Re: [Talk-GB] Anybody in the Dunstable/Luton area?

[Stuart Reynolds via Talk-GB]

Hi Dave,

No, it doesn’t.

However, I now understand your comments about Govia Thameslink. The rail 
industry data has two different types of bus services within its data. There 
are “BR” services which are “bus replacement” and there are “BS” services, 
which are “bus services”. The former do what they say on the tin. The latter 
are ordinary (non-rail) bus services that are in the data to allow the rail 
industry to ticket you to places that you cannot get to by train. Once upon a 
time it was perfectly possible to buy a rail ticket to Dunstable, despite there 
not being a station there. I don’t believe it is possible now, though - the 
national rail website doesn’t recognise Dunstable, and the latest MSN (Master 
Station Names) file from ATOC doesn’t list it either. I suspect then that there 
isn’t a CRS code for Dunstable.

Even if there was, I would be very surprised if that was the stop used. Far 
more likely to be The Quadrant or ASDA or Church Street (formerly The Winston 
Churchill until it shut) which are more in the centre.

Regards,
Stuart

On 22 Mar 2020, at 15:56, Dave F 
mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:

Thanks. Useful.
From your data can you confirm if it has a 3-digit/CRS code?

On 22/03/2020 15:05, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
Hi Dave,

I maintain the electronic timetable and stops data for Central Bedfordshire, 
which includes Dunstable.

According to my data, that road (and the associated bus stop) are used by 
Arriva services F70 and F77 between Luton and Milton Keynes.

The road is indeed one way - it is the exit from the westbound busway. The 
entrance back onto the busway is Church Street.

As to the location, the NaPTAN data is correct, using coordinates supplied to 
my by Central Bedfordshire, and is on the left hand side of the road, 
orientated for buses heading NW along Station Road as they come off the busway. 
So yes, it is incorrect in OSM.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east and anglia

On 22 Mar 2020, at 14:17, Dave F via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org><mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>
 wrote:

Hi
If you're in the Dunstable/Luton area would you be able to clarify if this way 
is used as a regular bus route and if the bus stop at the Western end exists?

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/218924564

The only routes I've located so far, continue along the Busway.

There's a contributor who claims there a service, run by Govia Thameslink, 
which goes to Luton, which is a bit surprising as it's oneway. It also means 
the bus stop is located on the wrong side of the road.

Cheers
DaveF


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org><mailto: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] Anybody in the Dunstable/Luton area?

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Dave,

I maintain the electronic timetable and stops data for Central Bedfordshire, 
which includes Dunstable.

According to my data, that road (and the associated bus stop) are used by 
Arriva services F70 and F77 between Luton and Milton Keynes.

The road is indeed one way - it is the exit from the westbound busway. The 
entrance back onto the busway is Church Street.

As to the location, the NaPTAN data is correct, using coordinates supplied to 
my by Central Bedfordshire, and is on the left hand side of the road, 
orientated for buses heading NW along Station Road as they come off the busway. 
So yes, it is incorrect in OSM.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east and anglia

On 22 Mar 2020, at 14:17, Dave F via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Hi
If you're in the Dunstable/Luton area would you be able to clarify if this way 
is used as a regular bus route and if the bus stop at the Western end exists?

 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/218924564

The only routes I've located so far, continue along the Busway.

There's a contributor who claims there a service, run by Govia Thameslink, 
which goes to Luton, which is a bit surprising as it's oneway. It also means 
the bus stop is located on the wrong side of the road.

Cheers
DaveF


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Update bus stop names

[Stuart Reynolds]

On 19 Jan 2020, at 06:54, jc...@mail.com wrote:

IoW bus stops seem to be branded which I think is rather unusual, so does the 
bus operator pay for updating them? That might be a clue to which is more 
recent.

It varies from authority to authority (no reason to make it easy!) depending on 
local agreements. In some areas the local authority will install the 
infrastructure, in others it will be the responsibility of the operator 
(perhaps in consultation). I think Cambridge is another example where there are 
operator-specific poles and flags, but don’t quote me on that.

Furthermore, even where the authority provides the infrastructure the printed 
timetable publicity can be done by operators, the local authority, or a mix of 
both depending on size / willingness / etc.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Update bus stop names

[Stuart Reynolds]

If you take a look at the map for the area, you’ll see that Redwood Close is a 
close to the east, on the bend in Mountbatten Drive. The bus stop, as can be 
seen should you happen to look at a site where there is some street imagery 
(can’t imagine which one) is actually where NaPTAN has it - directly opposite 
Silver Birch Drive. From a data perspective, I am quite happy that Silver Birch 
Drive is correct, and that Redwood Close isn’t as good as it is further away 
(and difficult to qualify with one of the standard qualifiers). What I can’t 
tell from the imagery however is what is written on the bus stop flag, and you 
would need to survey it. In an ideal world, NaPTAN fields should reflect what 
is on the flag - and it looks like a newish flag, so it should be correct.

The Bus Open Data (BOD) timetable provisions of the Bus Services Act 2017 came 
into effect from January, although there is a year-long “implementation” 
period. At present, that is only requiring timetable data from operators. 
However, having accessible information on board buses (signboards and audible 
announcements) is another aspect of BOD and the spoken / displayed official 
name is a key part of that. Debates are going on in the industry at present as 
to the recommended approach for capturing this data in NaPTAN. My 
recommendations all along have been if the name that is spoken isn’t right, 
then NaPTAN needs to be corrected. On the IOW, there is only one operator so it 
is less of a problem than where there is a multi-operator environment, but we 
need to make data sets and names align which was the whole point of 
standardisation from way back in 2003/4 (wish) when this was first introduced.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east and anglia

On 18 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Cj Malone 
mailto:cjmal...@mail.com>> wrote:

Thanks, I didn't really understand the NaPTAN site, but your link to download 
the data really helped.

Although now I have another issue, which data source should be preferred. Take 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/550691387 for example, no name in OSM. It's 
napcode appears to be 23062, Southern Vectis has that as "Redwood Close" 
whereas the nap data calls it "Silverbirch Drive".

I'm going to do a survey now, and hopefully it will be clear which dataset 
should be preferred. ie does SV have outdated nap data, or do they pull the 
official nap data, make edits, but not publish that back.

Or maybe this issue could arise that the name on the bus speaker/other digital 
reference could be different to the name on the sign on the road. Then, what 
one would be name vs alt_name, but hopefully that isn't the case.

I currently only intend to add name and nap reference codes to OSM, in my 
opinion the other data like naptan:CommonName should stay in the nap dataset, 
and not be copied to OSM. OSM mappers collecting, or even just storing that 
data will just make more conflicts in the datasets.

Cj

On 18 January 2020 12:16:35 GMT, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Hi Cj,

What you have got there is Southern Vectis’s link to a subset of the current 
NaPTAN data. Please note, though, that Southern Vectis are not responsible for 
this data - that is maintained by Isle of Wight Council.

NaPTAN data is always available by local authority, or for the entire country, 
from the official source. You don’t need to have a login, and instructions can 
be found at http://naptan.app.dft.gov.uk/DataRequest/help on how to download 
individual areas. Essentially, you will need the Atcoprefix to form the URL and 
you can get this most easily by following the “last submissions” link contained 
within that page.

But all this comes with a health warning!

NaPTAN data from the official source will generally be more up to date than 
what has been imported into OSM some years ago. But I know, from when I 
proposed a mechanical edits few years ago, that many mappers have surveyed 
their local stops and would be unhappy with it being updated without a further 
survey by what they regard as an inferior source, particularly if is not well 
maintained.

Be aware of “Custom and practice” stops in NaPTAN which are unmarked. Buses 
stop there, but there isn’t something that you can see on the ground that you 
can map, necessarily. Hail and Ride stops are even worse, because they are 
virtual stops intended to give something that a scheduling system can hang a 
time on rather than an accurate representation of where a bus stops. You can 
identify all of these by BusStopType in the data.

Common errors in the official NaPTAN data set may be missing stops, or the 
inclusion of stops that are no longer in use. Some areas remove stops when they 
are no longer served, even though the infrastructure is still in place on the 
ground (wrong, in my opinion, but there you go). You may also find stops that 
are not precisely where you expect them to be, and they may also not ha

Re: [Talk-GB] Update bus stop names

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Cj,

What you have got there is Southern Vectis’s link to a subset of the current 
NaPTAN data. Please note, though, that Southern Vectis are not responsible for 
this data - that is maintained by Isle of Wight Council.

NaPTAN data is always available by local authority, or for the entire country, 
from the official source. You don’t need to have a login, and instructions can 
be found at http://naptan.app.dft.gov.uk/DataRequest/help on how to download 
individual areas. Essentially, you will need the Atcoprefix to form the URL and 
you can get this most easily by following the “last submissions” link contained 
within that page.

But all this comes with a health warning!

NaPTAN data from the official source will generally be more up to date than 
what has been imported into OSM some years ago. But I know, from when I 
proposed a mechanical edits few years ago, that many mappers have surveyed 
their local stops and would be unhappy with it being updated without a further 
survey by what they regard as an inferior source, particularly if is not well 
maintained.

Be aware of “Custom and practice” stops in NaPTAN which are unmarked. Buses 
stop there, but there isn’t something that you can see on the ground that you 
can map, necessarily. Hail and Ride stops are even worse, because they are 
virtual stops intended to give something that a scheduling system can hang a 
time on rather than an accurate representation of where a bus stops. You can 
identify all of these by BusStopType in the data.

Common errors in the official NaPTAN data set may be missing stops, or the 
inclusion of stops that are no longer in use. Some areas remove stops when they 
are no longer served, even though the infrastructure is still in place on the 
ground (wrong, in my opinion, but there you go). You may also find stops that 
are not precisely where you expect them to be, and they may also not have the 
name that is on the stop flag on the ground.

That last one is a point worth dwelling on. NaPTAN is intended to be granular 
in its data. That means that the street that a stop is on should go into the 
“streetname” field, and a short name should go into the “commonname” field. Our 
advice to database administrators is that where there isn’t a prominent 
landmark (bus station, pub, etc) then this is most suited to a nearby side 
road. That way stops along a long road can have different names, which is 
essential in a journey planner or timetable. On the ground, though, many 
authorities will put composite names on the flags, and often the other way 
round if they consider the main road to be more important. And they then differ 
on occasion from what the operator wants to call the stop (although operators 
tend to focus on just the timetabled points). Oh, and some areas misuse the 
fields. In Sheffield (for good historic reasons, so I don’t want to pick on 
them unduly) you will find that the commonname is simply the stop letter e.g. 
CS1 which should properly be in the Indicator field, and the common name (which 
should be “Century Square”) is only found by looking at the stop area name.

All this just goes to highlight that you will need to reflect carefully on what 
the fields that you are updating in OSM should be before making the changes - 
although I agree that in many places the data in OSM is way out of date and 
desperately needs updating.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east and anglia

On 18 Jan 2020, at 11:18, Cj Malone via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Hello,

I've recently found an open data set with more accurate bus stop names
than OSM. Based on my limited survey of differences in OSM data and
this data, theirs has been more accurate. Not really surprising, since
it's there network, and most of the OSM data hasn't been updated since
the naptan import nearly a decade ago.

I intent to start updating OSM based on this data. The legal mailing
list has OK'ed this as it's OGLv3.

I won't be importing any nodes, but I do intend for it to be "machine
assisted". I will create a report similar to
https://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhrs/ where I will then go through
on a node by node basis and decide if the node should be updated. Any
tag I edit I will add source:name=Southern Vectis, and leave the
naptan:CommonName untouched.

While I do this I could also upgrade from highway=bus_stop to
public_transport=platform, bus=yes. Keeping the legacy tags as the wiki
recommends.

I will be using this data set https://www.islandbuses.info/open-data
the same data set is available for more regions, but at the moment I don't 
intent to use them, a local mapper would be better suited. 
https://www.discoverpassenger.com/2019/06/25/open-data-portals-go-
ahead-group/

Any comments?

Thanks
Cj


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetma

Re: [Talk-GB] Laura Ashley - looking for tagging consensus

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi,

I may be wrong, but I believe that there were some home (furniture) shops that 
didn’t sell clothing, and some years ago my family would reliably buy wallpaper 
from Laura Ashley which had the traditional Laura Ashley design on it. So that 
would seem to back up the “interior_decoration” tag. So I don’t know that you 
can necessarily generalise without a survey of each store - although I agree 
that clothing is probably the most likely for most cases these days. Not that 
I’ve been in one for quite some time!

Regards,
Stuart

On 20 Dec 2019, at 07:25, Jez Nicholson 
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks for consulting. Even if you don't get a huge response (like with The 
Range) it is good to get wider opinion. With The Range I simply didn't know so 
had no response.

A short poll in my household (myself + my wife) concluded: "Laura Ashley is a 
clothing store that happens to also sell furniture"

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, 00:52 Silent Spike, 
mailto:silentspike...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm a UK based maintainer of the name suggestion 
index and would like 
to get this brand added. Unfortunately it's not so obvious how it should be 
tagged and I'm not comfortable making a tagging judgement call alone without 
consulting the UK community.

My last thread of this nature for The Range didn't attract many responses, but 
some input is always better than none and it allowed me to get that brand into 
the index knowing that if consensus changes then the tagging can easily be 
updated in OSM.

Here's the Laura Ashley website and Wikipedia page for those unaware of this 
chain:
https://www.lauraashley.com/en-gb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ashley_plc

It looks like currently there are:

  *   44 shop=clothes
  *   20 shop=furniture
  *   15 shop=interior_decoration
  *   4 shop=houseware
  *   1 shop=home_furnishing
  *   1 shop=fabric
  *   1 shop=fashion

This makes sense as it seems that furniture and clothing are the main items 
sold. The tagging alone seems to suggest `shop=clothing` is favoured more - 
does this seem reasonable or do you think another tagging is more suitable?
___
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] What is a Department Store

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Phil,

In my opinion, where you pay for it is irrelevant. It is a store with multiple 
departments, and as such is a department store. You mentioned Debenhams as an 
example of a department store - it still exists, of course, and it is still a 
department store, but you can pay at any till.

On the flip side, no-one would ever describe Foyles as anything other than a 
bookshop. However, back in the day it was very much stuck in the 70s itself. 
You couldn’t pay for books from different departments, instead you had go 
around the shop, choose your books, leave them at their departments, get a set 
of bills, go to the (admittedly single) till, pay, and then go back and pick up 
your books from the departments you’d left them in. It was surreal. But aside 
from that trip down memory lane, you were effectively billed from each 
department and couldn’t get billed out of department, which sort of meets your 
definition of a department store. But it wasn’t one - it was (and still is) a 
bookshop.

Cheers
Stuart


> On 19 Dec 2019, at 19:12, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> A simple question, but probably a complex answer.
> 
> Growing up a department store was divided up into a series of
> departments, each operated almost as separate shops with their own
> staff, own till and you paid for what you bought before you moved on to
> the next department.
> 
> The obvious example is Harrods, but Grace Brothers (1) was a familiar
> example, along with Rackhams, Debenhams.
> 
> The key feature in my mind is that each department is that you paid in
> each shop, you couldn't buy a pair of shoes and pay for them in the
> record department. The big thing that kept me out of such places was
> the perfume department which always seemed to be just inside the main
> door to overpower and drive me back out.
> 
> In OSM we are using department store to describe most commonly for
> example M & S. Whilst it does have departments, you take things to a
> single till. Food is still sort of separate, but as far as I am aware
> you can pay for your socks along with your groceries.
> 
> ASDA Home may fit this, but again you pay at a single till area.
> 
> Was taken to TK Maxx today, had never been in before and had always
> assumed it was a clothes shop and had mapped it as such. It sells much
> more than clothes, actually felt like BHS used to. But again you take
> things to a single till. On checking, iD suggests Department Store.
> 
> What do others think?
> 
> Am I stuck in the 70s?
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTCUuTGNEnI May not be familiar to
> all as it doesn't get the repeats that other series of the era do
> (Dad's Army, On The Buses)
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Fixing shop=yes, now it no longer renders on the default OSM map

[Stuart Reynolds]

And this is the problem. One of the shop=yes entries in Southend on sea is The 
Range. I wasn’t sure how to tag it (I was using iD for speed, and it’s list of 
defined shop tags is fairly minimal) so I tried an overpass query on Name=The 
Range.

I have found, variously (aside from those without a shop tag at all) 
“houseware”, “household”, “doityourself”, “department_store”.

I would suggest that “houseware” or “household” (is this a recognised tag?) 
comes closest, or maybe even (from the Wiki - I haven’t found live examples 
yet) “variety_store"

But how to tell! There isn’t a standardised approach, by any stretch of the 
imagination.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east and anglia

On 2 Sep 2019, at 14:20, Jez Nicholson 
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Whilst we are on the subject of shops (I hope this isn't dragging the 
discussion too far off topic) people may be interested how editors like iD and 
Vespucci get lists of UK shop names to suggest in drop-downs. The Name 
Suggestion Index contains json encoded descriptions of retail brands and can be 
browsed using https://osmlab.github.io/name-suggestion-index/  this page lets 
you enter 'gb' as a county code to show only UK shops.

I don't know (yet) how iD generates its list of shop types. This may be 
hard-coded and/or pre-generated from the NSI.

The excellent 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Retail_chains_in_the_United_Kingdom OSM 
Wiki page is a good driver for getting content into the NSI as we include 
evidence of the name with an image.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:59 PM Jez Nicholson 
mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the heads up.

