Queen
 Elizabeth II Fields, so I suggest a polygon be drawn around these and
 tagged with:

 * designation = Queen Elizabeth II Fields
 * and any other appropriate tag about the landuse/landcover (if any)

 Regards,
 Rob

 p.s It may be worth someone contacting FiT to see if we can get a database
 of the fields for use in OSM (i.e. permission to use the data under an open
 licence).

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation

 ___
 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] importing house shapes

[Richard Mann]

That's pretty much entirely a relation-as-category, though, isn't it?

I'm wondering whether there'd be a case for a very small number of
high-value (in terms of processing speed) relations to be created
automatically, available to data consumers in the normal way through the
API, but _not_ shown in editors? These relations really just make things
more complicated.

Richard

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:

 On 19 October 2012 10:05, thomas van der veen th.vanderv...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  I have used the terraced house plug in a few times and have found it very
  useful, but I don't quite understand the difference between addr:street
  (which is what I do at the moment) and adding a relation?
 
  Could you please explain this a bit more (and if possible in other
 contexts
  then the postcode finder)

 Sure. All this addressing is based on the Karlsruhe Schema [1] which
 was devised as a way of tagging streets by some Germans who wanted to
 try out tagging a whole city. The original schema was a series of tags
 you put on each house such as house number, post code etc. The way
 they originally specified which street a house is on was by the
 addr:street tag where they would put the name of the street in that
 tag on each house.
 During the process of this schema evolving and being used, some people
 felt that this was redundant and so decided to start using relations
 to group these houses together (along with the street). I have a
 feeling this was in the early days of relations when many people
 weren't sure how to use them and so adoption of this method was slow.

 So, for adding in data as a mapper, it a difference between adding an
 'addr:street' tag to every house in the street or selecting all the
 houses and roads in the street and adding them to a single relation
 (with the correct roles). For many people, creating a relation like
 this is seen as unnecessarily burdensome when for them, the
 addr:street method describes what they mean just fine.

 For data consumers (Nominatim, postcode finder, routers etc.) I would
 argue that it's conceptually simpler to use the relation method since
 it's explicit about that's in the street and what's not. With the
 addr:street method, the programmer has to, upon finding a node with an
 addr:street tag on it, search 'nearby' in the database. This means
 that they must have a georeferenced database set up and these querys
 are not as fast as simply node/way lookups. Also, to assemble a full
 street (from many ways and houses) would require an iterative building
 process. For me as a data consumer, the advantage of the
 associatedStreet relation comes from explicitness and speed.

 What I think we need (and what I've started to look at) is a plugin
 for JOSM (or built-in for Potlatch) which allows you to simply select
 the houses and the street, press a button and the relation is
 magically created. If some of the selected items are already in a
 relation then the rest of the items are added to it.

 Some of this is just my (biased) opinion so feel free to do whatever
 works best for you (of course, you could always do both). For
 information on exactly how I tag addresses with relations, see [2]
 (which I'd like to announce is up and running again).

 Cheers,
 Matt

 [1]
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Karlsruhe_Schema
 [2] http://milliams.dev.openstreetmap.org/postcodefinder/tagging/

 ___
 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] importing house shapes

[Richard Mann]

Strangely enough, you press Q in Potlatch as well

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Kevin Peat k...@k3v.eu wrote:


 On Oct 16, 2012 9:15 PM, Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com
 wrote:
 
  Hi Talk-GB,
 
  Sorry if I'm posting on the wrong list.
 
  ...I have a huge preference for Potlatch over JOSM...

 You can get therapy for that :]

 In JOSM you can press Q after drawing a building to cure the wobbles, not
 sure if Potlatch has something similar.

 Kevin

 ___
 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] DfT Cycling data - cycle lanes

[Richard Mann]

I'll include opposite_lane; there are enough of them.

I'd probably tag the one by the Jeremy Bentham as cycleway:right=track (and
indeed that is how it is tagged). You can determine its unconventional
usage from the oneway tag(s), if you so wish.

I'd guess most of the cycleway=opposite_lane tags are situations where
there's a contraflow lane in a one-way street. I'd probably tag that as
cycleway:right=lane (+oneway:bicycle=no) myself, since otherwise you're
prevented from specifying what's happening in the forward direction. But
clearly cycleway=opposite_lane is still being used.

Richard

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 9 October 2012 17:34, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk wrote:
  Gregory,
 
  I thought that cycleway=opposite_lane was the equivalent of
  cycleway:right=lane.

 no - opposite_lane is useful in a one-way road to indicate cyclists
 can go both ways. There's nothing in cycleway:right=lane to suggest
 whether or not that cycle lane is with or against the traffic flow on
 a one-way road. Outside the Jeremy Bentham is a one-way cycle lane in
 the same direction as cars on the right hand side of a one way road,
 for example.

 Cheers,
 Andy

 ___
 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] DfT Cycling data - cycle lanes

[Richard Mann]

As you may recall, DfT has made available a lot of cycle facility data.
This was processed and snapped to OSM geometry, and has been available for
some months for importing (subject to local review) using the Snapshot
tool. Further details here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/England_Cycling_Data_project

I've reconciled the data for my area, but I found it a bit hard going.
Progress in other areas has been variable.

I'm particularly interested in cycle lane data, so I've produced a
rendering that compares DfT (Red) with OSM (Blue) data. Note that the DfT
data is not clear which side of the road cycle lanes are on.
http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/dftcyclelanes/

Quite a lot still missing.

So I've also generated tiles of the DfT cycle lane data (down to z17), for
use as a background in editors. In Potlatch, you can create a new
background by clicking on the Background drop-down, then Edit, then Add.
The URL for the tiles is:
http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/dftcyclelanes/tilesDfT/$z/$x/$y.png

If any of you care to add cycle lanes in your area, that'd be most welcome.
It will also be interesting to see whether providing a background proves to
be an effective way of getting data reviewed and into OSM. If it's
successful, a similar approach can be used for other parts of the data.

Feedback welcome.

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

[Talk-GB] Updated GB cycle lanes map

[Richard Mann]

I've updated my map of GB cycle lanes (and quiet cycle routes). Rendered
using Geofabrik/Osmosis/Maperitive. Now with OdbL data...

http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/DualCycleNetworkMap/

It looks to me like there's quite a lot of cycle lanes missing. A lot of
cycle lane data is available from DfT for review and copying across, but
doesn't appear to have made it's way into OSM yet:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/England_Cycling_Data_project (and yes
this is a bit complicated, but it's quite easy once you get going)

A major part of the update to the cycle lane map has been identifying urban
main roads based on the presence of residential side roads. This was done
using a python algorithm in Maperitive. The results look pretty accurate
(not many false positives). In good share-alike style, I can do three
things with the output:
1) put the output back in the database, by using existing keys (eg
maxspeed=30 mph + maxspeed:source=inferred from presence of residential
side streets)
2) put the output back in the database, using new keys (eg
maxspeed:inferred=30 mph + maxspeed:inferred:source = presence of
residential side streets)
3) publish the algorithm

It doesn't make much difference to me, but clearly people might find the
data useful. So I'm open to views/suggestions.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Updated GB cycle lanes map

[Richard Mann]

RCNs are deliberately not shown, since they are generally leisure routes
(and being phased out in favour of NCN tagging).