I specifically use it when I know that a shop exists, and am due to survey it 
to say what it is. So I guess it doesn't hurt if those aren't rendered..but 
please, people in general, don't just delete them.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:43 PM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
mailto:robert.whittaker%2b...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Since version 4.22 of the Carto map style (which was deployed a few
days ago), the generic shop=yes tag is no longer rendered on the
default OSM-Carto map at https://www.openstreetmap.org/ . For details
of the decision see
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3697 .

In Great Britain,
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/shop#values shows we
currently have 7,772 objects tagged with shop=yes, which represents
4.18% of our total shop=* objects. These objects will no longer appear
on the default map (unless they have other renderable tags). To have
the objects display again, we need to give them more specific shop=*
tags. Often, an appropriate shop value can be deduced from the shop
name, its website, or other existing tagging on OSM, without needing a
ground survey.

Any mappers with a few minutes to spare might like to have a look at
their local area, and see if there are any shop=yes objects they could
re-tag with a more specific value. Some resources to help:

* Overpass Turbo query to find shop=yes objects:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/M0w (Pan/zoom to the area of interest, then
click on run. Try a smaller area if the query times out.)

* OSM WIki Key:Shop page, with values for common shop types:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop

* Taginfo GB shop values:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/shop#values (Use the search
box at the top right of the *table* to get suggestions for the common
tag for a particular shop type.)

Best wishes,

Robert.

--
Robert Whittaker
https://osm.mathmos.net/

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Importing NaPTAN Data [Thread 2]

[Stuart Reynolds]

If you wanted to conflate indicator and common name into the OSM “name” field, 
then I can provide a list of what we call “prefix indicators” as opposed to 
“suffix indicators”. It’s fairly self-explanatory, as prefix indicators are 
generally those that are positional e.g. o/s, opp, adj, nr etc. For example, 
Stuart Close / opp -> “opp Stuart Close", whereas the suffix ones are not e.g. 
Bus Station / Bay 8 -> "Bus Station (Bay 8)”

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east and anglia

On 5 Jul 2019, at 13:40, Andy Townsend 
mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 05/07/2019 13:19, Silent Spike wrote:
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 1:02 PM Gareth L 
mailto:o...@live.co.uk>> wrote:
Forgive me if this is silly question/statement, but the adj/alt names etc are 
in the naptan dataset. Wouldn’t it be better to have the link made between the 
stop in OSM and the record in naptan (using the codes prior mentioned).
My thinking is data consumers could link and retrieve values using that. 
Merging the extra data values again might potentially develop discrepancies 
over time.

I’d think the atco code is unique and (hopefully) not reused, but the alt names 
etc could be modified over time.

A perfectly valid question and something I wonder also.

For example, the indicator field is somewhat meaningless to a data consumer 
unless they know what it represents as per the NaPTAN schema - so perhaps it's 
best left out of the OSM data?

FWIW I did actually append that to name when displaying those because it 
"looked useful" (to append to the name and distinguish between other 
identically named stops):

https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L5010

As to the original question "Would there be any objections to an import of the 
following scope" - certainly not from me.  I wouldn't personally use the PTv2 
"platform" tag but its presence doesn't break anything.

The most interesting bit would be the "Manually conflate and review the data 
before upload using JOSM" - any JOSM CSS style that you end up using to 
highlight duplicates would be really useful, as would a basic OSM diary entry 
describing the process and the end result.

Best Regards,

Andy



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Importing NaPTAN Data [Thread 2]

[Stuart Reynolds]

When you say that

the indicator field is somewhat meaningless to a data consumer

what did you have in mind? To the end-user of the data (i.e. someone wanting to 
know about where to catch the bus) this is absolutely critical.

For example, in my previous post I face a suggestion of “Stuart Close” with an 
indicator of “adj”. There would usually be a second stop of the same common 
name, Stuart Close, perhaps with the indicator “opp”. Without understanding the 
NaPTAN schema, “app Stuart Close” and “adj Stuart Close” are understandable and 
are service direction dependent.

Even more so in bus stations. The name Derby Bus Station (actually just "Bus 
Station” in the locality of Derby) applies equally to all 29 bays in the bus 
station. “Bay 1” through “Bay 29” are the indicators.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east and anglia

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing NaPTAN Data [Thread 2]

[Stuart Reynolds]

From your original post, I didn’t think so, especially.

However, the fields in NaPTAN are designed to be granular, and while many may 
seem to be irrelevant to OSM (e.g. why have a street name when the street is 
named on the map) different local authorities will have different approaches to 
using that granularity for flag display. So the stop in NaPTAN might have a 
common name of “Stuart Close” with an indicator of “adj”, showing that the stop 
was adjacent to Stuart Close. However, street name becomes relevant if the 
local authority shows e.g. "High Street / Stuart Close” on the flag (with High 
Street being the street that the stop is physically located on).

So it is a bit of a “suck it and see”, but in general I would suggest that, of 
the descriptive fields, you definitely want Common Name and Indicator, and you 
should consider including Streetname, Crossing and Landmark. In Wales and 
Gaelic-speaking parts of Scotland (including Ayr, apparently, where they are 
now erecting dual language signage) you should also include any non-English 
alternative names too. I’m less fussed about Locality, because the context of 
the map should give it, but sometimes child (lowest level) localities are not 
named on the map, or are named differently to the map.

I certainly wouldn’t include the short names (which are usually just the 
abbreviations on on-street real time displays or fronts of buses) or the plate 
/ cleardown etc codes.

Note in passing that NaPTAN status often gets mis-used. Some authorities have a 
tendency to mark a stop as deleted when it no longer has services at it, even 
thought the infrastructure is still in place on the ground. These are supposed 
to be ACT but unused in NaPTAN, not deleted. If they are covered up, or 
physically removed, then they can be deleted. But not otherwise. You may come 
across some of these (or you may not).

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east and anglia

On 5 Jul 2019, at 10:57, Silent Spike 
mailto:silentspike...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:52 AM Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Yes, both are still in use

-snip-

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east and anglia

As someone more in the know, are there any fields of the NaPTAN data which you 
think should be imported which I haven't included?

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Importing NaPTAN Data [Thread 2]

[Stuart Reynolds]

Yes, both are still in use

AtcoCode is the unique “ID” of the bus stop and is the key that is used in 
databases to identify the stop. It is therefore also the key that gets used in 
an AnnotatedStopRef within the TransXChange (timetable) data.

NaptanCode is, in my view, unhelpfully named because in a NaPTAN database you 
would tend to think of it as the key. But it isn’t. It is certainly unique, but 
it has some constraints around which characters can follow other characters so 
that on (very old style, now) phones you didn’t have to push the same button 
twice in succession (and actually using a combination of letters that use the 
same key sequence also works). By and large it is text (except in Scotland, if 
I recall, where it is numeric) and is the code that you would send to the 
(charged for) 84628 “next departures” SMS service (Nextbuses). You can also use 
it online at nextbuses.mobi for free, although there you can also use the 
AtcoCode, confusingly.

For example, Southend Travel Centre stop A has the AtcoCode 15800720 (158 is 
the Southend prefix) and the NaptanCode soadjdaw (where soa is the Southend 
prefix). The next departures can be seen using  
http://nextbuses.mobi/WebView/BusStopSearch/BusStopSearchResults/soadjdaw

Both the SMS and Nexbuses services are still active, and not planned to be 
turned off any time soon.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east and anglia

On 5 Jul 2019, at 10:27, Gareth L mailto:o...@live.co.uk>> 
wrote:

I’m certain I’ve seen “text this bus stop code to see next departures” use the 
naptan code. Whether or not that service is still live, I dunno.

On 5 Jul 2019, at 10:17, Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:


5 Jul 2019, 09:04 by silentspike...@gmail.com<mailto:silentspike...@gmail.com>:

 *   `naptan:AtcoCode=*` [Imported]
 *   `naptan:NaptanCode=*` [Imported]

I reformatted
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:naptan:AtcoCode
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:naptan:NaptanCode
(added templates making them machine readable, descriptions will appear
for example at Taginfo)

Is it useful to use both? What is the difference between them?
Is NaptanCode actually used as planned ("referring to the stop in public facing 
systems")?

Alternatively, if you support the proposal then it's also useful to know 

It may help to include example (of full) .osm data file to make easy for mappers
to judge data quality in their area.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Importing NaPTAN Data

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Spike,

There are two aspects to your question. The first is around mechanical edits 
(i.e. importing NaPTAN), and I’ll defer to the group for that because while I 
would like to use NaPTAN (matained, mostly) to update OSM (not maintained, 
mostly) across the UK, there is resistance to that - and it is because of that 
“mostly” issue, because in some areas bus stops have been more accurately 
surveyed.

However, one of my many hats (as a consultant) is as the DfT’s “Public 
Transport Data Standards” expert (Transport is a devolved power, but the 
Scottish Parliament usually keeps Scotland broadly aligned with England). If 
you want to know specific things about NaPTAN fields, then I can tell you what 
they are for and why we need them - either email me direct, or reply here if 
you think that it would be more widely interesting. That is particularly true 
of stop points which are “Custom & Practice” or “Hail & Ride” which are not 
marked on the ground at all (so are perhaps irrelevant from a mapping 
perspective), but are nevertheless valid stopping points (and very important 
from a PT perspective)

As a general note to both you and the wider community, the (English) Bus 
Services Act 2017 provides powers to compel Local Authorities to maintain 
NaPTAN data, and there are steps being discussed to assist in bulk 
“improvements” to the stop data ahead of the timetable provision which is 
intended to commence Jan 2020, mandatory by Jan 2021 (these dates all in the 
public domain, by the way). There is a similar Bill going through Holyrood at 
present, but I don’t know precisely what powers it will contain or what dates 
it will mandate.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east and anglia

On 1 Jul 2019, at 16:02, Silent Spike 
mailto:silentspike...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hey folks,

I'm interested in importing NaPTAN bus stop data 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NaPTAN/Import) specifically for my area of 
the UK (Aberdeen).

As far as I can tell, some progress was made previously on importing NaPTAN 
data for specific areas of the UK. However, the process for requesting an 
import on the wiki seems to have broken down somewhere along the line and I 
believe the python script mentioned on the wiki is outdated.

I went ahead and wrote a 5 minute python 3 script to convert the NaPTAN csv bus 
stops file into OSM XML which I can import using JOSM. I'm splitting the data 
into files by local area - here's an example of an area I'm familiar with 
(https://i.imgur.com/xE7TF2c.png) where you can see the import data (blue) line 
up well with the existing data (black).

My plan for conflation was basically to do it by hand since I'm familiar with 
the area and can take my time to do each local area individually. However, I 
could probably also set up some data matching by checking the stop names and 
offsets of existing data.

As for tagging, I'm unsure what the current status is regarding the `naptan:` 
namespace. Looking at those tags, they all seem pretty useless to me (except 
`naptan:AtcoCode` as an identifier). Currently I'm just using roadside bus 
stops marked with a shelter or pole and following the PTv2 scheme to tag them 
as `highway=bus_stop`, `public_transport_platform` and `bus=yes`.

If anyone has any suggestions or input please let me know! Obviously I won't be 
importing anything without some community approval first.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] sidewalks

[Stuart Reynolds]

On 3 Jun 2019, at 09:15, Stuart Reynolds 
mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:

As Jerry says, from a routing perspective having lots of separate footpaths 
doesn’t help when you can just walk across the road at any given point. 
Boulevard-type roads with central grassed areas are very similar. If you aren’t 
careful you end up with a number of artificial crossing points, which is wrong.

On the flip side, though, what we also have is a significant number of roads 
that are currently defaulting to walking when they cannot be walked. I have had 
to to tweak the A500 around Stoke, for example, and there were similar problems 
on the A4150 around Wolverhampton Bus Station. When I find these, I don’t have 
the time (or local knowledge) to edit entire stretches of road, so I tend to 
just edit the slip roads and the mainline where I am having the immediate 
problem.

From a personal point of view I would therefore rather avoid separate footpaths 
where they are not distinct, but at the same time we need to improve a lot of 
urban high speed roads that are not walkable.

Regards,
Stuart


On 2 Jun 2019, at 14:10, SK53 mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

I recently 
extended<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4072429#map=18/52.22564/0.11783=N>
 some already mapped pavements in N. Cambridge. I'm not really a fan of the 
current approach because I don't think it works particularly well, and I'm not 
aware of any good routers using this type of data for wheelchairs.

The problems I see (and I've said this before):
The scope for missing interconnections is trebled.
It's more or less worthless unless done systematically (places like university 
& hospital campuses are viable from this viewpoint.
In Britain, at least, it requires introduction of many arbitrary crossing 
points to allow any kind of sensible pedestrian routing (i.e., not 
well-supported by on-the-ground features such as dropped kerbs & tactile 
paving). You can see the ones I felt it necessary to introduce around Roseford 
Road & Perse Way. Note that many crossings, e.g., at the Harris Way/Perse Way 
intersection are not complete.
It breaks existing applications. The reason why I noticed the issue in North 
Cambridge is that the Traveline South East app started giving me unfeasibly 
long times to walk to a bus stop. It turned out that it routed me all the way 
along a pavement to Histon Road & then back along Histon Road adding a good 500 
m to the journey. This was because the original mapping just stopped without 
connecting the end of the pavement to anything.
I'm not completely convinced that wheelchair users, blind people etc can put 
the same degree of trust in this type of data as the ordinary pedestrian can 
for current pedestrian routing. My feeling is that the information really needs 
to be tailored to the user: there's a massive difference between how a powered 
wheelchair or mobility scooter and a manual/pushed wheelchair can cope with 
non-flush kerbs for instance.
I'm not sure if anyone has done any work to show how separately mapped 
sidewalks can be merged with the main highway to provide generalised pedestrian 
routing such as we have now.
Probably to be useful in the UK, all driveways should be mapped too (as in 
Andy's dev server example): in my experience of pushing my late mother around 
in a wheelchair driveways are often much better than many shoddy dropped kerb 
installations.
Naming of sidewalks can create problems (although it can also resolve them in 
cases where the two sides of a street have different names).
It's a pig to survey well in places where dropped kerbs have not been installed 
systematically (as in my Cambridge example).
On the plus side:
It allows more relevant details of pavements to be tagged (width, surface etc).
The current sidewalk model is probably much more appropriate in countries with 
specific legislation preventing pedestrians crossing roads at any other than 
designated crossing points (jay walking).
It's always been good publicity for OSM: even if actual real usage is limited.
Inevitably OSM will move in the direction of capturing more information & this 
is just one example.
I guess I would have preferred : sidewalks to be mapped with a key other than 
highway (something analogous to area:highway); more research to be done on ways 
to post-process the data (in both directions from 
highway=footway,footway=sidewalk and from sidewalk=*); and good references for 
actual user experience of wheelchair routing using separately mapped sidewalks. 
One way to have our cake & eat it would be to use both sidewalk= and have 
separately mapped sidewalks & allow the consumer to choose which to use, 
although the current sidewalk=separate does not say if its both, left or right. 
Personally I think this is still reasonable in the context of one feature one 
element; sidewalk is an attributive property of the street and potentially 
difficult to der

Re: [Talk-GB] Removal of redundant NaPTAN data

[Stuart Reynolds]

What do you mean by “pay scale”? Are you meaning the definition of a stop as a 
fare stage, or as part of a zone?

If so, then this data needs to be deleted, forthwith, as it will never be 
right. Outside of the regulated market that is London, different stops can be 
fare stages for different operators, even when they are running similar 
services along the same corridor routes. It is completely deregulated. And 
that’s before we get onto zonal fares, which will have a different allocation 
of stops to zones.

The Bus Services Act 2017 makes provision for the Secretary of State to require 
bus companies to publish their fares data. There is a lot of work going on at 
the minute within the industry to define how this will be done, but the general 
principle (and this is all in the public domain) is that a) operators will 
publish the data themselves; b) it will be discoverable via a portal that the 
DfT will provide; and c) it is likely to use the CEN “NeTEx” XML schema to do 
so. We are currently defining what the UK profile for this will look like. 
Fares, though, won’t be mandatory until much later on - the focus is initially 
on getting the provision of routes and timetables.

Some of this information will be “static” (or at least semi-static) i.e. stops 
allocated to zones which will change infrequently. An individual operator’s 
fare stages may also be relatively stable, but there is no guarantee of that. 
So I don’t think that this should ever form part of a database like OSM simply 
because of its lack of permanence. At best, it will be an aligned data set IMHO.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 4 Apr 2019, at 10:37, Andy Townsend 
mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 04/04/2019 09:38, Brian Prangle wrote:
Hi everyone

Back in the day of the original NapPTAN import we imported pay scale areas - 
tagged as public_transport=pay_scale_area. I don't know why we ever did this - 
there's no evidence on the ground and it's highly unlikely that any OSM data 
consumer makes use of them ( if indeed they are still current).

I actually did use the local ones (when they were accurate), but as the bus 
companies changed their rules I deleted them because they were just wrong.


The information is better in public_transport applications run by public 
transport bodies

Can you give an example of where such information might be found?  I could 
hesitate a guess*, but I suspect not every reader of this list in the future 
would necessarily be aware of that.



So I'm proposing that they are all deleted

The equivalent for anywhere with a sane public transport system might object, 
but it could be that no such place exists outside London...

Best Regards,

Andy

* locally a combination of the council website, Bus company websites, Traveline 
and Google Maps are all likely to be equally wrong in different ways.  There is 
no authoritative answer.  When services were withdrawn due to government cuts 
last year the best answer was usually to ask the driver when a particular 
service would stop running.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Tagging one way at certain times of day

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi All,

My attention has been drawn (by a local authority colleague) to a street in 
Tunbridge Wells, Grosvenor Road (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35929327). 
This is a bi-directional road that has timed restrictions heading north between 
9am and 8pm, with buses allowed to head north up it at all times. Traffic can 
head south at all times.

The tagging on it is currently:

abutters=retail,
highway=tertiary
maxspeed=20 mph
motor_vehicle:conditional=no @ (09:00-18:00)
name=Grosvenor Road
oneway=yes
psv=yes
source=sign

to which I have just added oneway:psv=no because “psv=yes” doesn’t override the 
oneway tag, only the access tag.

But the question is, is this correct tagging for the road? I don’t think that 
it is, because I take the combination of access, oneway, and conditional to 
mean that this is a oneway street, always, but that motor vehicles are 
prevented from using it IN EITHER DIRECTION between the hours of 9am and 6pm.

Assuming that I’m right, how SHOULD this be tagged, to achieve the desired aim? 
Or am I wrong?

Regards,
Stuart



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

Re: [Talk-GB] What was the outcome of the discussion about C class roads with ref tags?

[Stuart Reynolds]

[Side question, albeit not totally off-topic]

Out of curiosity, I understand what a C road is, conceptually, but what might 
an “MC” designation mean? E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/426675505

Regards,
Stuart




On 24 Sep 2018, at 09:30, Paul Berry 
mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I would have thought lists like this should be on the Wiki, even if they don't 
make it to the map.

Regards,
Paul

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 at 21:34, Neil Matthews 
mailto:ndmatth...@plus.net>> wrote:
> If there are tertiary ways that don't meet the above criteria they
> should be listed in some form of text file for individual editing if
> appropriate.

Where does this text file live? Better to add notes to the map / fixmes
to the data.

Neil


___
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] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Stuart Reynolds]

I’m all for debate and coming to a consensus, but my message counter has got to 
108 mails in this thread, and I have to say that from where I am sitting it’s 
all becoming rather tedious. The same arguments (albeit polite) are being 
rehashed, nothing new is being said, and no-one is showing any sign of changing 
their mind. We don’t have a consensus, and in any case there are only around 25 
people contributing, out of however many UK mappers, which is hardly 
representative. 

I propose that we refer this to the OSM UK Directors and ask them to review the 
arguments for both sides and come to a firm decision. That’s what we elected 
them for, after all. Then they publish it, and that is what we all agree to 
accept, whether it matches our personal views or not.

If we don’t, this thread will just rumble on forever and, at worst, we will get 
into a tit-for-tat set of edits and reversions/deletions, which no-one wants.

Regards,
Stuart


> On 20 Sep 2018, at 14:37, Dave F  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 19/09/2018 23:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>  It still is one today.
> 
> So there's no problem, then.
> 
>> So:
>> 
>> Historic counties can and often do represent genuine, attested, useful
>> geographic information. If you're proposing to delete them, you need to come
>> up with a solution that will retain that information.
> 
> For the nth time - OHM.
> 
>> if people went out and did mapping, rather than staying at home and doing
>> deleting.
> These two are not mutually exclusive. When a building is razed & replaced 
> with a new one do you retain the existing?
> 
> Cheers
> DaveF
> 
> ___
> 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] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi

I’ve watched this from afar, but thought that I would add my two pennyworth, as 
a more casual mapper.

Historic county boundaries have some merit (in a very general sense), but where 
do you draw the line? As it happens, I was discussing where, exactly, Middlesex 
was with my son only yesterday, and I looked it up on Wikipedia. Turns out that 
Middlesex has changed quite significantly over time. First of all, it existed. 
Then, some of it got plonked into London - and it had already lost the City of 
London and Westminster by then. Bits of it got hived off to Hertfordshire. Then 
the rest of it got incorporated into Greater London. So what would you map, 
historically? Do you map every single variation of it, and try and date them 
all? If you were going to map historic counties properly, then you must.

But think what this does to the data. Think what this does for the new mapper 
(who we are trying to encourage). There is now a mass of overlapping, 
conflicting entities to edit. You need to go through every one, laboriously, 
working out which ones you need to edit, and which ones you need to leave 
alone. It’s a data management nightmare, and the chances of the wrong thing 
being edited, or being edited incorrectly, rises exponentially.

Personally, I have never particularly liked the variety of ways that OSM 
attempts to map disused / demolished entities (e.g. bus station rebuilds, etc) 
even now. I am firmly of the opinion that we should be mapping existing, 
current, objects, and that things that don’t exist on the ground should be 
ripped out. If OSM as an organisation wants to take annual snapshots for 
posterity, or to set up a separate “historic OSM” then I am all for it - I 
won’t be mapping in it, myself, although I would have an interest in using it. 
As in my Middlesex example, though, you would still have data management issues 
unless you compartmentalise it by year - but that is a whole new interface or 
workflow.

So I am very strongly in favour of NOT mapping historic counties, and only 
mapping what is on the ground (or verifiably shortly to be there, as in new 
builds)

Stuart


On 10 Aug 2018, at 09:24, Sean Blanchflower 
mailto:smb1...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I guess you at least acknowledge that not everyone agrees with your views below 
though.

A quick factual error though: the traditional/historic counties were not 
administrative in the sense that current areas are. The changes of the Local 
Government Act 1888 were to create administrative areas for the first time, and 
it was the fact that they were called 'counties' that has caused all the 
trouble since then. The government acknowledged that the new areas were 
distinct from the existing counties and were not replacing them, and in fact 
the Ordnance Survey continued to print them on maps after then.

How do we reach some compromise here? We seem to be at an impasse.


> I'm sorry, but this is complete and utter bullshit. The "historic"
> county boundaries are no more "real" than the current ones. They were,
> at the time, the administrative boundaries. They are no longer the
> administrative boundaries.
>
> I do appreciate that there are matters where the historic boundaries are
> relevant (primarily genealogical research). But that's not really a
> mapping issue., And the emotional attachment to the pre-1974 boundaries
> is just that - emotion, not based on any objective assessment. And the
> fact that, in retrospect, the 1970s changes were over-reaching and did a
> lot of harm does not change that.
>
> Describing the historic boundaries as "real" is like insisting that we
> map, say, the old Euston station the way it was before it was rebuilt,
> because it was a lot nicer then. It may well be the case that it was.
> But we map what exists now, not what existed in the past and in
> rose-tinted memory. The same with county (and other administrative)
> boundaries. We map what is, not what was.



On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:49 PM Sean Blanchflower 
mailto:smb1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm smb1001 and have been adding the traditional county boundaries recently. 
DaveF kindly let me know of the discussion thread here so I've joined Talk-GB 
to add my side of things.

I'm not alone in thinking the traditional county boundaries have a place on 
current maps. It's unfortunate here that these counties are known as 'historic 
counties' as this implies that they are no longer extant. The debate as to 
their current utility or their immutability is not one I feel is relevant here 
as there are arguments on both sides, but the Association of British Counties 
summarises it more succinctly than I could in any case (see 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_British_Counties and the many 
links therein).

I have no intention of adding any "historic" boundaries beyond the counties. I 
settled on the (static) definition of "historic counties" used by the Ordnance 
Survey and UK government and was going to stop there.

I would 

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Bus routes in Rugby

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi All,

Brian is right, I think, to say that it is best rendered by another map (which 
is what traveline does, after all) - it really isn’t that easy to keep up to 
date in OSM relations, which I find to be counter-intuitive, personally. 
However, in case you want the other options:

- data in many areas is not available as open data which includes route tracks

- in SE, EM and EA regions of traveline, the routing is produced automatically 
by the software, on top of the OSM layer, and we export the tracks that we 
generate. It isn’t bad, as a stab, but I wouldn’t want to use it as any form of 
mechanical edit into OSM. I won’t go into the details of why it is wrong here, 
unless you want me to, but suffice to say that there are enough examples of it 
not being right. I fix as many as I can, when I find them, but some are simply 
outside of my control.

- Some areas, particularly TfWM, SW, Suffolk and London, use the same system as 
SE etc. but map the data manually. This means that it is generally of good 
quality - although sometimes even then the OSM data hasn’t been interpreted 
correctly to allow correct routing through e.g. bus gates. However, that 
tracked data isn’t in my gift (although it is free of licensing issues) and I 
could always ask.

Such data as I have, in all cases, is expressed as coordinates between pairs of 
bus stops (the coordinates from the ways in OSM) rather than as references to 
way IDs, because of the chance of the ID changing.

Regards,
Stuart



On 20 Jul 2018, at 19:23, Rob Nickerson 
mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Sounds like a question for Stuart (cc'd). The travelline website does exactly 
as Brian describes. Not sure if Stuart knows any sources that can be used to 
update OSM bus routes.

Rob

On Fri, 20 Jul 2018, 12:28 Brian Prangle, 
mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Gareth

If they're that old and no longer exist then just delete them!  If the bus 
stops in your area have route ref nos on them than that can be an aid.  
Otherwise there's nothing to do but ride the buses if the bus company or local 
transport authority is unwilling to release the data under an open licence.  
Having mapped bus route relations in the past and tried to keep them up to date 
I've come to the conclusion that the routes are too volatile to be worth 
entering as OSM data (and we don't make it easy to add bus route relations 
either!) so they really belong as data rendered on another map using OSM data 
as a base map. But good luck if you want to try

Regards

Brian

On 19 July 2018 at 22:17, Gareth L mailto:o...@live.co.uk>> 
wrote:
Hiya,

I see there are some bus routes mapped as relations in Rugby. They appear to 
have been done about 10 years ago and certain services now do not exist, new 
ones have been introduced and others diverted.

What are your suggested options of maintaining and managing this data?
I’m hesitant to delete stuff, especially as I wont necessarily be able to 
replace it with the correct data!
Are the route plans available in a OSM friendly licensed way? Or is it a case 
of spending a day on t’buses recording the routes?

Cheers,
Gareth


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


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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Local names of bits of trunk roads

[Stuart Reynolds]

What do you mean by the “this” that is to be mapped? Do you mean “Great North 
Road” or High Road / London Road, etc. The latter are not historic - they are 
current (as you can verify on e.g. Postcode Finder looking for 11 High Road, 
Beeston, Sandy)

Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




On 25 Jun 2018, at 16:38, Adam Snape 
mailto:adam.c.sn...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi,

If this is to be mapped  shouldn't it be as a historic feature rather than a 
(current) road route?

By the way I tend to use loc_name for a colloquial name regardless of whether 
it is just used by local people.

Kind regards,

Adam



On 25 June 2018 at 15:59, Paul Berry 
mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Someone's had a brave go at defining that very relation: 
http://osm.org/relation/2776562

Feel free to extend it, bearing in mind the Great North Road != A1 (M or 
otherwise).

Regards,
Paul

On 25 June 2018 at 14:44, David Woolley 
mailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk>> wrote:
On 25/06/18 14:13, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
So how should I tag this? I want to have the correct name for the sections of 
A1, yet I don’t know how far these extend (my data lists the street names at 
points, not over lengths), and equally I don’t want to lose the Great North 
Road tag - just to demote it.


I would say that the name should be that which is locally sign posted, for 
which you will need an on the ground survey.

I think I would agree with the discussion that suggests "Great North Road" for 
the entirety, should be a [route] relation.



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


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


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Local names of bits of trunk roads

[Stuart Reynolds]

Thanks, but that seems the wrong way round. When I said that they were local 
names, what I meant is that local bits of the A1 have different official names. 
 So name=* . It isn’t a “local” usage in the same way that e.g. Squinty Bridge 
from the Wiki is. And “Great North Road” isn’t a local name, is it, since it 
applies from London to Scotland?

Stuart




On 25 Jun 2018, at 14:27, Dave F 
mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#loc_name

DaveF

On 25/06/2018 14:13, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
local road names


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

[Talk-GB] Local names of bits of trunk roads

[Stuart Reynolds]

So here’s a question.

As the A1 passes Sandy in Central Bedfordshire, and further south, the road has 
local road names. For example, it is London Road past Sandy, and High Road as 
it passes Beeston to the south of Sandy. These names are verifiable from other 
sources, and while I note that these are DEFRA’s OS-derived MAGIC map, and 
Google, I am only using these to confirm data that I have been given in other 
contexts. OSM here, though, has “Great North Road”. This is _not_ the name of 
the road. It is more of a colloquial name for the entire A1 than anything 
official … although it is still recognised as a name.

So how should I tag this? I want to have the correct name for the sections of 
A1, yet I don’t know how far these extend (my data lists the street names at 
points, not over lengths), and equally I don’t want to lose the Great North 
Road tag - just to demote it.

Thoughts?

Thanks
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Wildly inaccurate postcode

[Stuart Reynolds]

…and who does that? I didn’t ask for a search on NPEMap/FreeThePostcode, and it 
isn’t something that is stored as a physical node on the map that I can edit 
out. It is simply a service that sits behind the search box on 
openstreetmap.org<http://openstreetmap.org>, so far as I can tell.

Regards,
Stuart




On 25 Jan 2018, at 13:44, Mark Goodge 
<m...@good-stuff.co.uk<mailto:m...@good-stuff.co.uk>> wrote:



On 25/01/2018 11:48, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

Who do we need to speak to at FreeThePostcode to get it fixed? Does anyone have 
any contacts?

FreeThePostcode is obsolete, and has been ever since postcode data was released 
under the OGL by OS and ONS. It will, therefore, never be updated or fixed.

The correct solution is to remove any data derived from FreeThePostcode from 
OSM and Nominatim, and replace it with data from OS Codepoint and/or the ONSPD. 
Additionally, NPEMap should no longer be used as a search resource on OSM.

Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Langley Green, Birmingham assistance please

[Stuart Reynolds]

Another email, sorry. I could do with some help, please.

Edward Street in Langley Green 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=52.48875=-2.00963#map=19/52.48880/-2.00909)
 and the houses around it have all been beautifully mapped, about 5 years ago.

However, the footpaths, specifically the ones alongside Langley Green Road, 
Edward Road (as far as the car park) and New Henry Street are an issue for me, 
because they don’t actually connect to the road. Routing-wise, there is no way 
to get off them and onto the road network.

Sure, I could drop some random links down here and there, but to my mind it is 
actually incorrectly mapped because the footpaths alongside the roads that I 
listed above are actually just normal, everyday pavements on those roads. 
Nothing special about them, and no reason to separate them away from the roads. 
My inclination would be to rip them out up as far as the car park in Edward 
Street, and then connect that point of the street to the footpath that goes 
around the estate away from the road.

But I’m not there, so I am reluctant to do that. Can someone from the area 
please take a look and make the necessary changes, or agree (or otherwise!) 
with my proposal so that I can do it? Something needs to be done, though, 
because otherwise the path (and the postcode, with a centroid in the houses) 
isn’t accessible via a (walking) routing engine.

Many thanks.
Regards,
Stuart




Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

[Talk-GB] Wildly inaccurate postcode

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi.

If you search for B68 8RH on OSM 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=B68%208RH#map=18/52.48861/-2.00776),
 you get two options. The first is from NPEMap/FreeThePostcode where the result 
returned is “B68 8**”. This is located at Six Ways on the A34 in the centre of 
Birmingham. The other option is from Nominatim, and places the full postcode on 
Edward Street in Langley Green, rather a long way to the west.

Now I know that B68 8** is a merger of all the B68 8** postcodes, but I don’t 
believe that those are so widely spaced as to have a nominal centre in the 
centre of Birmingham with outliers as far away as Langley Green.

Who do we need to speak to at FreeThePostcode to get it fixed? Does anyone have 
any contacts?

Thanks
Stuart


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

Re: [Talk-GB] British National Grid coordinates in JOSM

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Bob (and anyone else who’s done this),

I’ve reset the projection, and can now see the coordinates in OSGR. Yay!
But does anyone know how I can jump to a set of coordinates? If I click the 
coordinate boxes, the menu that comes up still insists on Lat/Lon.

Thanks
Stuart



On 22 Oct 2017, at 10:26, Bob Hawkins 
> wrote:

I have got round to resetting the map projection in JOSM to EPSG:27700 (OSGB 
1936 / British National Grid), finally.  I am surprised to find northings 
before eastings in the bottom left-hand corner of JOSM, when we reference BNG 
positions eastings before northings.  I wonder if this has something to do with 
the way latitude is referenced before longitude, usually?  I doubt this can be 
changed in JOSM but wondered what others know?  It is rather confusing.

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]
  Virus-free. 
www.avast.com

___
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] British National Grid coordinates in JOSM

[Stuart Reynolds]

I imagine so. When working in PostGIS, coordinates are Lon/Lat so that it maps 
into an (x,y) format. Since JOSM  displays Lat/Lon this rather sounds like the 
reverse in order to preserve the presentation format.

Agree it's confusing though.

Although thanks for the tip - will now go and set mine likewise
Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPad

On 22 Oct 2017, at 10:26, Bob Hawkins 
> wrote:

I have got round to resetting the map projection in JOSM to EPSG:27700 (OSGB 
1936 / British National Grid), finally.  I am surprised to find northings 
before eastings in the bottom left-hand corner of JOSM, when we reference BNG 
positions eastings before northings.  I wonder if this has something to do with 
the way latitude is referenced before longitude, usually?  I doubt this can be 
changed in JOSM but wondered what others know?  It is rather confusing.