Richard

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org wrote:



 On 2 October 2012 09:55, Richard Mann 
 richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.comwrote:

 I've updated my map of GB cycle lanes (and quiet cycle routes). Rendered
 using Geofabrik/Osmosis/Maperitive. Now with OdbL data...

 http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/DualCycleNetworkMap/

 It looks to me like there's quite a lot of cycle lanes missing. A lot of
 cycle lane data is available from DfT for review and copying across, but
 doesn't appear to have made it's way into OSM yet:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/England_Cycling_Data_project (and yes
 this is a bit complicated, but it's quite easy once you get going)

 A major part of the update to the cycle lane map has been identifying
 urban main roads based on the presence of residential side roads. This was
 done using a python algorithm in Maperitive. The results look pretty
 accurate (not many false positives). In good share-alike style, I can do
 three things with the output:
 1) put the output back in the database, by using existing keys (eg
 maxspeed=30 mph + maxspeed:source=inferred from presence of residential
 side streets)
 2) put the output back in the database, using new keys (eg
 maxspeed:inferred=30 mph + maxspeed:inferred:source = presence of
 residential side streets)
 3) publish the algorithm

 It doesn't make much difference to me, but clearly people might find the
 data useful. So I'm open to views/suggestions.

 Richard

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



 Looking at it RSN18 (Medway) is missing on
 http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/DualCycleNetworkMap/ however its on
 OSM and viewable via Cycle Map on the main osm site

 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] Updated GB cycle lanes map

[Richard Mann]

The data is available in OSM format (or as a set of z12 tiles, obvs) if
anyone wants to do this.

Stretching a set of mid-zoom tiles to be a background in Potlatch could be
a fairly re-usable approach. But I've no idea how practical that is.

Richard

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 2 October 2012 09:55, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  1) put the output back in the database, by using existing keys (eg
  maxspeed=30 mph + maxspeed:source=inferred from presence of residential
 side
  streets)
  2) put the output back in the database, using new keys (eg
  maxspeed:inferred=30 mph + maxspeed:inferred:source = presence of
  residential side streets)

 Please don't put auto-generated data back into the database, in either
 form.

 It would be best to hook the output from your algorithm into an
 existing QA system, such as the ITO maps, or keepright, or if none
 fit, then into a new QA system.

 Cheers,
 Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Data User Group asks what data do you want

[Richard Mann]

I've asked for Network Rail's Sectional Appendices (track layout diagrams
and lots of other goodies) to be available in PDF form.

Richard

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Rob Nickerson
rob.j.nicker...@gmail.comwrote:


 Hi All,

 Just a quick heads up that the Open Data User Group (supported by UK
 Government) as asking what data do you want. If interested there are
 details of the initiative and a simple form to fill out:

 http://www.data.gov.uk/odug/overview
 http://data.gov.uk/node/add/data-request

 Cheers,
 Rob

 ___
 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] UK Open Data User Group asks what data do you want

[Richard Mann]

It's not geocoded, so it'll need human interpretation.

Richard

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Shaun McDonald
sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.ukwrote:

 PDF isn't necessarily the best format if you want to process the data with
 some other program. It's great for presentation, but as soon as you want to
 push it around and mix it with things, and do interesting things it's much
 less useful.

 Shaun

 On 27 Sep 2012, at 23:19, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I've asked for Network Rail's Sectional Appendices (track layout diagrams
 and lots of other goodies) to be available in PDF form.

 Richard

 On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
  wrote:


 Hi All,

 Just a quick heads up that the Open Data User Group (supported by UK
 Government) as asking what data do you want. If interested there are
 details of the initiative and a simple form to fill out:

 http://www.data.gov.uk/odug/overview
 http://data.gov.uk/node/add/data-request

 Cheers,
 Rob

 ___
 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] An alternative rendering of cycle routes in Britain....

[Richard Mann]

I've produced an alternative rendering of cycle networks in Britain:

http://www.transportparadise.co.uk/DualCycleNetworkMap/

This is in the style of the Oxford Cycle Map. It was produced using
Geofabrik / osmosis (to cut it into z8 chunks) / Maperitive.

The main cartographical feature is the simplification of lcn/ncn into a
couple of shades of blue, with red used to highlight urban main roads and
show the extent to which they have been adapted (or not). Main roads are
highlighted if they have speed limits of 30/20, or if they have cycle lanes
and no maxspeed tag. If anyone cares to add maxspeed data to urban main
roads, or other main roads with cycle lanes, that'd be much appreciated.

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

[Talk-GB] Use of place=town

[Richard Mann]

Is it me, or have people been a bit over-enthusiastic with the use of
place=town in parts of north London? I'd have thought town should be more
restricted to definite centres, with place=suburb quite sufficient for the
rest?

Market towns used to have a rule that they only got a charter if they were
6 miles from the nearest existing town, and that sort of spacing (or close
to it) would have a fair degree of logic. A selective cull may be in order.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Use of place=town

[Richard Mann]

Sorry; meant to include a permalink:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.58lon=-0.122zoom=11layers=M

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Richard Mann 
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:

 Is it me, or have people been a bit over-enthusiastic with the use of
 place=town in parts of north London? I'd have thought town should be more
 restricted to definite centres, with place=suburb quite sufficient for the
 rest?

 Market towns used to have a rule that they only got a charter if they were
 6 miles from the nearest existing town, and that sort of spacing (or close
 to it) would have a fair degree of logic. A selective cull may be in order.

 Richard

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

[Talk-GB] Not my patch, but why's this a tertiary_link

[Richard Mann]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/114413014

My guess is that it should be a highway=unclassified, but maybe someone in
Brighton/Lewes can provide some local knowledge?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Not my patch, but why's this a tertiary_link

[Richard Mann]

Roads either side are unclassified/residential, so I've made it
unclassified  added turn restrictions

Richard

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Stephen Colebourne
scolebou...@joda.orgwrote:

 I believe it is wide enough for two cars, and is used to access Glynde
 IIRC.
 Stephen

 On 26 June 2012 11:11, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Sounds like it needs a turning restriction, not to be a tertiary_link. Do
  you have a view on whether it should be a tertiary (ie clearly wide
 enough
  for two-way traffic, and forming a clear link between places) or an
  unclassified?
 
  Richard
 
  On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Stephen Colebourne 
 scolebou...@joda.org
  wrote:
 
  I know that area. That road is a typical minor country road. The A27
  is divided at that point by a central barrier. It can only be entered
  from Lewes, and exited to Beddingham.
 
  Stephen
 
 
  On 26 June 2012 10:00, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com
  wrote:
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/114413014
  
   My guess is that it should be a highway=unclassified, but maybe
 someone
   in
   Brighton/Lewes can provide some local knowledge?
  
   ___
   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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Richard Mann]

The people who collected the data tell me that the cycle lane widths were
recorded in 3 categories:
1) 1.5m
2) 1.5=x2
3) =2

So the values in the data (1.25 and 1.75 mostly) are spuriously accurate
and quite often overstated.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now available for merging

[Richard Mann]

I'd be tempted to convert the cycleway=lane into cycleway:left=lane and
cycleway:right=lane anyway, since (if I understand it right), it's
relatively easy to tag-transform it back again, for data users who can only
use symmetrical stuff. The capital letter is wrong though.

Richard

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:

 Also, I'm not up on cycleway lane tagging, and on a section where
 there are lanes both sides, is cycleway:left=lane and
 cycleway:right=lane correct, as per merge tool suggestions? Also,
 the merge tool is showing a suggest of Lane with a capital letter,
 which I think should be lower case.

 Ed


 ___
 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] Admin Boundaries and OS OpenData BoundaryLine

[Richard Mann]

I think Peter was planning on making the ITO boundaries available as a
traceable layer, but haven't heard anything about this recently.

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:

 On 29 May 2012 15:44, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:

 My questions to the community:
 1) Would a bulk upload of any or all of this data be interesting?