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]
  Virus-free. 
www.avast.com
___
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] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

[Stuart Reynolds]

The Post Office is quite happy to invent places and create addresses that don’t 
reflect the reality on the ground.

For example, Shoeburyness is actually South Shoebury (the CofE church is still 
called St Andrews South Shoebury) but the PO insisted (in the dim and distant 
past) of calling it Shoeburyness because the Garrison was out on the ness.

Equally, a little more up to date, New Mills has a post town of Stockport, in 
Cheshire (or possibly Greater Manchester these days, I’m not sure of the 
boundaries) despite New Mills being firmly in the administrative area of 
Derbyshire. Much to the irritation of the people I knew in New Mills at the 
time!

We run a risk of people external to the UK not understanding this when we put 
it into OSM.


Regards,
Stuart



On 19 Oct 2017, at 13:32, Lester Caine 
> wrote:

On 19/10/17 13:15, Adam Snape wrote:
But Ebbsfleet is not a Post Town. The address will include Swanscombe. I
should have said before that my experience (as an eBay seller) is lots
of  people are unaware of their correct postal address. Each postcode
section eg. DA1, DA2, DA3... will have a particular post town, so I
correct this which I know to be wrong for the postcode. Because several
of the editors don't include a box for suburb or hamlet it is aslo
common to see names of villages or suburbs in the tagged as addr:city.

From a postal point of view, the result of a lookup on the Royal Mail
website is the best way of checking a postcode and the return from DA10
1AZ is longer than some results and is what Steve listed originally. If
we can actually use that view of the data is a little grey, but one can
at least check where one is shipping something is correct. I'm sure
manually top level sorting post, the post person will be looking at the
postal town rather than the postcode, but on automated machines then
only the name and postcode are relevant.

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
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] Multiple coincident boundary nodes. Data quality issue ?

[Stuart Reynolds]

Indeed. I just wanted to ensure that there wasn’t a rush to “define” the GB 
multipolygon strictly according to MHW everywhere.

Cheers
Stuart



On 23 Aug 2017, at 10:56, Colin Smale 
<colin.sm...@xs4all.nl<mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:


Estuaries are a bit of a special case for the coastline. It is quite normal for 
there to be a straight line across the river mouth for some purposes, but this 
does not imply that waters above that line are not tidal of course.

I think what you are querying, is the link/relationship between:

a) the high-water line

b) the coastline

c) the maritime baselines

d) the "GB multipolygon"



There are of course many possible definitions of the boundary of GB. Coastline? 
(Local) government jurisdiction? Territorial waters? EEZ? AFAIK this polygon in 
OSM is based on the coastline, but I might be wrong...

--colin

On 2017-08-23 10:22, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

On 23 Aug 2017, at 09:00, Mike Parfitt 
<m_parf...@hotmail.com<mailto:m_parf...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

If the GB multipolygon should follow the high tide line, then the vast majority 
of the nodes will be situated inshore of those for the administrative/MPA 
boundaries - i.e. all are normally above the water, except for one moment in 
Spring.

The River Thames is tidal as far as Teddington Lock in London. It therefore has 
high and low water marks, and the high water mark is up against the river walls 
in London and, even in Southend where I reside at the other end of the river, 
the mean high tide level is only about 10-20 feet away from the sea wall. Are 
we honestly suggesting that it is correct that the river is not within the GB 
boundary? Or, indeed, Southend Pier. Because that would be the effect of the GB 
boundary religiously following the high water mark!

The usual policy (as per OS) is to draw a north south line across the Thames 
Estuary, which irritates me for other reasons because it is a) artificial and 
b) frequently rendered, but it is better than a blanket assumption that the 
boundary must follow the high water mark.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] An old chestnut - looking for clarity for road names beginning "St ..."

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi All,

I have read and re-read all of the guidance and local rules relating to the use 
of abbreviations where it would be wrong to expand “St” into “Saint”. It is 
quite clear that, for the UK, “Saint Ives” is wrong, whereas “St Ives” is 
correct. There is also one page where I have found “St Mary’s Church” is 
correct, but “Saint Mary’s Church” is wrong. All of this I agree with.

The question I want to clarify is the use of “Saint” in street names. I think 
that is similarly clear that e.g. “St Nicholas Road” (with the full expansion 
of “road”!) is correct, and “Saint Nicholas Road” isn’t. But since the small 
handful that I initially came across in Great Yarmouth were last edited by an 
experienced OSMer (Rob Whittaker), I thought that it was better to check with 
the community than just change it.

A not-so-quick Overpass query (using a map which contained the whole of the UK, 
and hence Ireland and a bit of Belgium) tells me that there are 10,324 ways 
which are named “Saint *” which potentially need changing if we agree that “St 
*” is correct.

By contrast there are 26,559 ways that are named “St *”, and a further 7,252 
that are named “St. *”.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Summer 2017 July-Sept

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Ed ’n’ all.

Couple of points.

1. Yes, you can download NaPTAN from data.gov<http://data.gov> under OGL. What 
you need to know for rail station entrances is that while the rail station data 
is all together with codes formed 9100 (e.g. 9100LHONSEA for 
Leigh-on-sea), the station entrances are all maintained locally and hence have 
local codes. For example, Leigh-on-sea has two entrances, 1580LHONSEA0 and 
1580LHONSEA1. My offer was to provide all of those (essentially static) data in 
one place as a set of e.g. geoJSON features.

2. Yes, you can download traveline data under OGL as well, the TNDS. The 
standard (TransXChange, or TXC) is complex rather than nasty - it potentially 
covers a lot of bases. I have perhaps mentioned in the past that I am the 
standards support advisor for the DfT, so I am happy to provide advice on TXC 
if anyone wishes to direct mail me with questions. I also have a powerpoint 
presentation as an introduction to the standard if people would like to know 
more. But there is one point I want to stress, which is that the traveline data 
as downloadable only list stops - you cannot get route tracks out of it. So you 
can plot stop to stop, but there is no indication of routing. For SE, EM and EA 
I have access to data outside of TNDS which has (reasonable but not 100% 
accurate) track data in it. My offer was also to provide this as geoJSON. For 
ease I was going to keep it simple - this bus does these routes - without any 
attempt to determine whether it was every 5 minutes or once every other week. 
But for relations, this ought to be sufficient. I do need someone to mount them 
somewhere, though, so that they can be used for comparison with OSM. Rather 
selfishly, I would also like to take corrections back into my data set.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 10 Jul 2017, at 17:20, Ed Loach 
<edlo...@gmail.com<mailto:edlo...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Ew. Bus route relations are a real time consuming pain to maintain. It is 
possible to get both the Naptan data and the Traveline data under OGL
https://data.gov.uk/dataset/traveline-national-dataset
https://data.gov.uk/dataset/naptan
(though one requires you to register for an ftp login to download it, and you 
need to remember to convert to WGS84 where appropriate).

The Traveline data conforms to a nasty standard which I can in some cases read 
using a program I’ve written to display all the route variants for a given 
service number. For other routes I’ve resorted to trying to parse the XML in a 
text editor. If I get chance I’ll see if I can get the code I wrote into github 
(possibly VB.Net<http://vb.net/>, possibly C# depending how long ago I wrote 
it). You stick the route files in a folder, browse to that folder to get a list 
on the left, click on one of the files to get a list of route variations top 
left, and see more information on a selected route variation below once 
selected. That shows stop references you can get from the naptan set if you 
can’t already find them in OSM.

I’d also recommend documenting the relations and when they were last revised. I 
subscribed to an email from Essex County Council which should report route 
changes, but I don’t think I’ve kept up to date with those. I occasionally also 
hunt similar news on the Suffolk website. Checking
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tendring(Essex)/Bus_Routes
I’ve not done the May changes I read about and haven’t even got the new X76 
service in the table. I’ve only included routes that pass through the Tendring 
district which is where I live. If you have more active mappers nearby you 
might want to combine the pages (e.g. if there were a Colchester  or Ipswich 
mapper doing bus routes I’ve already done some which cross the district 
boundary).

For national express routes I just include stops as I’m not sure how fixed the 
routes between them are – I’ve caught for example one from London back to 
Clacton and when it got nearer Clacton it only stopped at the stops where drop 
offs had been booked, and didn’t divert for example to Jaywick but took a 
shorter route to Great Clacton. (That example doesn’t happen to be in that wiki 
page for some reason – I need to check the 484 is still running.)

As it mentions on the Tendring routes wiki page I mentioned above I had hoped 
to automate the validation – write a program to point at the wiki page, the 
latest naptan and traveline datasets, and then download each route master 
relation and its route member relations in turn and check whether they are 
still correct. This is still probably months (years?) from even being started.

Ed

From: Brian Prangle [mailto:bpran...@gmail.com]
Sent: 10 July 2017 12:52
To: Talk GB <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Summer 2017 July-Sept

Hi everyone
This will be to improve bus route relations and station entrances, by popular 
vote on OSMUK

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project Summer 2017 July-Sept

[Stuart Reynolds]

Can we also have some guidance, please, on how to tag station entrances. The 
wiki (at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railway_stations) seems to suggest 
that we should use railway=subway_entrance, but this upsets me on so many 
levels (pun intended) because the vast majority of UK station entrances just 
have door entries at ground level, no hint of a subway. Of course, they often 
have internal subways between platforms, but that is something else entirely!

I have also come across several styles of station tagging, even in my local 
(single line) area. For example:


  *   Thorpe Bay station 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=51.53756=0.76162) has two labelled 
nodes, although I think that one of these is actually the southern building 
(area rather than node). Tagging the buildings this way leads to a plethora of 
naming labels everywhere. (There’s also a missing footbridge, but I will fi 
that)
  *   Southend Central 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=51.53756=0.76162#map=19/51.53743/0.71221)
 appears to have three nodes.
  *   Westcliff 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=51.53756=0.76162#map=19/51.53717/0.69194)
 only has a single node, but this appears to be on the building rather than 
where the wiki seems to suggest it should be, out over the tracks as a “nominal 
point"

Thanks


On a separate note, I said that I would provide what data I have. In the first 
instance I can provide railway and subway entrance data from NaPTAN (the 
entrances are all in the local data sets) - that’s quite straightforward. I 
will also supply bus track (relation) data from our data sets (EM, EA, SE), 
although I need to do a little work to make this useable.

What is the preferred format - geoJSON? And who is able to do something with 
it, presentationally, for e.g. side by side comparisons with OSM if I do 
provide it?

Many thanks

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 10 Jul 2017, at 13:48, Paul Berry 
<pmberry2...@gmail.com<mailto:pmberry2...@gmail.com>> wrote:

You have a volunteer in me.

Do you want to start a page under 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Project and I'll take it from 
there?

Regards,
Paul

On 10 July 2017 at 12:51, Brian Prangle 
<bpran...@gmail.com<mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi everyone

This will be to improve bus route relations and station entrances, by popular 
vote on OSMUK Loomio channel.

Bus route relations can be tricky for the uninitiated ( and even for the 
initiated ) so perhaps this quarterly project could do with its own wiki page, 
pointing to existing tutorials or developing some new ones. Any volunteers?

Regards

Brian


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


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Museums in Berwick-upon-Tweed

[Stuart Reynolds]

Use  DEFRA’s “Magic” map, which allows you to stick coordinates in in a wide 
variety of formats, and more importantly provides tools for seeing where a 
place is in a wide variety of different referencing systems.

You can find it here: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx

Specifically, entering “NU000525” (OS six figure refs, so lose a little 
precision) gives the museums at Fisher’s Fort in Berwick 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1792339349)

and for the adjacent NT999525 refers to 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/71319888

Regards,
Stuart
for traveline south east & anglia



On 28 May 2017, at 11:28, Andrew Hain 
> wrote:

What is the easiest way to locate national grid references on the map? We could 
then put notes on the map if there is no-one to check.

--
Andrew

From: Frederik Ramm >
Sent: 28 May 2017 10:24:19
To: OSM GB mailing list
Subject: [Talk-GB] Museums in Berwick-upon-Tweed

Hi,

   someone from Berwick-upon-Tweed has written to the OSMF board, mainly
to ask if it is ok to use our map in a local history book, but along the
side pointed out two issues with the map:

"The two Museum symbols at NU 00023 52563 and NT 99988 52538 are no
longer relevant as the museums closed several years ago and the area is
now private housing."

I'll leave it to you to figure out what these coordinates mean and which
museums may need to be checked ;)

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  
N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
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] [Talk-gb-london] New OSM London Meetup - Invite

[Stuart Reynolds]

Yes.

For info, stations are regarded as “national” and so have their own 910 prefix. 
So 9100LHONSEA is Leigh-on-sea (OK, it’s not in London but that’s the one I 
know). The alpha code on the end is a match to the rail industry TIPLOC codes, 
which throws up some oddities (such as London Victoria and London Bridge having 
two TIPLOCs each, and Clapham Junction having four).

Metro stations are also regarded as national, and so have 940 prefixes. In the 
cases I mentioned before, 9400ZZLUBNK is Bank, and 9400ZZLUTWH is Tower Hill. 
In both rail and metro cases, these codes represent the entire station.

Then, each rail station or metro station has one or more entrances. These, for 
historical reasons, are always defined locally and have local codes. So they 
have the local prefix (490 for London) instead of the national prefix, but use 
the same identifier for the station. There is then a numbered suffix to 
distinguish between different entrances, although Bank has so many that it 
needs alpha as well.

So:

  *   4900ZZLUBNK7 is Bank Station, Entrance 9, on the corner of Threadneedle 
Street (there isn’t necessarily any direct correlation between the suffix and 
the entrance number)
  *   4900ZZLUOXC7 is Oxford Circus, Entrance 7, on Argyll Street
  *   etc

The final oddity is that there is a hierarchy. So rail stations can contain 
metro stations, but not the other way around. But each different entity is 
expected to have its own entrances. So at Blackfriars, for example, the rail 
station has two entrances, north and south, and the nominal “entrance” to the 
underground is actually set on the gateline inside the station building.

So there are some things to be aware of, but positionally the entrances are all 
in the right places (more or less) and you can get a “big bang” from the NaPTAN 
data even if you later on wish to refine the entrances by survey.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 9 May 2017, at 07:14, Andrew Hain 
<andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk<mailto:andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk>> wrote:

Does it include stations belonging to Network Rail?

--
Andrew
________
From: Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>>
Sent: 08 May 2017 23:44:56
To: Derick Rethans
Cc: Bjoern Hassler; 
talk-gb-lon...@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb-lon...@openstreetmap.org>; 
osm-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-london] New OSM London Meetup - Invite

Hi All,

For reference, virtually all of the entrances are contained within the London 
NaPTAN data (https://data.gov.uk/dataset/naptan) which is the data that begins 
with the prefix 4900. The tube entrances all begin 4909ZZLU followed by a three 
letter code for the station plus a digit to distinguish between different 
entrances. For example, 4909ZZLUBNK0 would be an entrance to Bank, while 
4900ZZLUTWH0 would be Tower Hill.

While these do not give you accessibility information, they are all maintained 
by TfL and should give you accurate positional information.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPad

On 8 May 2017, at 21:02, Derick Rethans 
<o...@derickrethans.nl<mailto:o...@derickrethans.nl>> wrote:

Hi,

I think this is a good idea. We have something UK wide, but doing it a
local way makes a lot of sense (and easier to complete). Happy to do
this "fix the tube network" thing over a few weekends (After the General
Election that is).

cheers,
Derick

On Thu, 4 May 2017, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

Dear Grant, dear all,

thanks for putting on the meeting, and thanks for the sponsored pizza! Good
meeting last night, and god to have met you all.

Following up on the "Missing Maps London" idea, I thought we could may do
some "map challenges" that look at specific things that need work. It might
be a nice community building activity, and provide some continuity between
meetings?

As an experiment, I've formulated one such challenges here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London_public_transport_tagging_scheme/Map_Challenges
and added images / interactive maps / help for new mappers.

See what you think and let me know whether there's interest. Results could
be announced at the next meeting?

All the best,
Bjoern


On 30 April 2017 at 17:30, Grant Slater 
<openstreet...@firefishy.com<mailto:openstreet...@firefishy.com>> wrote:

Hi All,

We trying a new format OpenStreetMap evening meetup in London this
Wednesday 3rd May 2017... We'd love for you to come along:

https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Q-A-Meetup/events/239366249/

New to OpenStreetMap and want to learn more or need some help getting
started? Already mapping or using OSM and have any Questions or
Challenges or want to see what others are up to? This is the event for
you.

We already have 3 great speakers lined up for the evening:

* Andy Allan - OpenCycleMap / Thunderforest
* Astrid Thorseth - Missing Maps
* Derick Rethans -

Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-london] New OSM London Meetup - Invite

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi All,

For reference, virtually all of the entrances are contained within the London 
NaPTAN data (https://data.gov.uk/dataset/naptan) which is the data that begins 
with the prefix 4900. The tube entrances all begin 4909ZZLU followed by a three 
letter code for the station plus a digit to distinguish between different 
entrances. For example, 4909ZZLUBNK0 would be an entrance to Bank, while 
4900ZZLUTWH0 would be Tower Hill.

While these do not give you accessibility information, they are all maintained 
by TfL and should give you accurate positional information.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPad

On 8 May 2017, at 21:02, Derick Rethans 
> wrote:

Hi,

I think this is a good idea. We have something UK wide, but doing it a
local way makes a lot of sense (and easier to complete). Happy to do
this "fix the tube network" thing over a few weekends (After the General
Election that is).

cheers,
Derick

On Thu, 4 May 2017, Bjoern Hassler wrote:

Dear Grant, dear all,

thanks for putting on the meeting, and thanks for the sponsored pizza! Good
meeting last night, and god to have met you all.