 Thanks for raising this, it would be great to get a more complete set of
 boundaries. In answer to your first question, no, please don't follow a
 bulk upload approach. I say this for two reasons:

 1) Most boundaries follow existing features like roads, rivers, etc. They
 need to be manually entered as relations sharing nodes with those features.
 In my experience this is often a nice opportunity to spot other problems
 with very old features using aerial imagery and GPS tracks, e.g. poor
 alignment, or complicated junctions that aren't fully modelled for routing.
 So much better done manually than by dumping a load of new ways into the
 database.

 2) Many boundaries already exist, but are often slightly incorrect, e.g.
 not sharing nodes with existing features but being a little offset. By
 doing this manually you can improve these as you go, especially since every
 boundary shares its properties with one or more other boundaries.

 The best approach would be to identify which boundaries are missing, put
 those up in a list and and encourage people to get us to 100%. Perhaps
 start with counties, then unitaries and districts, then even wards.

 ITO have a nice map of boundaries that people can use to check up on them,
 you can see I started to add wards in Southwark:
 http://www.itoworld.com/map/2

 Regards,
 Tom

 --
 http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance

 ___
 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] Bulk railway station changes

[Richard Mann]

IMO it's better to add something clear than to shoehorn something into a
generic tag. Especially if you end up with compound values. OK so they
could be parsed, but it's just making work (both processing and
maintaining). Better to have something unambiguous like national_rail=yes
and london_underground=yes.

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:35 AM, AJ Ashton aj.ash...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Richard  everyone,

 This started off simply as an effort to improve our display London
 Underground stations using existing OSM data, but was scope-creeped
 into much more and apparently we messed up.

 We've found that the lack of familiar London Underground and National
 Rail icons is a particularly strong sticking point with people who
 would otherwise happily switch to OSM, which is partly why we chose to
 focus on it. The tagging for stations is not so consistent, and my
 blog post goes into details about how we attempt to account for this
 as much as possible at the import  rendering stages. However certain
 inconsistencies seemed simple enough to just fix in OSM.

 We saw network=National Rail tags already in use at various stations
 and didn't think continuing to use them would be an issue. The
 imports/mechanical edits policies didn't come to my mind because we
 started with just a handful of edits. Even though this obviously ended
 up turning into many more, I thought that things were being done quite
 manually and carefully. There were no scripts or bots used, but the
 error the Craig points out looks like the result of a very bulk and
 incorrect copy/paste (or something) so clearly there were problems
 here.

  ... something that might seem simple
  from afar actually turns out to be a bit more nuanced, but by giving
 careful
  consideration to the nuances, we're making what is hands-down the best
 map
  of the world. I hope we can have a similarly useful conversation about
 the
  stations too.

 I guess our excitement to make awesome maps tripped us up here.
 Richard pointed out specifically that 'the network=National Rail tag
 is of debatable value and relevance'. I'm curious about the details of
 why.

 We just went with what seemed to be an established tagging system (but
 I guess is actually not). I am interested to hear tagging ideas that
 would be both correct and useful for rendering a map with appropriate
 icon styles.

 AJ @ MapBox

 ___
 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] Cycling, the law and traffic signs

[Richard Mann]

I doubt there are any instances in the UK where there's a TRO supporting a
No Pedestrians sign on a cycle track (welcome to be proved wrong!). The
possibility exists in the legislation, but you'd have to explicitly sign it
(the white-bike-on-blue-circle does not of itself exclude pedestrians in
the UK).

The confusion arises because the european standard is that that sign really
does exclude pedestrians (and is very commonly used in Germany, the
Netherlands, Belgium, Austria...), but well, we do things differently.

Richard

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Shaun McDonald
sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.ukwrote:


 On 16 May 2012, at 01:05, Jason Cunningham wrote:

 On 15 May 2012 23:32, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:


 As I am not a regular cyclist I must admit that I don't pay much
 attention to these signs. So my question is do Local Authorities use the
 cycle and foot signs (segregated or otherwise) and reserve the cycle sign
 for cases where traffic regulation prevents foot access (in which case
 foot=no would be correct), or is use mixed?

 Cheers,
 Rob


 Unless it's been recently changed. the Cycle Only sign could never
 prohibit 'pedestrian access' because use of the sign is defined by the
 Department for Transports Traffic Signs Manual (chapter 3) [1].

 The DFT guidance confirms the signs can be used for routes where cycles
 can travel and all other vehicular traffic is prohibited. Therefore this
 sign must not be used to prohibit pedestrian access. The Manual also points
 out usefulness of a convenient footway or footpath to lure pedestrians away
 from this intended 'cycle only' way.


 I find the cycle only sign is used in cases where there is also a separate
 pavement, thus the pedestrians can use that. They can in some cases be used
 where there is no pavement and it's not recommended for pedestrians to go
 that route. If cyclists are allowed and pedestrians are prohibited then a
 separate no pedestrians sign will be used.

 Shaun


 ___
 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] Bulk railway station changes

[Richard Mann]

National Rail is what ATOC came up with to describe things that are
represented by the double-arrow symbol, and which would formerly have been
referred to as British Rail or informally as the rail network. (The staff
refer to it as the railway, but that's another subject)

National Rail isn't a great name, but it's the correct one. The symbol is
owned by ATOC.

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.ukwrote:

 Richard Fairhurst wrote:

 Or indeed we could just go with network=National Rail as a good enough
 solution.


 My issue with National Rail was that, to me, (as I explained to the
 Peruvian chap who's edited Mansfield Woodhouse station):

 National Rail means these people: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ , also
 http://www.atoc.org/

 It's just an industry association of the various Train Operating
 Companies. They don't own, operate or have any direct involvement with the
 British rail _network_.


 The only place I've heard national rail* used is in London to refer to
 non-underground stations (and even there, you still here British Rail
 station).   Everyone else says Railway.


 I don't think that network=network_rail works either, as there will
 inevitably by issues in London where NR works on infrastructure for TfL
 Overground services.

 So network=railway for me, since that's probably the best description of
 what it actually is.

 Cheers,
 Andy

 * in lower case, where national simply means non-underground, and is a
 description rather than a name.



 __**_
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Byways (Was: Rights of way - Image vote)

[Richard Mann]

You sometimes get a simple direction sign at a road junction saying
Byway. It just means it doesn't go anywhere very much, but otherwise it's
a normal unclassified (non-urban) road.

Richard

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.comwrote:



 I'm pretty happy to add that any way signposted as either a Byway
 Public Byway or Byway Open to All Traffic should be tagged as
 designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic as long as it also has a red arrow.
 Unlike footpaths there is little chance of a landowner putting up a sign
 for a byway unless it is a public right of way. There can also be no
 confusion caused by long distance routes (as with footpaths).

 Cheers,
 Rob

 On 12/05/12 13:02, Philip Barnes wrote:
 
 * They do vary between highway authorities, but well worth getting some** 
 photos of samples. The one thing waymarks have in common, and I can 
 only** claim knowledge of England and Wales here is that a public 
 footpath has** yellow arrows, public bridleways have blue arrows and the 
 hardest to** find of all are red arrows, used on B.O.T.A.Ts.*
 Not a waymarker, but the signposts are fairly rare too; Public Byway
 or just Byway is the normal wording:
 
   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:UK_Public_Byway_signpost.jpg
   http://osm.org/go/eutqlptvf--?m
 
 and I don't think we could expect the waymarkers to say any more.
 
 
 Predictably enough, the thin little road the one above points at is
 blocked off at one end for larger vehicles:
 
   https://imgur.com/Tx9hI
 
 To complicate matters further, that's a No Motor Vehicles sign under the
 graffiti which presumably reflects a TRO filed somewhere in the bowels
 of the local town hall. It's only applicable to the plugged end. A sign
 on the far end warns of there being no sane turning places.
 