Following up on the "Missing Maps London" idea, I thought we could may do
some "map challenges" that look at specific things that need work. It might
be a nice community building activity, and provide some continuity between
meetings?

As an experiment, I've formulated one such challenges here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London_public_transport_tagging_scheme/Map_Challenges
and added images / interactive maps / help for new mappers.

See what you think and let me know whether there's interest. Results could
be announced at the next meeting?

All the best,
Bjoern


On 30 April 2017 at 17:30, Grant Slater 
> wrote:

Hi All,

We trying a new format OpenStreetMap evening meetup in London this
Wednesday 3rd May 2017... We'd love for you to come along:

https://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Q-A-Meetup/events/239366249/

New to OpenStreetMap and want to learn more or need some help getting
started? Already mapping or using OSM and have any Questions or
Challenges or want to see what others are up to? This is the event for
you.

We already have 3 great speakers lined up for the evening:

* Andy Allan - OpenCycleMap / Thunderforest
* Astrid Thorseth - Missing Maps
* Derick Rethans - London Mapper

We have a great venue (bias, I work there), there will be pizza and
soft drinks provided.

I'd love to hear any suggestions on how we could improve the event or
what works elsewhere.

Kind regards,
Grant

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



--
https://derickrethans.nl | https://xdebug.org | https://dram.io
Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: https://xdebug.org/donate.php
twitter: @derickr and @xdebug

___
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] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hmm. Had forgotten that I had asked that.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 8 Mar 2017, at 11:34, Dan S 
<danstowell+...@gmail.com<mailto:danstowell+...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi

foot=no would definitely be inappropriate! It would mean not permitted.

This is basically the same as the "Mapping dangerous - but valid -
routes" question that you asked in December, and the responses to that
are relevant here.

Best
Dan


2017-03-08 11:27 GMT+00:00 Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>>:
What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways?
Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near
Barham in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge
(and indeed very little in the way of verge at some points). It is
technically legal to walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but
it is most certainly not advisable and you would be taking your life into
your hands if you did so.

BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the woods.
Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a break in
the crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not about to add
it in.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26237116#map=18/51.21188/1.16626

Regards,
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

[Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

[Stuart Reynolds]

What’s the thinking about tagging foot=no along busy dual carriageways? 
Specifically I would like to remove a walk from a stretch of the A2 near Barham 
in Kent where there are bus stops, but no footways along the verge (and indeed 
very little in the way of verge at some points). It is technically legal to 
walk along the A2 from the junction to the south, but it is most certainly not 
advisable and you would be taking your life into your hands if you did so.

BTW, access to the northbound bus stop is via a footpath through the woods. 
Technically the southbound one is accessed via a footpath across a break in the 
crash barriers - but we don’t have that on OSM, and I’m not about to add it in.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/26237116#map=18/51.21188/1.16626

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

[Talk-GB] Church Towers and Steeples

[Stuart Reynolds]

I didn’t like the “man-made” part of the tower tag, TBH, nor what I took to be 
the implication that it was a stand-alone element, which it generally isn’t.

The tower tag on its own does have a number of useful attributes, though, which 
could be extended.

So if we ignore the man-made tag, we could have

church:tower= yes | no
church:steeple= yes | no (which could assume the steeple on top of the tower, 
if both present)

followed by the tower:tag=value sets as appropriate.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 10 Feb 2017, at 10:53, Dan S 
<danstowell+...@gmail.com<mailto:danstowell+...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Stuart,

Ah, the Ordance Survey view of the world: you're either a tower or a steeple ;)

Towers and steeples are just one of many building parts, which can be
mapped the same way as other 3D aspects of buildings:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part
Heights are readily added using the generic height tags that are used
for so many things.

But then also, this page tells me that "tower:type=bell_tower" is
"Widely used for steeples and bell towers":
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dtower
Flagpole is easy
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dflagpole
The only thing I don't have a ready answer for is "number of steps",
and "bells" as distinct from their enclosures.

So I'm left suspecting that maybe you're aware of these things but
there's an itch they don't scratch...?

Best
Dan


2017-02-10 10:27 GMT+00:00 Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>>:
Hi All,

On OS maps there is a distinction between churches with towers, churches
with steeples, and “other” places of worship. These are all readily
surveyable (so that we are not taking data from OS). But as far as I can
determine, there is no tagging scheme that would allow towers or steeples to
be added, nor to have (for example) the height of tower, numbers of steps,
flagpoles, bells, etc added (which could be useful).

Am I right, or have I missed something? If right, do we need to agree a
tagging scheme that would allow us to enter that info?

Many thanks

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




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


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Church architecture tagging

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi All,

On OS maps there is a distinction between churches with towers, churches with 
steeples, and “other” places of worship. These are all readily surveyable (so 
that we are not taking data from OS). But as far as I can determine, there is 
no tagging scheme that would allow towers or steeples to be added, nor to have 
(for example) the height of tower, numbers of steps, flagpoles, bells, etc 
added (which could be useful).

Am I right, or have I missed something? If right, do we need to agree a tagging 
scheme that would allow us to enter that info?

Many thanks

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Propose automated edit to update NAPTAN data in the west mids

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Matthijs,

Wherever possible the names in NaPTAN should match what is on the flag or 
shelter. There are however some instances where this is not possible or 
desirable.

For instance, the stop might carry a historic name such as for a long closed 
pub which has been updated in data but not on the ground. Or perhaps the name 
is a compound name (often of the "Main Street / Side Road" variety) where this 
is better held as two separate fields in NaPTAN.

But in general any discrepancies should be queried with the data owner who is 
normally the County or Unitary council. In West Midlands it is the old Centro / 
new TfWM. I have contacts there, as obviously does Brian, but I ought to check 
that they are happy for me to post their email address on the list for all to 
use.

Regards
Stuart


On 5 Feb 2017, at 19:35, Matthijs Melissen 
<i...@matthijsmelissen.nl<mailto:i...@matthijsmelissen.nl>> wrote:

On 3 February 2017 at 19:29, Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Also, there is often some confusion about what name goes into which fields - 
people will insist on compounding names, for example, because that's what their 
consuming system wants, rather than getting the consumer to read the data 
properly. But that's too much to go into here, and if reviewing the names is in 
scope then I would be happy to offer to help. One of my other "hats" is as the 
Public Transport Data Standards Advisor / Expert for DfT, which includes 
advising on NAPTAN.

Hi Stuart,

Great to have your support. I noticed that there are a few stops in the West 
Midlands where the name in Naptan doesn't match the name on the flag 
(unfortunately I don't remember by heart which ones). This means the visual 
announcement in the announcement in the bus (and the information in online 
timetables) is different from the name on the flag, so from a usability 
perspective it would make sense to fix this. Is there any process of reporting 
situations like that?

-- Matthijs
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Propose automated edit to update NAPTAN data in the west mids

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Brian,

If you are updating the data in OSM from NaPTAN, then I agree that this is long 
overdue.

For the benefit of others, can I just mention some specific stop point types 
that are in NaPTAN that editors may be unfamiliar with (and which I think have 
caused some confusion in the past):


  *   CUS are Custom and Practice stops. Typically ends of farm roads, lay-bys, 
etc where there is no physical marked stop. Given a need to have stopping 
points on the right side of the road, these are also used for the “other side 
of the road” stop where there is a pole marked “buses stop both sides”
  *   HAR are virtual stops denoting a nominal point in a hail and ride 
section. Hail and Ride is a bit cumbersome, but there is a virtual stop and it 
is linked to a start coordinate for the hail and ride section and an end 
coordinate. These aren’t supposed to be long. Typically there will need to be 
one in each direction (as the start and end points are reversed).

Also, there is often some confusion about what name goes into which fields - 
people will insist on compounding names, for example, because that’s what their 
consuming system wants, rather than getting the consumer to read the data 
properly. But that’s too much to go into here, and if reviewing the names is in 
scope then I would be happy to offer to help. One of my other “hats" is as the 
Public Transport Data Standards Advisor / Expert for DfT, which includes 
advising on NAPTAN.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 3 Feb 2017, at 17:52, Brian Prangle 
<bpran...@gmail.com<mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi everyone

We have an opportunity to work with the regional transport authority TfWM to 
update this data which is 8 years old and partially edited by OSM users. They 
have assigned 2 developers to work on this and I'm spending a half day each 
week working with them.

We've agreed and discussed this in our mappa mercia group and also contacted a 
prolific local public transport OSM editor who's not part of  our group.

In line with the automated edits policy there's a 
wikipage<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edit_West_Midlands_NAPTAN_data>
 with full details

Comments welcome as this exercise might be useful elswhere as the state of 
NAPTAN data will be in a similar state

regards

Brian
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Quarterly Projects: further suggestions

[Stuart Reynolds]

I like the rail and bus station mapping. Even where information on National 
Rail Stations Made Easy exists, it is often out of date and is also not a 'data 
set' in the way we understand data.

Take a look at Victoria Underground station in OSM to see what can be achieved 
with levels and all the different transfer 'means' eg lifts, ramps, escalators 
etc

Regards
Stuart
For traveline south east and anglia

On 19 Dec 2016, at 12:58, SK53 > 
wrote:

Dear All,

A few additional suggestions, largely concerned with accessibility issues:

  *   Step Counts. Partly inspired by Richard 
Fairhurst, but also by 
my own needs. For many of us (parents, people with COPD (e.g., me, but I know 
other OSM contributors too) , older people, etc., etc.) steps are OK in small 
quantities, but beyond a certain number .which will vary with the person (and 
what they are carrying). it may well be desirable to avoid them.

Current numbers of steps by region are as follows:

East Midlands:  593 with steps 3429 without
West Midlands: 51 with steps 1400 without
Wales: 145 with steps 1672 without
Scotland: 662 with steps 5373 without
Northern Ireland: 9 with steps 263 without
East of England: 1132 with steps 2741 without
South-East England: 553 with steps 5072 without
South-West England: 319 with steps 4730 without
North-West England: 107 with steps 3191 without
North-East England: 211 with steps 1287 without
Yorkshire and the Humber: 262 with steps 2680 without
Greater London: 252 with 4286 without

I'm pretty sure we are missing masses of steps: we have mapped over 1000 in 
Nottingham City alone. However, finding them is another matter. So adding info 
to those already done is easier. Like many objects just a visit may elicit 
other things to map. This brings me to the next suggestion.

  *   Railway & Bus stations. There are now excellent precedents for mapping 
public transport interchanges in a lot of detail (e.g., work done by the 
OpenRailwayMap team in Germany & the 
Transilien.
 In general the focus should be in adding information which helps with access. 
Adding this type of detail may provide opportunities to engage with facility 
owners & promoting open data strategies for improving information about access 
for people with restricted mobility. Additionally these provide a special 
domain for mappers to learn about Simple 3D buildings & indoor tagging.

  *   Disabled Parking Spaces. I find the current method 
(amenity=parking_space,
 disabled=yes) not entirely satisfactory, but this is what currently exists. 
Also capacity tags can be used, but don't show where disabled spaces are 
located in larger facilities. There may be some open data on this for some 
cities (e.g., 
Nottingham. Most 
spaces will be in town/city centres and public & customer car parks.

Of course these could be lumped together as a general "access for restricted 
mobility" quarterly project, but I think the area is so large that it's better 
to focus on smaller targets.

Regards,

Jerry

___
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] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Dave

Don’t disagree - just wanted to see what the community thought.

Are you Traveline?

Yes, sorry - just took out my normal footer for some reason.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 5 Dec 2016, at 16:31, Dave F 
<davefoxfa...@btinternet.com<mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:

It needs to remain. As it's clearly signed as a shared use path it's has 
authoritative standing.

'Dangerous' is purely subjective. Many people do 'dangerous' things such as 
drive too fast, take drugs or jump out of aeroplanes. OSM is not the place to 
quantify. Adding a 'falling rocks' sign to OSM is fine. Telling someone they 
can't go there because of those rocks is wrong. Your user has decided, based on 
experience, that he doesn't want to use it, which is fine, but he shouldn't 
dictate that others can't.

What would benefit OSM is if the path was detailed more accurately.

Are you Traveline?

Cheers
Dave F.

On 05/12/2016 16:12, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
Greetings

At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence also 
available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the roundabout 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory glance at satellite 
mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. But it will also highlight 
that where you cross the southbound A1 to the south of the roundabout (and 
likewise the northbound A1 to the north) it is highly dangerous. You have to 
cross three lanes of traffic, and there is always a flow of some sort, either 
from the A1 or from the side roads.

What is the right course of action here - leave it in, because it reflects what 
is on the ground, or take it out on safety grounds. This isn’t an idle question 
- a user of my website has stated that it is dangerous to use, and has asked me 
to remove it. My conclusion was to leave it in, but as it cuts to what it is 
that is being produced here - an accurate cartographic representation of the 
world, regardless, or something a little different - I thought I would ask for 
views.

Regards,
Stuart






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





[Avast logo] 
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

[Stuart Reynolds]

Greetings

At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence also 
available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the roundabout 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory glance at satellite 
mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. But it will also highlight 
that where you cross the southbound A1 to the south of the roundabout (and 
likewise the northbound A1 to the north) it is highly dangerous. You have to 
cross three lanes of traffic, and there is always a flow of some sort, either 
from the A1 or from the side roads.

What is the right course of action here - leave it in, because it reflects what 
is on the ground, or take it out on safety grounds. This isn’t an idle question 
- a user of my website has stated that it is dangerous to use, and has asked me 
to remove it. My conclusion was to leave it in, but as it cuts to what it is 
that is being produced here - an accurate cartographic representation of the 
world, regardless, or something a little different - I thought I would ask for 
views.

Regards,
Stuart



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

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

>> AFAIK all access:psv=yes have been added by one person

Not entirely. At least one was added at Castleton Bus Station by a certain user 
SK53 ;) (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40426231).

But to the more substantive question, no - I had picked two at random, found 
them both to be edited by different people, and decided at that point to await 
any decision from this discussion before approaching individual users as I 
didn’t know how many there were. But if, as you say, kevjs1982 is responsible 
for the majority then I will approach him.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 14 Oct 2016, at 15:11, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com<mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

AFAIK all access:psv=yes have been added by one person. Has anyone actually 
talked to kevjs1982? He may be perfectly happy for the tags to be changed. By 
discussing things with him you may also a) learn why he used the tag; b) 
persuade him to use psv=yes.

The dual use of foot=yes & access;foot=yes probably has its origins in 
disagreements about tagging PRoW in Hampshire a while back: 
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/41053/prow-tagging-england-wales.

Jerry


On 14 October 2016 at 14:23, Rob Nickerson 
<rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com<mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

This is the downside of the free tagging system!

It makes no sense having both tags - indeed this should be thrown as an error 
in the editors (what happens if the value differs between these tags?!).

But as you found out, as soon as you propose a (relatively simple) edit then 
one individual can block it.

A compromise is to adjust the code to accept both and have validation on cases 
where both tags are present.

I understand this to be "easy" for data consumers but in reality it is not 
"easy" because it's taken you years to discover this edge case (consumers 
shouldn't have to spend hours digging around the intricacies of such basic 
data).

Rob

On 14 Oct 2016 2:01 p.m., "Stuart Reynolds" 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
This has opened something of a can of worms.

I decided, on reviewing the wiki, to go back to the contractor and ask for 
equivalency between access:psv=* and psv=*. And I then decided to check other 
tagging equivalencies, such as foot=* and access:foot=*. There a larger number 
of access:foot tags in the data.

But I noticed that a number of those I clicked on had both tags - foot=* and 
also access:foot=*

Is that sensible, to use two different (and apparently equivalent) tagging 
schemes? If it is, then I could just add psv=* tags to all of the ways marked 
access:psv, but I didn’t suggest that because it seemed wrong to me

What’s the view?

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 14 Oct 2016, at 07:40, Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:

Hi Rob,

I didn't manage to find that part of the Wiki! So thanks for bringing it to my 
attention. I will take a look later.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Oct 2016, at 23:34, Rob Nickerson 
<rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com<mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Stuart,

Putting "access:" in front of psv is a documented approach as set out in the 
Conditional Restrictions wiki page [1]. This is designed to create a hierarchy 
from simple restrictions (e.g. access:psv=yes, often shortened to psv=yes) to 
the more complex. Proceeding with "access:" follows the schematic of starting 
with the restriction-type which is required for all other restrictions.

However, due to legacy reasons, and as noted:

> In access tags that are limited to a specific transportation mode the 
> restriction-type access: is usually omitted.

The above is for info only. I make no comment and a will take no action based 
on what you end up doing.

It is clear however, that these tags are equivalent as set out on the wiki.

Best regards,
Rob
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

This has opened something of a can of worms.

I decided, on reviewing the wiki, to go back to the contractor and ask for 
equivalency between access:psv=* and psv=*. And I then decided to check other 
tagging equivalencies, such as foot=* and access:foot=*. There a larger number 
of access:foot tags in the data.

But I noticed that a number of those I clicked on had both tags - foot=* and 
also access:foot=*

Is that sensible, to use two different (and apparently equivalent) tagging 
schemes? If it is, then I could just add psv=* tags to all of the ways marked 
access:psv, but I didn’t suggest that because it seemed wrong to me

What’s the view?

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 14 Oct 2016, at 07:40, Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:

Hi Rob,

I didn't manage to find that part of the Wiki! So thanks for bringing it to my 
attention. I will take a look later.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Oct 2016, at 23:34, Rob Nickerson 
<rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com<mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Stuart,

Putting "access:" in front of psv is a documented approach as set out in the 
Conditional Restrictions wiki page [1]. This is designed to create a hierarchy 
from simple restrictions (e.g. access:psv=yes, often shortened to psv=yes) to 
the more complex. Proceeding with "access:" follows the schematic of starting 
with the restriction-type which is required for all other restrictions.

However, due to legacy reasons, and as noted:

> In access tags that are limited to a specific transportation mode the 
> restriction-type access: is usually omitted.

The above is for info only. I make no comment and a will take no action based 
on what you end up doing.

It is clear however, that these tags are equivalent as set out on the wiki.

Best regards,
Rob
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Rob,

I didn't manage to find that part of the Wiki! So thanks for bringing it to my 
attention. I will take a look later.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Oct 2016, at 23:34, Rob Nickerson 
> wrote:

Stuart,

Putting "access:" in front of psv is a documented approach as set out in the 
Conditional Restrictions wiki page [1]. This is designed to create a hierarchy 
from simple restrictions (e.g. access:psv=yes, often shortened to psv=yes) to 
the more complex. Proceeding with "access:" follows the schematic of starting 
with the restriction-type which is required for all other restrictions.

However, due to legacy reasons, and as noted:

> In access tags that are limited to a specific transportation mode the 
> restriction-type access: is usually omitted.

The above is for info only. I make no comment and a will take no action based 
on what you end up doing.

It is clear however, that these tags are equivalent as set out on the wiki.

Best regards,
Rob
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] access:psv

[Stuart Reynolds]

Dave, yes - sorry. Mistyped what I had been sent. It is only 127, two of which 
are one single instance of access:psv:bus, which surely ought to be just bus=*, 
and one single instance of access:psv:maxweight

Chris - I will quite happily build in different tagging schemes if I feel that 
the tagging is correct and likely to be repeated elsewhere. But I don’t believe 
that this is. It is unexpected, and it is undocumented. I haven’t looked to see 
if it is one user, or 127 different users. But either way it is at most 127 out 
of the 40,000 contributors that we apparently had last month according to a 
different thread today. And the whole purpose of me asking was, anyway, to find 
out if people had a real need to tag in this unusual way before I changed it, 
rather than to be told that if you found me doing it, you’d insist [my italics] 
on it being reverted.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 13 Oct 2016, at 18:07, Dave F 
<davefoxfa...@btinternet.com<mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote:

Stuart
I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham)
Compared with 77857 for psv=*

Chris
If they're to signify different entries, what are those differences.
If they're for the same entity what is the advantage of access:psv. If there is 
none, they should be change as clearly more users are expecting psv=*

If the changes are to a more popular or useful tag, then there's no harm. With 
fewer tags, it makes it easier for a consumer to validate the data.

DaveF.


On 13/10/2016 17:38, Chris Hill wrote:
Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data consumer 
changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you edit tags and by 
doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a disaster - mappers are our most 
precious resource.

Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not hard to do, 
you write the code once and use it whenever you need to in the future.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk><mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk> 
wrote:
Greetings all!

In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked with access:psv 
tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally expect to see simply psv=* on 
these roads - and more importantly (to me) so would my contractor who is 
importing the data. I’ve checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to agree 
with the contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.

There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I propose to change 
those (manually) in the areas that I am concerned about in the UK. This is just 
to let you know, in case anyone has any violent objections or wonders what I am 
up to.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia






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




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] OSM and William Booth's Poor Map

[Stuart Reynolds]

Those of you who have an interest in genealogy as well as in mapping may be 
interested to know that LSE has a mobile-friendly version of William Booth’s 
Poor Map of London. The “desktop” website has a poor interface with modern 
streets being linked to a Bartholomew map. The mobile site, though, defaults to 
using OSM as the background mapping layer, which sits behind the Booth Map. No 
idea where they are serving the tiles from, but it looks nice!

http://phone.booth.lse.ac.uk if you want to check it out.


Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging redevelopment and closed roads

[Stuart Reynolds]

OK, thanks for your help on this. I’ve ended up with a combination that seemed 
most sensible:

 - the two car parks I have tagged with removed:amenity and removed:parking, 
because they are gone.
 - Norman Street (and the gyratory roads around the car parks) I have tagged 
with access=no, but not added any removed tags yet. The roads are only just 
shut, and I imagine that they won’t be “removed” for a while yet. I will add 
removed tags later. These roads are going, and never coming back.
 - Oxford Street I have added “motor_vehicle=no” because this is still open to 
pedestrians, and will be retained when the development has finished.

Thanks.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 20 Sep 2016, at 15:06, m...@chrisfleming.org<mailto:m...@chrisfleming.org> 
wrote:

On 20/09/16 at 11:28am, Donald wrote:
  If a building or road is removed, and nothing has replaced it, then i
  think it is good to have some sort of lifestyle prefix like
  demolished:building or removed:road, especially as they are usually still
  visible from aerial images.

  I have also used highway=no not:name= for the ITO analysis.

  Once the new development goes in these can and should probably be deleted.

Worth adding the main advantage of this, is if an armchair mapper comes
along tracing, then it *should* be obvious to them that those items no
longer exist and have been deliberatly removed.

Cheers
Chris


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Tagging redevelopment and closed roads

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi All,

There are some major redevelopment works just starting in central Lincoln. The 
old bus station has closed, and a number of streets and car parks between it 
and the rail station are now shut for the construction of the new transport 
hub. In the meantime, there is a temporary bus station to the south of the 
station.

To reflect all of this, I need to tag the affected roads, car parks, and 
existing bus stops. I’m sure that the wrong thing to do would be to simply 
delete everything that is soon to depart - although if anything is most likely 
to want deleting it is the old bus stops - but what is the right way? Tagging 
the roads as access=no is simple enough, with a note, because I’m not sure 
(yet) of the end status. But is there a preferred way, and what about the car 
parks and the old bus station? How should that be dealt with.

Many thanks

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Nottingham QMC Tram Station

[Stuart Reynolds]

Great, thanks.
Stuart

On 5 Sep 2016, at 20:31, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com<mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

I'll have a quick look in the morning & adjust the mapping accordingly (it's 
under 10 minutes walk away).

Cheers,

Jerry

On 5 September 2016 at 17:24, Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Hi to all the friendly Nottingham mappers out there! :)

Could someone please take a look at Nottingham QMC tram stop for me please. 
There are a small handful of things that I want to query:


  *   There is an entrance at the SW end of the platforms which is by stairs - 
there is a nice [square] spiral in OSM, but the levels look strange as they are 
all level 1, despite there being three turns around the spiral. Should these be 
half levels? As otherwise they look like they are all coincident.
  *   There is a footway connected to the lift at level 1 that links to the 
platform, but this footway also extends NW at level 1 and doesn't appear to 
connect to anything
  *   There is nothing connecting the lift at ground level (level 0) meaning 
that I cannot route into it.
  *   And I had always assumed that a lift was a "lift" node - this one has 
been drawn as a building with tags building=lift and highway=elevator, and two 
entrance nodes. This seems strange to me. Yes, it is in accordance with the 
wiki, but the elevator goes up and down, not round in a square, so it feels 
counter-intuitive to have a highway as an elevator (instead of as a node).

Many thanks

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Nottingham QMC Tram Station

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi to all the friendly Nottingham mappers out there! :)

Could someone please take a look at Nottingham QMC tram stop for me please. 
There are a small handful of things that I want to query:


  *   There is an entrance at the SW end of the platforms which is by stairs - 
there is a nice [square] spiral in OSM, but the levels look strange as they are 
all level 1, despite there being three turns around the spiral. Should these be 
half levels? As otherwise they look like they are all coincident.
  *   There is a footway connected to the lift at level 1 that links to the 
platform, but this footway also extends NW at level 1 and doesn’t appear to 
connect to anything
  *   There is nothing connecting the lift at ground level (level 0) meaning 
that I cannot route into it.
  *   And I had always assumed that a lift was a “lift” node - this one has 
been drawn as a building with tags building=lift and highway=elevator, and two 
entrance nodes. This seems strange to me. Yes, it is in accordance with the 
wiki, but the elevator goes up and down, not round in a square, so it feels 
counter-intuitive to have a highway as an elevator (instead of as a node).

Many thanks

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

[Talk-GB] Any mappers fancy visiting Luton Airport?

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi,

Lots of changes going on at Luton Airport at the moment, and satellite imagery 
just isn’t keeping up. The new bus station is open, the new car park is largely 
complete (together with the walkway to the terminal). Lots of news and pics at 
http://transforminglla.com. The only thing I don’t have access to is mapping, 
so OSM is out of date! Does anyone heading out that way feel like surveying? 
Many thanks.

Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

[Talk-GB] Leicester Haymarket new road layout

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi All,

Are there any East Midlands mappers in the Leicester area who could update the 
road & buildings in the vicinity of the new Haymarket Bus Station?

Google appears to show the new layout 
(https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6383422,-1.1307455,319m/data=!3m1!1e3) and 
certainly has the building work ongoing on the satellite view, but OSM still 
shows the old layout 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10021976#map=18/52.63828/-1.13063).

If not, then I have asked contacts for maps/layout diagrams to do an armchair 
job, but would obviously be better with a ground survey.

Many thanks
Regards,
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] OSGR & OSM

[Stuart Reynolds]

Is there a site or tool somewhere where I can click on a point on an OSM tile 
and get back the OSGR? I want the quality of OSM, but need OSGR unfortunately.

Thanks
Stuart



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Open data (Was: Parliamentary debate mentions OSM)

[Stuart Reynolds]

There are two huge advantages to OSM, even just looking at the UK.

The first is timeliness. OSM is almost always faster with new features than OS 
(although accepting you also need a friendly local mapper). Just as a case in 
point, we were looking at Wickhurst Green, near Horsham, only this morning. OSM 
has the estate, and has the A264 correctly moved to the new relief road. OS 
(looking at the online OS Maps tool) still has it on the Broadbridge Heath 
Bypass. Google also has the incorrect road designations, by the way.

And the second huge advantage follows directly on from the first - if it is 
wrong, I can edit it myself, and use it straight away.

You will never get that from OS.

Regards,
Stuart



On 29 Mar 2016, at 11:05, Rob Nickerson 
> wrote:


Yeah I think that is a good benefit and will be an element end users consider. 
Mixing data by country is however easy to do from an OSM licence point of view. 
For example telenav use (or at least did use) OSM in the USA but something else 
in other countries quite easily for many months.

Thus, although this helps, it doesn't "solve" everything.

Rob

On 29 Mar 2016 10:58 p.m., "Marc Gemis" 
> wrote:
Isn't one of the main benefits to have the data for the whole world in
1 format ? Compare that to having to download open data files from
government sites from all over the world from sites in different
languages in different formats and having to combine those ...

m

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Rob Nickerson
> wrote:
> Oh come on I'm not here to bash the history of OSM. I think what we have
> done is incredible and I genuinely believe that the presence of OSM has
> pushed both the government (the OS) and Google to where we are now - strong
> competition and more open data.
>
> We have open data now - great. The question is how do we continue to push
> the boundaries of the geospatial industry in the UK? Steve has in the past
> said to focus on addresses. Perhaps if we did that then at some tipping
> point the government will release all addresses as open data - a big success
> and we move on to the next trigger...? But for how long can we continue to
> be a strong trigger unless we can keep up with the status quo? Is it OK to
> leave it to the data users to merge the open data with OSM or is that burden
> too large for them to bother (at which point the pressure of OSM in the UK
> reduces)?
>
> The reason I ask is because I don't have the answers. Hoping some of the
> data users on the list may be able to suggest a point where the burden would
> become too large.
>
> Please, don't get defensive as that gets us nowhere. Hopefully this is
> something we can pick up in the coming year :-)
>
> Best,
> Rob
>
>> On 29 Mar 2016 10:29 p.m., "Paul Sladen" 
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>>> > P.P.S. By which I'm asking: do you think that (unless we get loads of
>>> > new
>>> > mappers) more availability of open data possess a threat to OSM in the
>>> > UK
>>>
>>> A decade ago a person called Steve needed a map and couldn't get one…
>>>
>>> We are here to assemble and curate data for now and the future, not to
>>> chastise others following that lead and doing the same.
>>>
>>> -Paul
>>>
>>> ie. There is no 'threat' from having legitimately-usable open data: it
>>> is the very premise upon OpenStreetMap was founded.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>>>
>>> iD8DBQFW+kqWc444tukM+iQRAv6JAJ9tkje/oy3kI2dZS33Gc4vaWBTcpgCgxitl
>>> KdZlblnt33m57hNtNcfe4OQ=
>>> =hke9
>>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Talk-GB] Incorrect spelling of "cemetery"

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi all,

A user of our site alerted me to an incorrect spelling of “cemetery” in one 
location. I corrected it, and then readily found and corrected three more. 
However, after a very brief further search (using “cemetery uk”) I’ve easily 
found another 10. I could correct these manually, but I suspect that it is the 
tip of an iceberg.

Can I propose that someone who is more knowledgeable than me does a mechanical 
edit within the UK to correct “Cemetary” to “Cemetery”?

Regards, 
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Quarterly Projects

[Stuart Reynolds]

It might also be worth doing some kind of survey to see what motivated 
participants in teh Schools project, what they liked, what they didn't like, 
how we could improve, how they heard of the project (if indeed some of the 
single editors were even aware they were being counted as part of a project)

My interest lies primarily with points of interest data. As many of you may 
recall, I work for one of the traveline regions for public transport journey 
planning. We are most interested, therefore, in the places that people actually 
want to travel to. Hospitals and other medical facilities are obviously one of 
those, as are schools. Churches also seem to be a key destination, and I have 
had contact from organisations that are trying to create directories of Mosques 
and other places of worship.

At present we buy in our point of interest data. However, we would like to use 
OSM because it is free, and because we don’t have to worry about POI locations 
moving or being missing - we can just create them in the map ourselves, and 
have it in our next data release. On that basis, I participated in the schools 
project because I was slightly horrified at the number of schools that were 
missing in a relatively small area like Southend. I didn’t participate in the 
previous project (which, if I recall, was postboxes) because I frankly don’t 
care about such “micro" objects when large objects like schools are missing, 
and for a future project I would be interested in mapping larger objects that 
we can reasonably accurately fix in space and track. So hospitals / medical 
facilities are one, places of worship another, and probably also parks / woods 
/ nature reserves. These latter fall into the category of large areas which are 
not suited to points, but where there are defined access points and possibly 
central “information” points that could be considered “main entrances” or the 
focal point of the area.

Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 13 Mar 2016, at 17:31, Brian Prangle 
<bpran...@gmail.com<mailto:bpran...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi everyone

Following the extraordinary success of the Schools project we need  to decide 
how to proceed with the next quarter's project.

There is a view we shoud rollover the project for another quarter so as to 
approach completion.

I favour rolling it into an ongoing UK national project (similar to the Irish 
Townlands project), keeping the existing tools in place to monitor progress. As 
a byproduct do a major revamp of the UK projects wiki page to bring it up to 
date.

As for the subject for next quarter's project if we move the Schools project to 
a national project and don't roll it over, a number of ideas have been put 
forward:

1. Water: add sewage works, rivers,streams and ponds from OSSV, improve lake 
outlines, improve alignments, separate natural and reservoir tags,improve 
coastlines, add bridges or tunnels where waterways cross highways and railways 
etc.
2. Healthcare: add hospitals, doctors, dentists, pharmacies. Or possibly just 
add doctors which is a smaller target. I think national single Open Data 
sources exist for all of these. It will need more surveying than Schools (not 
visible on OSSV or aerial imagery)
3. Highway Maxheights, maxwidths, maxweights: various data sources exist but I 
don't  think there's one national resource. Improving this data will make our 
data more usable for routing. There is the possibility to involve couriers, 
haulage companies etc either organisationally, or individual drivers
4.There's also a suggestion to group-mentor a GSoC (Google Summer of Code) 
project, which I believe doesn't fit well as a quarterly project, as it won't 
involve a wide swathe of the community. We could explore it as an additional 
project
5. And a light-hearted suggestion - map some monkey puzzle trees as part of 
this project<https://monkeypuzzletrees.wordpress.com/>

It might also be worth doing some kind of survey to see what motivated 
participants in teh Schools project, what they liked, what they didn't like, 
how we could improve, how they heard of the project (if indeed some of the 
single editors were even aware they were being counted as part of a project)

As ever: opinions and other suggestions welcome

Regards

Brian

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Stuart Reynolds]

The one pub that I plotted, I added when I was doing a couple of nearby schools 
and noticed that it was missing. I used exactly the same principle as for the 
schools - an outer “amenity=pub”  polygon and an inner “building=pub” for the 
actual building.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389684953

Personally, I think that this is fine. The fact that the pub icon sits in the 
garden is hardly the end of the world, and the garden _is_ part of the pub 
after all. And I bet if you turned up at the location you’d be able to spot 
where the pub was :)

My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that there is way too much inconsistency in 
the way that things get mapped in OSM which makes it difficult to understand 
the data. Country pubs, in particular, will often have car parks & gardens as 
well as the physical building, and using an enclosing polygon is surely the 
right way to make sure that they are all kept together - and using a style of 
data that then compares directly to other amenities like schools, hospitals, 
parks …

Cheers
Stuart


On 14 Mar 2016, at 10:26, Jez Nicholson 
> wrote:

I normally plot and tag a pub building as an area. I've noticed a few points 
appearing for existing pubs. They may be coming from the new OSM online editing 
programs.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 at 22:48, Neil Matthews 
> wrote:
It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and tag that. I'd 
expect to put the name and address on the building too!