 So it's not open to all traffic at all, and the sign doesn't call it
 open to all traffic, but it should be tagged
 designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic anyway :D
 
 --
 Andrew Chadwick



 ___
 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] Cycle lanes and Cycle Tracks - how to map

[Richard Mann]

Gosh, you are a glutton for punishment.

cycleway=track is used extensively in some countries
highway=cycleway is use extensively in some countries
cycleway=track was only rendered on OCM relatively recently
cycleway:left|right=track|lane isn't rendered on OCM
the Danes had a big argument about which to use and settled on
cycleway=track, despite it not being rendered on OCM
cycleway=track gives you more control over the rendering
highway=cycleway is easier to route, though unpacking cycleway=track isn't
difficult
sub-tagging of cycleways is difficult (eg their membership of a route
relation) if you use cycleway=track

In essence it comes down to the problem that recombining two parallel ways
in order to render them neatly is next-to-impossible. Whereas putting the
tags on a single way loses some micro-geography.

I'd go for cycleway=track, but I'm not prepared to go round deleting
highway=cycleway, and thus having lots of stuff disappear in OCM. So until
OCM can render cycleway:left|right properly, we're probably stuck with both.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Tagging Guideline - wiki page proposals

[Richard Mann]

Which (yawn) is not a bad thing:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote:

 IMHO it's either a track on the main highway (cycleway=track) or a
 separate track (highway=cycleway). If you put both in you're editing for
 the renderer not editing what's on the ground .

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Tagging Guideline - wiki page proposals

[Richard Mann]

I'd only use cycleway=track if there's a track on both sides, otherwise I
use cycleway:left=track or cycleway:right=track, as appropriate.

I also add a highway=cycleway alongside, because some applications prefer
one method, some the other, and there's little harm having both (in my
view).

cycleway=track wasn't rendered on the cycle layer until fairly recently,
and one-sided tracks _aren't_ rendered. So if you want them to show on the
cycle layer, you need to create a separate highway=cycleway (or
highway=footway|path+bicycle=yes|designated).

Richard

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Bogus Zaba bog...@bogzab.plus.com wrote:

 On 21/04/12 00:13, Andy wrote:

 Just a couple of quick notes:

 * The cycle path section is a bit misleading as it stands. The tagging
 you have shown is for standalone paths (i.e. mapped separately from a
 road); the majority of cycle paths in the UK are on the side of a road
 and thus should be tagged something like
 highway=primary,secondary...**, cycleway=track, segregated=yes/no.
 I've copied the relevant section onto my user page and altered it:
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.**org/wiki/User:Sparkhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Spark

 * I would prefer to see the 'UK Classic vs Global' stuff taken out -
 these are the *UK* guidelines and hence the best/commonest practice in
 the UK should be given.

 Cheers,
 Andy

 __**_
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

  I should have read these tagging guides before. I have tried to map
 local cycle paths along the side of the road by creating a way parallel to
 the road and tagging it as a highway=cycleway. Do I understand from the
 above that it is better practice to simply add a cycleway=track tag to the
 main highway?

 My excuse for doing it via a separate way is that I was copying somebody
 else's practice and I could see that his way of doing it resulted in nice
 rendering on the Cycle Map which can be accessed from the main map page.

 Bogus Zaba


 __**_
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Tagging Guideline - wiki page proposals

[Richard Mann]

Brave man!

Globally, highway=path is mostly used without any access tags, judging by
taginfo: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=path#combinations

So I think Classic and Alternative are adequate titles. Established
and Alternative would probably be more accurate.

Richard

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:17 PM, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all,

 It has been mentioned in the past (and I expect many others have thought
 it), that the current UK Tagging Guidelines wiki page [1] is to confusing
 for newcomers and data consumers alike. I have had a go at addressing this
 by creating a new version of this page [2]. As discussed on the Talk
 section of this new page [3], I have tried to work in many of your (the UK
 mappers) suggestions.

 I have used the wiki cleanup objectives as a guide and have incorporated
 the following key changes:

 (i) Copyright - The first section replaces the current Obtaining the
 data section and promotes the existing Copyright section to a more
 prominent position. Info most relevant to helping new UK mappers is
 highlighted

 (ii) Classic UK vs Alternative Global - The wiki guidelines (above) state
 that we should Provide a place for people to discuss new tagging
 proposals. I have therefore kept both schemes. So as to not excessively
 confuse newcomers I have split the page so that it reads as (a) tag the
 fact that the way is there, (b) tag its legal status if applicable.

 (iii) Public Rights of Way - As discussed on the talk-gb mailing list a
 public right of way may run along a track, road, etc.. I have therefore
 removed as much as the UK Classic vs Global Alternative debate out of this
 section into (a) - tag features presence. Following Achadwick suggestion
 on Talk:United Kingdom Tagging Guidelines that the right of way should be
 signified using the designation key (see table below). I have heavily
 refocused the page to emphasise this. This greatly simplifies things for
 newcomers  data consumers. In a way it also reduces the UK Classic vs
 Global Alternative debate.

 (iv) Scotland - Now has a separate section ready to be filled in.


 Please take your time to have a look, and feedback comments to this
 mailing list. Be friendly; I am still relatively new and this is my first
 real go at editing a wiki :-)

 Regards,
 RobJN



 [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines
 [2]
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines_Consultation
 [3]
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines_Consultation
 ___
 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] Vandalism changeset

[Richard Mann]

Maybe an abandon changes button? At the moment you have to hit undo (which
might be complicated) or click on View and face down the
do-you-really-want-to-leave-this-page dialog.



On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 14 March 2012 13:40, Oliver O'Brien m...@oliverobrien.co.uk wrote:

  I think we are being too nice if we assume that edits like this might be
 someone new that doesn't realise they aren't in a sandbox, especially when
 they go through the trouble of pressing the save button and adding a
 (blank) comment.

 I think you're being far too hasty with the cry of vandalism -
 people make mistakes, people do things unwittingly. Adding a variety
 of tags using what appears to be the the potlatch2 presets is hardly
 conclusive proof of deliberate intent.

 We've likely got many thousands of contributors who have made mistakes
 during their edits. If everyone cries vandalism every time someone
 messes up a route relation...

 Cheers,
 Andy

 ___
 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] OS VectorMap water feature import

[Richard Mann]

If the conclusion is that there's no point importing OS VMD water features
into OSM...

Would it make more sense to extract the water features and convert them
into a standalone osm.pbf, so they can be used as-is to make a background
layer (warts-and-all)?

Richard

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:45 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 11 December 2011 18:46, Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk

 The entire process took a long, long time (we're talking many hours), as
 the OS data is all fragmented and needs joining up.

 This is one where it is certainly possible to import the data, but to do
 it manually is going to be a huge amount of effort, and I wonder if it is
 really worth the effort?

 I see the main benefit of OSM in providing 'added value' geographic data
 that is not available in other freely available sources.   Last time I made
 a map of an outdoor area, I found that the OS Vector Map District (VMD)
 water features added a lot to it, because the OSM data was pretty plain.
 In the end I actually made the map from a mixture of OSM and VMD Data, with
 SRTM generated contours.
 I certainly used OSM footpaths and route relations (because they are not
 in any of the other data sets) - as I wanted to highlight a walking route.

 I used VMD waterways because they were far more complete than OSM.
 I think that for the area I was working on (Weardale) I used VMD roads
 too, because there are still a lot missing from OSM.

 Where I struggled was in woodland areas - you get a lot more if you use
 VMD, but I also know that quite a lot have been felled, which can be
 changed in OSM, but not VMD, so this was a difficult choice.   (You can see
 the output 
 herehttps://github.com/jones139/Mapnik-OSM-Styles/raw/master/weardale_way/image_vmd_fc.png
  (but
 there is something wrong with the grid on the version on that server,
 sorry!and the rendering style is not as pretty as the main OSM one).

 I wonder if a more productive use of our efforts would be in developing
 tools to make it easier to make such merged data maps and highlight the
 'value added' bits from OSM that make it stand out from a Land Ranger map?
[Things like showing all the industrial archeology, real ale pubs etc.].

 I am working (very slowly) on a tool that will pull together the required
 data to produce these sort of things and render it at high resolution for
 printing.It is not at the sort of state that I would publish it and
 recommend that someone just tries it (no nice front end), but it is getting
 there and I can make maps from it when I want to.  I would be happy to put
 more effort into it if there was interest (or anyone interested in
 helping!).

 One final thing is that if we do say that we will not import the VMD data
 into OSM, this means that it will not appear on the main OSM web site map.
   We could show off what is possible though by making a 'osm-uk' site with
 a web map that combines the various data sources in a web map?

 Regards


 Graham.
 --
 Graham Jones
 Hartlepool, UK.


 ___
 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] LCN - Local Cycle Network

[Richard Mann]

The geolocation in cyclestreets is wrong. The route has been on Charlbury
Road since the early nineties, and the signs since the late nineties.

There are also some non-approved stickers that Sustrans have put up in
various places.

Richard

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:

 In your first example,

  they're all double-labeled, EG: http://cycle.st/p34892

 Seems to be located on Northmoor Road according to the accompanying
 map, yet the route seems to be drawn on Charlbury Road. Is the photo
 just wrongly located in cycle streets, or has the route changed and
 the sign is just left behind?

 Ed


 ___
 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] LCN - Local Cycle Network

[Richard Mann]

They're not approved in the signs regs, which I think has jurisdiction.
IANAL etc.

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:

 Richard Mann wrote:
  There are also some non-approved stickers that Sustrans have put
  up in various places.

 Not sure which stickers you're referring to, but IIRC Sustrans 'Ranger'
 stickers are approved for use by almost all highway authorities in England,
 including Oxfordshire. (The two I'm unsure about are Leicestershire and
 North Yorkshire but please don't quote me on that!)

 cheers
 Richard



 --
 View this message in context:
 http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/LCN-Local-Cycle-Network-tp7039537p7047249.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] LCN - Local Cycle Network

[Richard Mann]

In London there's also the problem that the Cycle SuperHighways and LCN are
both tagged the same, despite being rather different beasts.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network

[Richard Mann]

Thinking about it, I reckon official/operator/signposted tags on the
relation are a better approach, since the matter is rarely quite as yes/no
as defining a separate network. Might have to break some relations into
sections, to reflect the officialness and signpostedness of different
sections, but that's no great hardship.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Richard Mann 
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:

 I guess the big-society-defined ones can be ccn and Andy can include
 them or not as he chooses.

 Richard

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

Re: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network

[Richard Mann]

I guess the big-society-defined ones can be ccn and Andy can include them
or not as he chooses.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Portsmouth cycle paths and routes

[Richard Mann]

Last time I looked, there was a complete absence of 20mph tagging, as well.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Gregory Williams 
gregory.willi...@purplegeodesoftware.co.uk wrote:

 I’m primarily a cyclist and interested in ensuring that our cycle coverage
 is great. Whilst looking at the Bing! aerial imagery in Portsmouth recently
 I spotted some cycleways and cycle lanes which we don’t have in our map.
 They looked like they were in fairly established areas of the city so I
 wonder whether there’s any other cycling facilities that we’re missing?
 Portsmouth is a little far for me to go on a GPS mapping expedition, so I
 was wondering if there are any more local cycle mappers that may be
 interested in scouting out facilities. It seems that we’ve probably missed
 quite a bit of cycle parking in Gosport too, given its density in
 Portsmouth, but seeming absence in Gosport:

 ** **


 http://www.spokeseastkent.org.uk/maps/cycle-parking-heat-map/?zoom=13lat=50.80969lon=-1.10888layers=BT
 

 ** **

 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] Portsmouth cycle paths and routes

[Richard Mann]

Looks like there's only partial coverage in Oxford as well...

http://www.spokeseastkent.org.uk/maps/cycle-parking-heat-map/?zoom=13lat=51.75754lon=-1.2523layers=BT

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Gregory Williams 
gregory.willi...@purplegeodesoftware.co.uk wrote:

 I’m primarily a cyclist and interested in ensuring that our cycle coverage
 is great. Whilst looking at the Bing! aerial imagery in Portsmouth recently
 I spotted some cycleways and cycle lanes which we don’t have in our map.
 They looked like they were in fairly established areas of the city so I
 wonder whether there’s any other cycling facilities that we’re missing?
 Portsmouth is a little far for me to go on a GPS mapping expedition, so I
 was wondering if there are any more local cycle mappers that may be
 interested in scouting out facilities. It seems that we’ve probably missed
 quite a bit of cycle parking in Gosport too, given its density in
 Portsmouth, but seeming absence in Gosport:

 ** **


 http://www.spokeseastkent.org.uk/maps/cycle-parking-heat-map/?zoom=13lat=50.80969lon=-1.10888layers=BT
 

 ** **

 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] Portsmouth cycle paths and routes

[Richard Mann]

Great. (No, Gosport is unreconstructed. The 20mph limits are confined to the
Portsmouth City Council area)

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Gregory Williams 
gregory.willi...@purplegeodesoftware.co.uk wrote:

 The 20mph tagging seems pretty much in place for Portsmouth:

 ** **


 http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=5lat=50.83306631256292lon=-1.0753752838074735zoom=12
 

 ** **

 I don’t know whether the 20mph blanket extended over to Gosport as well,
 which is pretty much absent of any maxspeed tagging.

 **

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Portsmouth cycle paths and routes

[Richard Mann]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Gregory Williams 
gregory.willi...@purplegeodesoftware.co.uk wrote:

 Indeed. It looks like it’s mainly the university sites and arterial roads.
 Does your main shopping area pretty much coincide with Oxford Uni’s main
 colleges? University of Kent in Canterbury and the city centre are separate
 and you can see that there are lots of stands serving both:

 ** **


 http://www.spokeseastkent.org.uk/maps/cycle-parking-heat-map/?zoom=13lat=51.27838lon=1.07101layers=BT
 

 ** **

 PS I wonder whether the stands at Oxford Brookes Uni don’t have any
 capacity tags. They don’t glow anywhere near as much on the map.



The colleges have occasionally allowed us some shops in bits of land that
were left over, yes.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Portsmouth cycle paths and routes

[Richard Mann]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Craig Loftus 
craigloftus+...@googlemail.com wrote:

  Looks like there's only partial coverage in Oxford as well...
 
 
 http://www.spokeseastkent.org.uk/maps/cycle-parking-heat-map/?zoom=13lat=51.75754lon=-1.2523layers=BT

 Really? I would have said it was pretty comprehensively mapped in
 Oxford. The heat-map shows nicely where all the shopping areas are. If
 you have a particular area in mind then assuming I can get there on my
 bike I wouldn't mind surveying it.

 There's lots of small groups of stands dotted all over the place that are
missing (at community facilities, some shops etc). I guess when you get to a
certain level of coverage, it stops mattering, but they'd give a more
comprehensive picture.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Boris Bikes

[Richard Mann]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
 On 21/07/11 11:01, Craig Loftus wrote:

 Additionally (some) Boris' Bike stations are grouped into a network
 relation, with each station having the role rental_station.

 Which is, of course, wrong. Relations are not categories people.

 Tom

The nodes should have an operator=Boris tag (or maybe something more
appropriate). There is no geographical relationship between the nodes,
so they shouldn't be in a relation.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms

[Richard Mann]

I think it'll probably require divine revelation

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms

[Richard Mann]

If OSMF were to claim that the CTs prove that all its data is
relicensable to anything that's free and open then they're daft. In
practice it's relicensable to something that's a bit narrower than
that, and which would almost certainly comply with the spirit of the
OS license, if not the (similarly impractical) letter.