If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll adversely 
affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes the map look more complete.

However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a public house 
(emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map, especially at the end of a long 
day mapping, then that doesn't rely help. And since I use mapnik renderings and 
OSMAnd+ it's important that they work well -- especially as that way I find 
other non-obvious issues.

Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open to the public 
-- it's probably more important to map the entrances on the perimeter -- as 
more and more schools are fencing kids in and public out.

But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get served? And pub for 
the whole area.

Cheers,
Neil


On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:
Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I noticed a comment 
about reverting a duplicate pub node, and glanced at the 
changeset.

The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed). However what 
caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag had been applied to the entire 
area of the pub grounds (car park, buildings etc.). A quick query on IRC and 
Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way, however rarely with as much detail 
as this particular one. The general alternative is to map pubs as areas on the 
building of the pub.

The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub property are 
largely to do with the immediate association of car parks, beer gardens, 
children's playgrounds with the pub and thus ready interpretation of things 
like access tags and resolution as to which car park belongs to the pub. This 
approach is clearly less cumbersome than using a relation, such as 
associatedCarpark (invented I believe by Gregory Williams in Kent).

The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:

  *   Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this way, 
although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM would find this 
the straightforwardly obvious approach.
  *   Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate to the 
building.
  *   Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may apply 
also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one would be opening_hours).
  *   Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if we 
fully accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how we can tell 
renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on IRC a label node, but 
this implies a relation: do we want to replace a simple node &/or area tag with 
a node, an area & a relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team to deal with it? 
It seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just for inexperienced 
mappers but also those of us who have been at it for a while. In the meantime 
the CartoCSS rendering will look rather daft in such cases.
  *   Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as nodes over the 
pub building, and attributes on a node easily transfer to a building outline + 
(usually) building=pub. In particular the node & area centroid will tend to be 
very close. Thus the two different ways of mapping relate to each other in a 
clear way.

This issue of course is more general than pubs. For instance we map schools, 

Re: [Talk-GB] amenity=schools vs amenity=kindergarten

[Stuart Reynolds]

I would stick with school. In Southend we have a number of primary schools with 
nursery units, called "XYZ Primary School & Nursery". Those would clearly be 
schools, and it makes no sense to have an artificial separation for others.

Regards 
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

> On 17 Feb 2016, at 21:11, Lester Caine  wrote:
> 
>> On 17/02/16 19:12, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>> Before anyone goes bulk changing these OSM objects to
>> amenity=kindergarten (which then won't be picked up by my tool when I
>> next update the OSM data -- as it currently only fetches
>> amenity=school and amenity=college objects) I thought it best to check
>> here whether my assumption about how these "LA Nursery Schools" should
>> be tagged is correct. If the consensus is otherwise, I'd be happy to
>> add the "LA Nursery School" category back into what I fetch from
>> Edubase.
> 
> Well coverage of 'Nursery' by edubase seems a little fragmented. Across
> Worcestershire and Herfordshire there is only one entry and I remember
> switching it to school by just as happy now it has all the tags to
> switching back, but I know of many other nurseries many of which are on
> OSM, but not 'yet?' covered by edubase. Since there are some 400 nursery
> entries it should be possible to tidy them up as a 'kindergarden'
> entries anyway?
> 
> -- 
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
> 
> ___
> 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] Size of download into JOSM

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi,

Does anyone know if the limits on download size have changed recently? I’ve 
been working on the schools project by downloading “Southend on Sea” via a 
place search and then choosing “boundary” from the list of 2 - that gives me 
the whole Borough in one go. But today (having upgraded to r9329) it is telling 
me that it is a bad request and that the area is too large. It’s a pain if I 
want to work on multiple schools to have to download bits of the town.

Thanks.

Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

m: +44 7788 106165
skype: stuartjreynolds



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Size of download into JOSM

[Stuart Reynolds]

Thanks. I discovered that I *can* actually get the whole Borough, if I dispense 
with about a mile and a half of sea to the south. As there aren’t many schools 
down the pier, I thought I could probably live with that :)

Will take your advice and save locally / update.

Cheers
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 12 Feb 2016, at 10:35, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com<mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

It's a limitation in the API (quarter of a degree or 50k nodes IIRC), so 
Southend has crept over that limit.

There are a number of options:

  *   Perform multiple downloads & then keep a Southend file locally. You can 
then request that it be updated before editing (I do this for a couple of areas 
of London where I edit sporadically).
  *   It's easy to download just the schools in Overpass & do something similar 
in JOSM. I'm not sure how one might get all objects within multiple schools in 
Overpass but it might be possible.
  *   Download schools as centroids from Overpass, load into JOSM and use the 
todo plugin to work through them downloading small areas for each school. I'm 
doing something like this using FHRS data in Northern Ireland (although the 
postcode centroids used by FHRS are often 100s of metres away from the school).

Jerry

On 12 February 2016 at 09:54, Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Hi,

Does anyone know if the limits on download size have changed recently? I’ve 
been working on the schools project by downloading “Southend on Sea” via a 
place search and then choosing “boundary” from the list of 2 - that gives me 
the whole Borough in one go. But today (having upgraded to r9329) it is telling 
me that it is a bad request and that the area is too large. It’s a pain if I 
want to work on multiple schools to have to download bits of the town.

Thanks.

Stuart

----
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

m: +44 7788 106165<tel:%2B44%207788%20106165>
skype: stuartjreynolds



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] place=village/town/city

[Stuart Reynolds]

Leigh-on-sea has a Town Council. And the residents of Leigh (myself included) 
like to give it an identity that is distinct from Southend-on-sea, which 
historically it was. But in practice you would be hard pushed to claim that 
Leigh was a separate town. Administratively, it has been part of the Borough 
(Town) of Southend-on-sea for many, many years and there are no hard and fast 
boundaries that show where it starts and ends on at least two sides. So just 
because it has a Town Council (but not, in this case, a mayor), it doesn’t mean 
that it _is_ a town.

Personally, I had always regarded Hamlet/Village/Town as being population-based 
designators.

Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 12 Feb 2016, at 13:15, Colin Smale 
<colin.sm...@xs4all.nl<mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> wrote:


According to Wikipedia, it is country-dependent. As it is an English word, we 
should only discuss about its meaning in an English-speaking context. There is 
no such thing as a hamlet in Germany for example; they have different words 
with different semantics, which may or may not map onto English concepts.

The common theme indicated by the Wikipedia article is that a hamlet is in some 
way dependent or subordinate to a larger settlement. For example it may not 
have its own church. That in itself does not define an absolute cut-off point 
in terms of population; it is dependent on the settlement's context with 
respect to its surroundings.



In the UK of course it is a matter of status to be called a City, and there is 
an unambiguous list of cities. This list can only be changed by the Crown 
through parliament. The smallest city is St Davids in Wales, with a population 
of 1841 (2011 figure). Any attempt to retag it in OSM to place=village will 
probably be reverted within 0.1 nanoseconds

A smaller incorporated settlement (civil parish) can decide unilaterally to 
call itself a town. Changes don't happen very often of course, but it is a 
point of civic pride for the inhabitants as the council becomes a Town Council 
and they can have a Town Mayor. This is also independent of the population, but 
the status is carried by the council whose area may include a substantial rural 
element, which would also become part of the "town". If you ask an inhabitant 
of that area whether X is a town or a village, they will tell you, and it has 
nothing to do with population

In other countries a rule based on population may be appropriate, but in the UK 
it is definitely a question of status.

//colin

On 2016-02-12 13:39, Paul Berry wrote:

Hi Michael,

Going the other way, what's the cutoff between a hamlet and a village? 
Population 50? 100? I'd say that with these categories there's some fuzziness 
so go with what feels right. On the ground experience over armchair mapping 
wins out here I think (as it does for most things OSM). More complexity: a 
place that would be a hamlet or village near a town or city can find itself a 
neighbourhood or suburb over time. Again the distinction can be a fine one.

Also, and a more important point than all the above, welcome!

Regards,
Paul

On 12 February 2016 at 12:04, Tom Hughes 
<t...@compton.nu<mailto:t...@compton.nu>> wrote:
On 12/02/16 11:51, Ian Caldwell wrote:

On 11 February 2016 at 21:32, Michael Booth 
<boot...@gmail.com<mailto:boot...@gmail.com>
<mailto:boot...@gmail.com<mailto:boot...@gmail.com>>> wrote:

So my question is, how are we defining villages, towns and cities?
Only by population, or do we also take into account their generally
accepted status (whilst trying to be consistent across the country)?


In England towns will normally have a town council. Villages
will normally have a parish council. Only really a name difference see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_council#England_and_Wales .

Normally is a very strong word... There are many, many towns and villages 
without any town or parish council.

Tom

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


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

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] The Park, Nottingham

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi all, and especially Nottingham mappers.

There is an area of Nottingham called The Park that is a private estate. At 
present, all of the roads on the estate are tagged as access=destination. 
However, my client at Nottingham City Council informs me that “there is 
definitely pedestrian access through The Park” [my italics], while another 
colleague tells me that “having lived for many years on a gated private road, 
my interpretation of the signs [viewable on Streetview] is that the road and 
vehicular access is private, but there is an unimpeded pedestrian right of way 
in this example in Notts (as there was where I lived in the past)”.

Based on this, I propose to remove the access=destination tag from the roads on 
the estate, and replace it with a vehicle=destination tag. That should allow 
walking, while still having the desired effect of only allowing vehicular 
access if you are actually going there.

This corresponds to the guidance at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access where it says that destination 
means

Only when travelling to this element/area, i.e. local traffic only. NOTE: This 
restriction often only applies to certain modes of transportation (e.g. only to 
vehicles). Take care to use the right transport mode restriction, e.g. 
vehicle<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:vehicle>=destination<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:vehicle%3Ddestination>
 when only vehicle traffic is restricted.

Regards,
Stuart

----
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

Re: [Talk-GB] The Park, Nottingham

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Jerry,

Many thanks for that view. I’m quite happy to add foot=permissive instead of 
doing my proposed changes - looking for better solutions was why I asked!

Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 28 Jan 2016, at 16:00, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com<mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

The access constraints on the park are quite complicated, although for vehicles 
they are clearly access=destination. The regulations of The Park are embodied 
in two private Acts of 
Parliament<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1990/14/pdfs/ukla_19900014_en.pdf>.
 It took a 5 day public 
enquiry<http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/openstreetmap-at-public-inquiry.html>
 to establish 
<http://www.nottinghampost.com/Park-Estate-t-block-hoi-polloi-Lenton/story-20306183-detail/story.html>
 that one pedestrian route is actually a right of way. As far as I know there 
are two other routes which may be PRoWs but this has not been established. In 
practice the precise legal position for routes other than the Lenton Road 
public footpath<http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12360834> has not been 
established, and the tagging for this is correct designation=public_footpath 
which implies foot=yes. (This does need a tweak on the roundabout with the 
intersection with Cavendish Drive.

I would much prefer that you add foot=permissive rather than remove the generic 
tag: this is how most things have been tagged in the area. For instance, 
although I suspect folk cycle through The Park I have no idea if they have the 
right to do so, whether it is permitted or tolerated. It may well be that 
passing through the area as a pedestrian is technically not allowed: certainly 
the provisions in the private acts were perceived to be in conflict with 
relevant public Acts of Parliament (specifically CRoW 2000).

In practice for routing to destinations which aren't in the Park, the existing 
footpath is by far-and-away the likeliest route. Descending through Derby Road 
to Castle Boulevard may be used by some, the reverse isn't very attractive as a 
short cut. Similarly for Park Steps. I'm not certain of the current status of 
the tunnel, which would avoid hills. I suspect Strava 
<http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#15/-1.16320/52.95091/blue/run> gives a 
misleading impression as the prominent route through The Park was the course 
for the 2015 Robin Hood Marathon.

Over the past 50 years The Park Estate has progressive increased how it 
enforces its powers with respect to traffic, from partial tolerance of rat 
runs, some closed entrances, through to entrances all having barriers: these 
should also affect vehicular routing. It is generally helpful for vehicle users 
that the roads in The Park Estate are rendered in such a way that they are 
obviously different from ordinary residential streets.

Paul Sladen is the person who is likeliest to know more as he played a much 
bigger role in the public enquiry. Robert Howard has also written extensively 
about some of the pedestrian 
issues<http://parkviews.blogspot.co.uk/p/park-footpath.html>.

Jerry

On 28 January 2016 at 13:34, Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Hi all, and especially Nottingham mappers.

There is an area of Nottingham called The Park that is a private estate. At 
present, all of the roads on the estate are tagged as access=destination. 
However, my client at Nottingham City Council informs me that “there is 
definitely pedestrian access through The Park” [my italics], while another 
colleague tells me that “having lived for many years on a gated private road, 
my interpretation of the signs [viewable on Streetview] is that the road and 
vehicular access is private, but there is an unimpeded pedestrian right of way 
in this example in Notts (as there was where I lived in the past)”.

Based on this, I propose to remove the access=destination tag from the roads on 
the estate, and replace it with a vehicle=destination tag. That should allow 
walking, while still having the desired effect of only allowing vehicular 
access if you are actually going there.

This corresponds to the guidance at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access where it says that destination 
means

Only when travelling to this element/area, i.e. local traffic only. NOTE: This 
restriction often only applies to certain modes of transportation (e.g. only to 
vehicles). Take care to use the right transport mode restriction, e.g. 
vehicle<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:vehicle>=destination<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:vehicle%3Ddestination>
 when only vehicle traffic is restricted.

Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] Next UK chapter concall

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Dudley,

Why?

If an organisation wants to be a member, why shouldn’t it have a say in how OSM 
UK is run, including being nominated for and electing members to committees. 
I’m quite comfortable with requiring an individual to be nominated, which we 
can consider not allowing to be delegated, and if you wanted to protect the 
rights of non-org members then you could have two groups and allocate 51% of 
the votes to the individuals and 49% of the votes to the orgs. It’s slightly 
more complicated than votes only to individuals, but you don’t disenfranchise 
anyone then.

At the end of the day, we want to promote editing. We want to encourage orgs to 
contribute their data. And we want to encourage orgs to use OSM in their 
systems and products. That is much less likely to happen if you remove voting 
rights from orgs.

Incidentally, you can also have a problem of definitions, too. I’m here because 
traveline south east & anglia uses OSM, and that’s the email address I use to 
post here. But I am a consultant to them, and I have a wider interest now 
beyond just traveline. So I’m an individual. But then again my consultancy is a 
company, with me as a director. Not unusual, there. So am I an organisation, or 
am I an individual? You could argue the former, but I’d be rather hacked off if 
you wilfully excluded me - I’d rather choose my level of participation myself 
between zero and full rather than have it decided for me!

Regards,
Stuart


On 26 Jan 2016, at 07:33, Dudley Ibbett 
> wrote:

Hi Brian

I think we should have "ordinary" members with full voting rights.  Another 
class of membership should be for "organisations".  They should be required to 
nominate an individual to represent them.  Their voting rights should be 
limited so they cannot vote for committee membership or stand on the committee.

At this time I would also suggest we set a minimum age for any type of 
membership to 18. I believe this would simplify issues when it come to 
complying with child protection legislation.

Apart form the initial cost of setting up any organisation.  I would guess the 
main annual cost will be insurance and auditor fees for the accounts.  This 
assumes that we won't be paying the committee expenses!   I'm aware of a couple 
of organisations that seem to do this for an annual fee of £25-£35 for ordinary 
membership.  Any "organisation" type of membership would need to be excluded 
from the insurance unless we got down an affiliate model along the lines of 
mountaineering clubs that affiliate to the BMC for example.

Kind Regards

Dudley




Sent from my iPad

On 25 Jan 2016, at 18:36, Brian Prangle 
> wrote:

Hi everyone

Don't forget this is scheduled for 8pm Wed this week 27 January

0800 22 90 900  Pass code 33224

We'll pick up on Rob's summary email i.e objectives;legal stucture; constitution

If we can I'd like to start discussing:

Name (not what it will be - but a mechanism for choosing one)
Membership classes, rights and costs

On objectives:the ensuing silence since draft 2 I'm not sure to take as 
indifference or approval, but let's use the text as a starting point:

1.To increase the size, skills, toolsets and cohesion of the OpenStreetMap 
community in the UK.
2.To promote and facilitate the use of OpenStreetMap data by organisations in 
the UK.
3.To promote and facilitate the release by organisations in the UK of OpenData  
that is suitable for use in OpenStreetMap.

On legal structures, please read Rob's excellent summary before the concall. 
I've read it and my conclusion so far, and I'm still not clear on some things, 
is that we shouldn't go for unincorporated society (unlimited liablity for 
officers) or charity (we don't have a charitable purpose and the legal 
strictures are a bit more complex than we'd want). From the rest I think 
company limited by guarantee (that's what OSMF chose) suits us best. Not sure 
yet whether CIO or CIC, given that we'd be non-profit, are worth considering.