It's grey, it's going to stay grey. If you want white, try elsewhere.

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

[Talk-GB] Onward travel posters

[Richard Mann]

Saw a new Onward Travel Poster at Oxford. Nice map. Presumably a
similar one at most other railway stations. Lots of detail, including
some footpaths that have a very familar shape...

Nice attribution. To OS.

I'll try emailing one Jason Durk, Head of Passenger Info at NRE...

Richard

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Onward travel posters

[Richard Mann]

I'm sure that's still missing a few paths off Nevis, mind. (Gorgeous though)

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 Peter J Stoner wrote:
 Thank you for the photo.  It is the first of the new posters I
 have seen so it has helped me to check the Traveline and
 NextBuses references!

 :) They're good posters, I like them (though the cartography is a bit...
 utilitarian, shall we say?).

 This use of OSM shows the value of the footpaths to public
 transport information and the great work done by those who survey...
 but more use like this does need to have most of the roads on to be
 credible.

 At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, it is possible to make maps
 out of OS OpenData without importing it into OSM first!

 At the risk of stating the
 slightly-less-blindingly-but-still-with-severe-dangers-to-your-sight
 obvious, you can combine OS OpenData with OSM footpaths, and get the best of
 both worlds. Hard (though not impossible) for routing, but trivial for
 cartography. Luke Smith at Grough has done this to staggeringly good effect:

     http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-March/011105.html
     http://www.grough.co.uk/lib/documents/tmp/lss/tq28.jpg
     http://www.grough.co.uk/lib/documents/tmp/lss/nn17.jpg

 cheers
 Richard



 --
 View this message in context: 
 http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Onward-travel-posters-tp6461416p6461826.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] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

[Richard Mann]

It would be better if ITO put long-roads-without-names in a separate
layer, because at the moment they dominate the completeness map.

On the whole I prefer to leave it a bit still. Ideally, everything
would be checked by a local, but in reality it won't be. Quite a lot
will be filled in by armchair mappers. At least there's a hope that
those armchair mappers will have some conscience about what they do
(like next year maybe they'll start drawing maps - with Maperitive
it's easy - and expose the db to new scrutiny).

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

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads

[Richard Mann]

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:

 My
 idea at the moment is that the existing ref tag be unambiguously defined
 to be a kind of primary key and to have alternative tagging for its
 apparent value. I expect this may also be the case with road names, and
 possibly other attributes as well where there is an opportunity for the
 official version to deviate from the apparent/published version. How about
 this for a hypothetical link road from the M1 to the M2:
    ref=M1
    signed_as:ref=M2

 [...]

 General purpose renderers (including mkgmap) would give precedence to the
 signed_as values for ref and name if they exist.

 This is completely back-to-front. Whatever reference the mapper sees
 and the consumer wants to see should be in the ref tag surely? Why
 would the one that is important 99.99% of the time be bumped to a
 secondary tag and the main tag taken over for stuff that's honestly
 not useful?

 Cheers,
 Andy

+1

Of the various ideas, using loc_ref or alt_ref seems the best bet: you
should be able to use major tags like ref/name without worrying about
local details.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads

[Richard Mann]

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
 Those numbers are just internal identifiers used by the local highway
 authority so yes, they probably do appear eccentric to people outside
 that authority.

In my experience, highways officers know the names of every obscure
cul-de-sac on their patch, so they generally use the road names.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths

[Richard Mann]

The renderers don't entirely agree with the new tagging, and
probably won't any time soon.

Basically there's agreement that highway=path can be used for scruffy
paths in the countryside, though some prefer to use highway=footway,
especially if it's an official Public Footpath. There's a diversity of
opinion on whether highway=path should be used on decent
paths/alleyways in towns; most are probably highway=footway.

There are probably some people who use highway=path+access tags
(bicycle=, foot= etc) on shared-use paths. But in the UK foot=yes
applies to 99.99% of cycleways, so I think the norm is to simply use
highway=cycleway.

Richard

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Peter Oliver p.d.oli...@mavit.org.uk wrote:
 I'm new to Open Street Map, and in trying to map some local footpaths I
 pretty rapidly found myself at
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Rights_of_ways_in_England_and_Wales;
 and the associated controversy.

 First, let me summarise the situation as I see it:

 • There's an old method of tagging ways suitable for pedestrians, and a
 new method.
 • No consensus on which method is best has/can be reached, and the two sides
 of the argument have effectively agreed to differ.  Both tagging methods are
 in active use.
 • Tagging a way highway=footway is equivalent to tagging it highway=path;
 foot=... (plus, in either case, additional tags to indicate the legal
 status of the route).

 It seems like I'm now armed with enough knowledge to get stuck in and start
 mapping some footpaths, using whichever tagging method I happen to prefer.
  However, both Mapnik and Osmarender display these two supposedly equivalent
 forms of footpath differently!  Osmarender uses different colours, and
 Mapnik replaces a dotted pink line with a dashed black one.

 So, my question is, is there some subtle difference in meaning that I've
 missed between these two tagging methods, or it simply that the renders have
 not been updated to understand the new form of tagging?

 --
 Peter Oliver
 ___
 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] On footpaths

[Richard Mann]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 Ed Avis wrote:
 The general practice in this country is to use footway for paved paths in
 cities and path for muddier countryside ones (or, perhaps, through city
 parks).

 Um, no it isn't. There is absolutely no consensus for using =path in the
 countryside rather than =footway. I strongly suspect that if you analysed
 the data in the UK countryside, you would find 80% footway, 20% path.

I don't think there's consensus about using highway=path in the
countryside, but nor do I think there's much objection. Nobody's in a
rush to change all the plain highway=footway in the countryside, but
if you go there and feel highway=path is better/clearer, then nobody's
much going to object.

Whereas there's quite a lot of grumpiness about using highway=path
with access tags in towns, and I'd avoid it.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap

[Richard Mann]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 an old-style county cycleway (now generally Regional Routes) ...

Does anyone object if longish-distance routes (eg the round-Berkshire
route) are now coded as rcn (rather than lcn), given that Sustrans
have moved away from making a distinction between their national and
regional routes?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Sorting out layering in East Anglia, Essex, London and Kent

[Richard Mann]

The wiki is also not the only truth.

Peter - you get all sorts of rendering issues when you attach layer
tags to objects that are typically drawn over-size (eg roads). So if
someone has gone to the trouble of putting something that is typically
below street level (eg a stream) to a consistent layer=-1 or something
that is typically above (eg the North London Line) to a consistent
layer=1, I'd leave well alone.

Richard

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Roadside cycle-lanes vs. off-road cycle-paths

[Richard Mann]

I think Phil wants to know how to distinguish a highway=cycleway next
to a road from one that's away from a road.

I'm afraid you can't, unless someone's added some tags to distinguish
them (the ones around Oxford have adjacent=yes tags for just this
purpose; I don't think there's any other tagging scheme).

Richard

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
 On 15/04/2011 19:50, David Earl wrote:

 there's various lane indications such as
 cycleway=lane

 ...

 PS if you want examples, Cambridge and the surrounding area is particularly
 dense with all the variations of these all over the place.

 David


 ___
 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 tagging for the UK

[Richard Mann]

I'd put the number for cars (ie 70mph for a dual carriageway), and the
source if it's not the number that's on the sign.

So maxspeed=30mph+source:maxspeed=national means: there's some street
lights and no signs. If there's some street lights and no signs
comes to mean something else, then a bot can change the
maxspeed=30mph (adding a note that it's done so).

Speeds for other vehicles can also probably be deduced from the car
speed, and whether it's explicitly signed or just using the national
legislation.

Richard

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What's the best way of mapping/tagging...

[Richard Mann]

Sounds like a highway=living_street to me (but highway=pedestrian would be fine)

In general you need to tag the characteristics of the whole street if
you can. Micro-mapping is a bonus, and you need to be careful not to
make it unintelligable to the data user at the whole-street level

On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Kev js1982 o...@kevswindells.eu wrote:
 Cycling to work this week I have come across a more direct way to town, but
 also a road which I am not sure how to map properly in OSM.

 At the moment the whole street is mapped as highway=pedestrial with lcn=yes
 - but in reality it's not that simple.

 The road used to be the main road into the city centre from Trent Bridge but
 has now been pedestrianised (the following images might help you understand
 my comments)

 Google Street View :

 http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8ll=52.940734,-1.140834spn=0.003246,0.009645t=hz=17layer=ccbll=52.940734,-1.140834panoid=nqz0Qta4kazDIF3Ok2sN4wcbp=12,324.6,,0,0.8

 My aerial drawing : http://kjs.me.uk/3rdparty/osm/arkwrightwalk.png

 Basically the existing sidewalks are still in situ and the paving allows
 you to see where the edges are likely to have been (see the red bars at
 either side of my image) and then at various places along the road two of
 the old lanes have been paved over with a raised island of flagstones (see
 the red blobs in the road) which effectively become an area for the local
 kids to play football on and also walkway and the remaining two lanes have
 become a cycle path (the white area) - but every 50 meters or so the islands
 end on one side of the road and jump to the other-side of the road, and in
 between the two islands the former four lanes of the road become a raised
 sleeping policeman for about 5 meters (see the blue boxes) with the ramps
 not being opposite one another (i.e. the ramp on one side is opposite the
 pedestrian area on the other).

 How on earth do I map and tag this street properly? - is it just a case of
 drawing a road though it with all the kinks being followed and the speed
 humps being added as usual setting sidewalk=no, then making the pedestrian
 islands highway=pedestrian, area=yes (with the trees and bollards also
 mapped) and then adding the sidewalks as two extra walkways running in
 parrall with links across going across the middle of the sleeping policeman
 (the sleeping policeman seem to be placed where paths from the sides join
 the road, presumably to allow pushchairs and wheelchairs to cross easily).

 Also the main road doesn't appear to have anything explicitly banning motor
 vehicles either, although I've only seen two along the length of it (both
 parked) - but the road is obviously laid out to discourage motor vehicle use
 - should this be mapped in any way (this is a moot point really as the road
 hits a (currently unmapped) wall before it permits motor vehicles again -
 need to remember to check next week if there is a gap in that wall to allow
 pedestrians through.

 Kev

 ___
 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] Other Route with Public Access (ORPA)

[Richard Mann]

You can find out from the same place that OS finds out - the Local Authority.

I don't think they're generally signed (any more than any other minor
public road), it's just that they're passable, there's no Private
Keep Out signs, and the Highways team has a note that they've got
responsibility for them (not that they'll actually do anything to them
if they can help it).

Richard


On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:46 AM, SomeoneElse
li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
 On 23/03/2011 11:18, Dave F. wrote:

 Hi

 I've noticed a couple few ways being tagged with designation= Other Route
 with Public Access (or just ORPA)


 I've never heard of that as a legal designation (of an England / Wales right
 of way) or seen such a sign.  If I saw it on a way in OSM I'd just interpret
 it as not designated.  According to the JXAPI, there are none near me, so
 I'm not likely to encounter one.

 FWIW GB tagwatch reckons 11 Other Route with Public Access and 46
 ORPA.  Is it just just one or two mappers?  If so, I'd ask them what they
 meant.

 Cheers,
 Andy



 ___
 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] Other Route with Public Access (ORPA)

[Richard Mann]

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
 Right, we're agreed that that were copied from printed OS maps, which is
 banned in OSM.

No. The term is copied from OS. What it applies to is not necessarily
copied from OS. I don't think copying Other Road with Public Access
goes much beyond calling a spade a spade.


 Can't speak for all authorities, but mine issue such data on top of OS maps.
 There's been a lot of talk,  I believe the consensus was that the OS map
 'contaminated' the data  was not usable.


OS have said they don't claim copyright in such instances IIRC. Does
someone have a link?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Small Heath Station: Rendering bug?

[Richard Mann]

Try drawing the platforms as areas. They probably ought to be areas
anyway (especially given how wide they are).

Mapnik has known problems respecting layers, and quite a lot of
renderers routinely draw areas under lines, so you're asking for
trouble.

Richard

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
 Reported as ticket 3573:

 http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3573

 On 9 March 2011 11:54, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
 ajrli...@gmail.com wrote:
 That's a bug

 Cheers
 Andy

-Original Message-
From: Andy Mabbett [mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk]
Sent: 09 March 2011 11:44 AM
To: talk-gb-westmidlands
Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Small Heath Station: Rendering bug?

Before I raise a bug ticket, can someone please check my tagging for Small
Heath Railway Station:

     http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.463403lon=-
1.859191zoom=18layers=M

The building which straddles the two platforms is tagged layer:1, but is
 being
rendered beneath the platforms, which have no layer.

(The tracks there need better alignment; I'll turn to that later).

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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




No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1497/3492 - Release Date: 03/08/11






 --
 Andy Mabbett
 @pigsonthewing
 http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

 ___
 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] tagging for average speed cameras

[Richard Mann]

You can't add another highway tag to something that's already a
highway, so you need to think of something else.

Richard

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
 Any thoughts about how should we tag highways equipped with average  speed
 camera enforcement?

 Do you think that it is sufficient to just add 'highway=speed_camera' to the
 way in question?
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dspeed_camera

 If so I will update the wiki with details that instant cameras should be on
 nodes and average cameras on ways.



 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] Southwark update

[Richard Mann]

blue-red is the standard for cold-hot display, though it's being
displaced by red/amber/green in most management reporting.

I might add green for those who've got to the blissful state of 100%

I hope you update the algorithm to recognize all highway tags soon.
Oxford's never going to get above 99.87% until you do.

I think you might also consider a path density map or a
shop/pub:street density map. That's the sort of stuff where OSM can
really do much better than OS / Google.

Richard


On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
 Great to see all the progress in London.

 We should also note that person (or persons unknown) have been beavering
 away in Scotland which is now 50%+ in all areas and the Edinburgh-Glasgow
 corridor is 95%+ complete almost from coast to coast.

 I (and a few other people) have been plugging away heading east from Ipswich
 since Xmas. Building on everyone elses good work we have now nearly joined
 the Suffolk coast to B'ham with a solid strip of blue. Suffolk is completely
 Blue and Cambridgeshire is nearly there. The next challenge will be join
 that strip to Greater London through Bedfordshire and Herts.

 It has just occurred to me are our colours ('blue', 'red') too overtly
 political? Suffolk went 'completely blue' in the last general election!


 Regards,



 Peter Miller
 ITO World



 On 2 March 2011 13:28, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:

 Following Steve's happy email about Enfield, we now have Southwark up to
 100% accuracy against OS Locator with 56 (!) discrepancies identified in the
 OS data, compared to 9 in Enfield.

 We're also plowing ahead with buildings, and have perhaps 1/2 to 2/3rds of
 the borough's buildings now traced, with a big chunk my way in East
 Dulwich/Peckham also fully addressed.

 I see Barnet is also up to 100% - congrats! That takes us up to 9 local
 authorities in the UK with 100% accuracy.

 Tom

 --
 http://tom.acrewoods.net   http://twitter.com/tom_chance

 ___
 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] Southwark update

[Richard Mann]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Matt Williams li...@milliams.com wrote:
 Almost on-topic and because I found it interesting is this [1] article
 on the use of colour in reporting scientific and technical results. In
 my line of work I see so many people making the same mistakes
 mentioned in the article so I'm trying to spread the work :)

 [1] http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/people/l/lloydt/color/color.HTM

Excellent link. Monochrome is best most of the time.

I'd add though, that any map-based presentation somehow has to crack
the underlying density problem - the fact that there's a lot more
measurable stuff in some places (towns) than in others (countryside).
I'd guess that varying the colour in two dimensions (maybe hue and
intensity) might do it. A logarithmic scale might be helpful too.

Richard

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update

[Richard Mann]

Relations are not categories. The members of a relation need to be in
some geospatial relationship to each other, and these are not!

Richard

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Steve Doerr
steve.do...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
 On 03/03/2011 17:16, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM wrote:

 I must completely agree with Tom on this. (When has OSM cared about 3NF?).

 This may be completely off the wall, but what about creating a relation for
 each species and adding the individual trees to the appropriate relation?
 The name tags etc. would be on the relation.

 --
 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] Wiki - United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines

[Richard Mann]

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
 I was thinking of cities.  There are all sorts
 of paths between buildings, pedestrian shortcuts, even walkways inside 
 shopping
 centres and so on.

 I believe these should be tagged as highway=footway and should not have any
 designation=x or foot=designated or other cruft added, unless there is 
 definite
 knowledge of the right of way status.

As per my original post, I think the wiki ought to record the dominant
usage. I think plain highway=footway is dominant for such situations.

The only area where I think the dominant usage is unclear is rural
paths, which were traditionally done as plain highway=footway, but
there are now quite a lot of plain highway=path. But again, I think
the wiki should just say what's the current situation, and leave it up
to mappers to choose.

Richard

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

[Talk-GB] Wiki - United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines

[Richard Mann]

A new page seems to have appeared on the wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines

This states a preference for highway=path+foot=designated over
highway=footway (etc).

I don't remember this being discussed or agreed, but my memory could
be failing me.

I think the article should probably state existing usage (based on
tagwatch), rather than promote minority alternatives.

Views?

Richard

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Wiki - United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines

[Richard Mann]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
 I use designation for things like public footpath, and foot=designated where 
 there is one of the blue road signs with a pedestrian on (either footway, or 
 shared use cycleway).

Ah - you follow the German tagging guidelines...

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dpath

I'd have thought highway=cycleway+(if you're keen)segregated=yes|no
was sufficient myself, since we allow pedestrians on cycleways by
default - see 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions

R

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Update to OSM Analysis

[Richard Mann]

That means they're fixed (the discrepancies are the ones on the right)

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Derick Rethans o...@derickrethans.nl wrote:
 On Thu, 20 Jan 2011, Peter Miller wrote:

 ITO are pleased to offer out updated version of OSM Analysis with a thematic
 overview page allowing us to see how we are getting on in different parts of
 the county.

 I've noticed an odd thing. The top 4 items on the left at
 http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/area?name=Brent
 mention Edgeware Road should be Edgware Road—and those 4 ways are
 tagged just fine as Edgware Road, but with a not:name of Edgeware
 Road. Should they be listed, or what should I expect here?

 cheers,
 Derick
 ___
 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] pay_scale_area

[Richard Mann]

I'd have said delete. They've been imported, probably not been edited,
and can always be imported again if necessary.

Richard

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
 Hi,

 I am presently doing some tracing in Dumfries and there is a way which is
 marked public_transport=pay_scale_area. It is part of a Naptan import. The
 area seems to be vague and is cutting across a number of areas where I am
 doing some detailed work.

 Is there a good reason that this should still be kept?

 Cheers
 Bob

 Whilst agreeing that it seems inaccurate (I've never understood why it needs
 to be an area when it relates to linear bus routes); I would check with the
 guys on the Transit forum.

 Saying that, when I previously asked about it's purpose, the guy that
 inserted them had doubts about its validity in the main database.

 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] Adding a further 250, 000 UK roads quickly using a Bot?

[Richard Mann]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
 Stephen Gower socks-openstreetmap.org@... writes:

What do you do when a road has completely gone?

 I make a way with not:name and no other tags.

That doesn't work - it has to have a recognised highway tag. Peter
says it will be changed some time soon so that any highway tag (eg
highway=abandoned) will get it included in the comparison.

Richard

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Adding a further 250, 000 UK roads quickly using a Bot?

[Richard Mann]

I'm not sure that mapping parties by non-locals are that different
from armchair tracing in terms of community engagement. Rather than a
bot, I'd aim for a tool that suggested the OS name if you draw a road
or click on an existing road without a name. That would save an awful
lot of typing while still requiring review-as-you-go

I think we are more likely to build community by using the data,
particularly by drawing maps with it (cue ad for Maperitive). It has
to be said that you can't draw a map if there's no data.

Richard

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quiet lanes and one car per minute

[Richard Mann]

Traffic planners typically measure motor-vehicles-per-day (and quote
it to the nearest thousand), so I'd do traffic=1000, with advice
somewhere that you can use 1000* off-peak cars-per minute as an
approximation.

10* motor-vehicles per peak-hour is also a common rule-of-thumb (but I
wouldn't propose standing around for an hour to measure it).

Richard

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Richard Fairhurst
rich...@systemed.net wrote:
 Hi all,

 Sending this to talk-gb@ first (rather than tagging@ or talk@) as I'm just
 floating an idea...

 I've long wanted to get motor traffic levels on rural roads into OSM.
 Traffic levels make a huge difference to the enjoyability of rural cycling,
 and would enable really fun rendering and routing possibilities.
 OpenCycleMap could highlight quiet minor lanes even if they weren't in the
 NCN. CycleStreets could prefer them. I could do a lovely cycle touring map
 in the style of the old quarter-inch OS maps. And so on.

 Traffic levels are, also, a real pain in the saddle to record.

 OSM's iterative; always has been. We start as a broad-brush survey and get
 more detailed as time goes on. So it doesn't matter if we don't get detailed
 hour-by-hour traffic averages to begin with - it'll get better once people
 are used to recording it. But how to do that?

 Looking at some Sustrans and Countryside Agency design documents, it turns
 out that they share a criterion for quiet lanes: 1000 vehicles per day.
 Let's say (remember, we're talking really broad-brush here) that traffic is
 reasonably even between 6am and 10pm, i.e. 16 hours, and absent at other
 times. That's 1000/16=62.5 vehicles per hour.

 One car per minute.

 So, how about it? Find a country lane. If you're standing there at a typical
 time of day, and there's less than one car per minute, that's a quiet lane.
 Tag it traffic=quiet, or if you'd like to be precise, traffic:hourly=60 (or
 whatever). Really simple.

 We could do great things with this. As time went on, no doubt people would
 get into surveying it with more and more detail. Comments welcome!

 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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS have switched to Open Government License today...

[Richard Mann]

But (unless I've missed something) that doesn't deal with the issue
that the CTs reserve the right to switch the data to (amongst other
things) a non-attribution licence at a future date.

Richard

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
 The OS have today switched to the Open Government License which means that
 any remaining doubts of the compatibility of OS Open data with ODBL have
 been resolved as far as I can see.

 Details in the email below.


 Regards,


 Peter


 -- Forwarded message --
 From: Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu
 Date: 6 January 2011 10:29
 Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline
 To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
 Cc: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net


 On 04/01/11 15:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

 As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
 this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution
 licence.
 (It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. If it is not practical to
 cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good
 practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in
 another
 file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.)

 This switch has just been announced:

 http://blog.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/2011/01/changes-to-the-os-opendata-licence/

 Tom

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

 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


 ___
 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