Look forward to "seeing" you Wed

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

[Talk-GB] Rendering of layers

[Stuart Reynolds]

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Multiple Schools on one site

[Stuart Reynolds]

Also nearby there are what used to be two separate single-sex schools which are 
now combined as a mixed school. Two sites about a mile apart.


You should use the site relation for this. I was doing this for a lower and 
upper school in Southend, until I realised that the lower school had closed at 
the end of the last school year and so removed it. The only issue is that I had 
tagged the site relation with the edubase number and the school name, and it 
isn’t picked up by the matching algorithm - but that isn’t to say that it isn’t 
right.

Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 17 Jan 2016, at 13:46, Colin Spiller 
<co...@thespillers.org.uk<mailto:co...@thespillers.org.uk>> wrote:

Here in West Yorkshire, I have a newly-rebuilt Beckfoot School, sharing the 
site and facilities with Hazelbeck Special School. As far as I know, there 
isn't anything dividing the two. Robert has these entries for them (thanks 
Robert - great job!):

139975  BD16 
1EE<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.841255=-1.829101=16>   
Beckfoot School

139977  BD16 
1EE<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.841255=-1.829101=16>   
Hazelbeck Special School

They do have their own websites: http://www.beckfoot.org/ and 
http://www.hazelbeck.org/ !

Also nearby there are what used to be two separate single-sex schools which are 
now combined as a mixed school. Two sites about a mile apart.

Any recommendations as to how I should map these two extremes gratefully 
received!
Thanks
Colin, West Yorks


On 17/01/16 13:14, Lester Caine wrote:

On 17/01/16 12:40, Dave F. wrote:


Although I'm uncertain of a perfect solution as both the entrance and
recreation ground appears to be shared in Ed's example, I find there's
usually a defining boundary around schools that are adjacent to each
other. Especially infant schools where they don't want the little ones
wandering off. Looking at the site using a website that shall not be
mentioned, it appears to use a fence & the school building itself as the
barrier. On ground conformation will, of course, be required.


Situations where a school has a secure play area which is used by
Nursary and first school pupils at different times is not unusual,
especially now the 'Nursery' provision for younger children is being
added around the country. Ideally for us this would just extend the
range of an existing school, but there seems to be financial advantages
in creating a separate 'school'? Yes closer inspection may produce
different results, but to get the key data in now would be nice, and it
can be refined later?



As mapped ATM both the fhrs:id & ref:edubase tags aren't associated with
amenity=school which is not ideal for filtering data.


Proper quoting would have included this comment in with mine about
whether amenity=school was appropriate on the outer boundary when it is
difficult to separate multiple edubase refs inside the area. Just as
there are a number of ways off adding 'school' to an item, there may be
a case for 'landuse=school' where one is then going to add
'amenity=school' to the internal elements? Be that simple nodes for each
occupant of a high rise building, or the primary building of each where
several other buildings and play areas are shared during the day.

For filtering data I think that 'amenity=school' makes sense when linked
with all the primary data for each school, which ever country is looked
at, so some means of identifying the landuse for a multiple school area
is the logical follow through. I'm very tempted at the moment to simply
remove the Evesham boundary 'amenity=school' tag and replace it with on
on each primary building which will at least allow the current
verification to cross them off the list. What ever way things are
progressed, something needs to be changed.

( And in relation to mass adding wikidata tags to the CURRENT school
references, this is premature since in many cases the wrong area is tagged )





--
Colin Spiller
co...@thespillers.org.uk<mailto:co...@thespillers.org.uk>

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Schools project - update

[Stuart Reynolds]

There ought to be, somewhere - they are all required to be Ofsted inspected, 
after all.

I searched Ofsted for Maids Moreton Pre-School, and it has a URN of EY476044. 
EY in this case would stand for “Early Years”. I’ll go hunting for a database, 
now!


Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



> On 13 Jan 2016, at 15:28, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> Is there a similar national database for nurseries, or would that be 
> controlled by individual local authorities?
> 
> Further comments in-line
> 
> 
> On 12/01/2016 22:01, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> > Cross post to talk-ie (we are working on a quarterly project to map 
>> > schools - feel free to join (see item 3 below).
>> 
>> A few updates for the schools mapping project. As always there is also the 
>> page on the wiki for quick reference ( 
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects ).
>> 
>> 0. Changeset comments
>> Don't forget to add #OSMschools to your changeset comments. I will ask 
>> Pascal Neis for an updated "Who's contributing" dataset next week.
> 
> I've been adding this tag but will probably only retrieve the roughest of 
> data. I've often gone off on a tangent amending/adding adjacent objects, 
> realigning roads etc.
> 
>> 
>> 2. Robert's data by postcode.
>> Robert W has updated his comparison site to enable you to download the 
>> schools by postcode data as a geojson. Example download URL is:
>> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/B/data.js
>> 
>> Once downloaded, open the file, delete the first line ("var matched = ") and 
>> save.
> 
> I've already been using this data in P2 as part of it's 'Tasks' feature. No 
> laborious panning around!
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/28267
> 
> Do any other the other editors have a similar feature?
> 
> I found it easier if I separate Robert's files into 3 for each 
> FeatureCollection: Matched, Unmatched & Missing. I also wanted to do start 
> with my local county rather than by postcode so I've used Overpass Turbo to 
> retrieve the relevant data: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/dIG (change county 
> name>run>Export>geojson)
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Dave F,
> 
> ---
> 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] Assistance fixing wonky bits of London?

[Stuart Reynolds]

OK, thanks - I’ve just changed the names of the stop, stop_position and 
relation to Waterloo Road, then. The TfL stop data has longer names, but this 
is what is written on the bus stop flags.

Regards,
Stuart



Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 13 Jan 2016, at 13:52, Shaun McDonald 
<sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk<mailto:sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk>> wrote:

Hi Stuart,

Looking at the history, it looks like the name was changed 8 months ago 
incorrectly and should be changed back, similarly for the relation. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/206072/history

It looks like the tags on the relation and linked node for the name need to be 
changed to the previous one. Nothing else in the changeset jumps out as being 
an issue, so could be some odd autocomplete issue.

Shaun

On 13 Jan 2016, at 13:32, Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:

Hi,

I’ve come across some errors in London, but I’m not too sure about how to fix 
them short of deleting them.

Node 469785651 is a bus stop 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/469785651<http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4697856515>)
 as indeed is its partner stop, node 469785652. However, rather than having the 
correct bus stop name it is called Epsom Station and has a relation which 
appears to define it as a platform of Epsom station. That is clearly wrong.

However, does this mean that something that should have been in Epsom has been 
moved? I don’t really understand relations fully yet, and I’m unwilling to just 
dive in and break something if the fix is to do something better or different.

Also, what is the relationship between name=* and naptan:CommonName=*? The 
latter I understand, but shouldn’t the two be the same?

Thanks
Stuart

--------
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



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

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

I wouldn’t like to say that it is definitive, because I haven't added 
playgrounds, parking or recreation facilities, but try 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36439931 or 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49655265#map=18/51.55355/0.69659 both of which 
relate to Southend High School for Boys, which is one that I’ve recently 
tweaked.

There are other examples - just west of there, on the south side of Prittlewell 
Chase, lie two other schools Chase High School and Lancaster School.

They all have boundary polygons, gates, school buildings and edubase tags.

Regards,
Stuart



On 8 Jan 2016, at 17:27, Paul Berry 
> wrote:

I see the diagram and suggested process on the Wiki page but do we have an 
actual mapped example that could be used to further illustrate this. A link to 
a changeset containing this, or whatever's appropriate, would be useful.

If you've mapped one, now's the chance for a bit of glory in setting an example 
for the rest of us :)

I'm aiming to contribute schools in South and West Yorkshire (Sheffield and 
Leeds mostly) from an armchair POV...

Regards,
Paul Berry


On 7 January 2016 at 23:00, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
On 7 January 2016 at 20:48, Brian Prangle 
> wrote:

> If no-one objects to ref:edubase can someone add it to the wiki?  We should
> probably also add some other  stuff that's come up just in case there are
> folk who are not on this mailing list who want to discover what the
> consensus is in the UK for mapping schools.

Please see:

   
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects#Suggested_process_.26_tags

--
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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] More questions on Schools project

[Stuart Reynolds]

Sorry - should have added a bit more to that!

Where I had this before, I could separate the grounds into two polygons. 
However, this one I can’t. So I’m thinking that I tag the buildings as 
amenity=school, name=*, ref:edubase=* and then put a boundary polygon in which 
I tag … amenity=school? Should I also name it? The schools are Hamstel Junior 
School and Hamstel Infants School, together known as Hamstel Schools (which is 
what the single node currently has in OSM).

Cheers
Stuart


On 8 Jan 2016, at 15:21, Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:

…and two schools, one site?

Cheers
Stuart



On 8 Jan 2016, at 13:27, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com<mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

On 8 January 2016 at 12:22, Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Hi All,

I have some questions about naming, and also the content of Edubase.

...

If someone could also suggest how to tag one school split across two sites, I 
would be very happy!

Many thanks
Regards,
Stuart



I'd also be interested in the one school / multiple sites issue.

These are becoming commoner as one school takes over another. The particular 
problem is that each site will have a name and the school itself will have a 
name. One example is the Nottingham Bluecoat School which has two sites, the 
original main site, and the Wollaton Park Campus 
site<http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16487967> (a 'failing' secondary school 
taken over by Bluecoat, but now various functions are partitioned between the 
sites). Perhaps something like campus_name might work for now: I find the 
concatenation Bluecoat School - Wollaton Park Campus unwieldy and it's not easy 
to identify these multi-campus institutions.

(A side note, this school also hosts churches at both sites: slightly 
diffiicult in terms of locating the actual hall used for services & debatable 
whether rented locations should be specifically marked as place of worship, 
although in these cases both are signed outside the school).

Jerry

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] More questions on Schools project

[Stuart Reynolds]

…and two schools, one site?

Cheers
Stuart



On 8 Jan 2016, at 13:27, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com<mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

On 8 January 2016 at 12:22, Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Hi All,

I have some questions about naming, and also the content of Edubase.

...

If someone could also suggest how to tag one school split across two sites, I 
would be very happy!

Many thanks
Regards,
Stuart



I'd also be interested in the one school / multiple sites issue.

These are becoming commoner as one school takes over another. The particular 
problem is that each site will have a name and the school itself will have a 
name. One example is the Nottingham Bluecoat School which has two sites, the 
original main site, and the Wollaton Park Campus 
site<http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16487967> (a 'failing' secondary school 
taken over by Bluecoat, but now various functions are partitioned between the 
sites). Perhaps something like campus_name might work for now: I find the 
concatenation Bluecoat School - Wollaton Park Campus unwieldy and it's not easy 
to identify these multi-campus institutions.

(A side note, this school also hosts churches at both sites: slightly 
diffiicult in terms of locating the actual hall used for services & debatable 
whether rented locations should be specifically marked as place of worship, 
although in these cases both are signed outside the school).

Jerry

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

Re: [Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

My vote would go to a format of ref:. Looking at the wiki for ref, a 
great many of the “” there are not things that can be ascertained 
from a ground survey, but are internal IDs or reference numbers. What I am 
proposing is therefore consistent with the wiki.

I’m not at all hung up on what  should be, though. “edubase” ought 
to feature in there somewhere, and while I am minded to add “uk” as well, none 
of the entries tabulated on the wiki seem to bother with the country name. So 
would someone care to pick one, or choose one of these suggestions:


  *   ref:edubase
  *   ref:edubase_urn
  *   ref:uk_edubase
  *   ref:uk_edubase_urn
  *   ref:school:edubase
  *   ref:school:edubase_urn

I think that my favourite is the first - it has the benefit of simplicity, and 
it is something that people are likely to be able to remember and therefore 
use. And in case anyone really doesn’t know what it is, “edubase” is readily 
google-able.

I would like to start adding these in / amending the tags that I already have, 
so if we could reach some consensus then that would be great. Thanks.

Regards,
Stuart



On 6 Jan 2016, at 14:06, SK53 <sk53@gmail.com<mailto:sk53@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

Purely a personal preference, but I like to keep ref for thing which 
(generally) can be determined on a ground survey. I also like to keep separate 
genuine administrative references (such as the PRoW ones prow_ref, or minor 
roads admin_ref) separate from exposed system keys such as the edubase one.

For Food Hygiene (FHRS) data the equivalent internal identifier has converged 
on fhrs:id, but this was is in part because a number of other items of data 
from the Food Hygiene scheme have also been added within OSM. So I dont think 
this establishes any precedent for whether one has ref:supplier or supplier:ref 
or supplier_ref. Consistency would be nice but is not essential

If adding an edubase identifier, I'd also appreciate it if a FHRS one can be 
added too. These are certainly invariant, only changing when the premises 
change ownership. (I'm not sure what applies when school catering is 
outsourced, or if a school acquires academy status.

I must say I like the various suggestions for better micromapping of schools: 
this means that there is plenty to do even in well mapped areas. One thing I've 
always wanted to map, but have never noticed suitable tags, are the 
hard-surfaced school playgrounds. Clearly, using the existing 
leisure=playground is a poor idea as it changes the meaning of existing mapped 
objects; and also many primary schools will have a proper playground too.

Jerry

On 6 January 2016 at 12:42, Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
Hi Jez,

I was pondering that myself as I added the Edubase numbers to the schools that 
I have added and/or modified. I had two thoughts: one, we could just write a 
piece of free text such as “UK Edubase” in front of the ref; two, which is more 
elegant although involving non-standard tags, is that we tag it as 
ref:uk_edubase=* (or similar).

Regards,
Stuart



On 6 Jan 2016, at 11:36, Jez Nicholson 
<jez.nichol...@gmail.com<mailto:jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On the ref=*. Is there any convention for indicating that the ref is Edubase? 
I've tagged Brighton Montessori with ref=133348 ...but how would an interested 
party know that they would be able to find more details on Edubase 
http://www.education.gov.uk/edubase/establishment/summary.xhtml?urn=133348 ?

I agree that where an object is clearly 'owned' by an authority/company/etc. 
that it is *the* 'ref'. e.g. postbox numbers

Regards,
    Jez

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 17:05 Stuart Reynolds 
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 
wrote:
I’m thinking that while we are reviewing the schools, it would be a good idea 
to add the Edubase reference into a Ref tag for each school boundary polygon, 
to make it easier to track in future. Is that reference stable enough?
If we think that it is a good idea, perhaps we could make it part of an agreed 
“do minimum” for this project. For example:


  *   draw and tag the boundary polygon with a minimum of
 *   amenity=school
 *   name=*
 *   ref=*
  *   add entrances
 *   at least one entrance=main
 *   barrier=gate where appropriate - I would have thought most schools 
will have gates
 *   others entrances where appropriate
  *   then optionally, but preferably, draw the school buildings and tag 
building=school.

I know we don’t want to be prescriptive, but it would certainly help people 
(like myself) who haven't participated in projects before ’t there was a 
(readily achievable) level of expectation as to what involvement in the project 
meant.

Personally I have been adding in the buildings, but I haven’t been worrying 
(for now) about playing fields and the like - I’ll go back and revisit t

Re: [Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

Brilliant, thanks.

As per Rob's email of yesterday, should we also add ref:seedcode for Scotland? 

Cheers
Stuart


> On 7 Jan 2016, at 23:01, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
>> On 7 January 2016 at 20:48, Brian Prangle  wrote:
>> 
>> If no-one objects to ref:edubase can someone add it to the wiki?  We should
>> probably also add some other  stuff that's come up just in case there are
>> folk who are not on this mailing list who want to discover what the
>> consensus is in the UK for mapping schools.
> 
> Please see:
> 
>   
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects#Suggested_process_.26_tags
> 
> -- 
> 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] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi John,

I don’t know if how I do it is “right”, but I have used access=destination, and 
foot=no where I have those types of things. I haven’t ever used 
amenity=parking_entrance, although that doesn’t mean I’m right as I’m still a  
relative newbie at this compared to many. Actually, I use access=destination on 
all of my school entrances, regardless, as they are rarely, if ever, public 
rights of way and can seem like “shortcuts” between roads which are otherwise 
unconnected.

Cheers
Stuart



On 6 Jan 2016, at 12:04, John Aldridge 
<j...@cantab.net<mailto:j...@cantab.net>> wrote:

On 05-Jan-16 17:03, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
 * draw and tag the boundary polygon with a minimum of
 o amenity=school
 o name=*
 o ref=*
 * add entrances
 o at least one entrance=main
 o barrier=gate where appropriate - I would have thought most
   schools will have gates
 o others entrances where appropriate
 * then optionally, but preferably, draw the school buildings and tag
   building=school.

I have a school car-park tagging question...


Suppose there's a vehicle entrance, distinct from the main/pedestrian entrance, 
leading (perhaps via some service road) to the school car-park. How should this 
best be tagged? Is

 amenity=parking_entrance

the appropriate tag (it's in the Wiki, but that page could be read as 
suggesting that this tag is an alternative to mapping an amenity=parking, not 
an addition to it). Or is

 entrance=parking

better? The Wiki doesn't mention 'parking' as a value for the 'entrance' tag, 
but maybe that doesn't matter.


Presumably an

 access=destination

tag will also usually be appropriate on the the school car-park?

--
Cheers,
John

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

I’m thinking that while we are reviewing the schools, it would be a good idea 
to add the Edubase reference into a Ref tag for each school boundary polygon, 
to make it easier to track in future. Is that reference stable enough?
If we think that it is a good idea, perhaps we could make it part of an agreed 
“do minimum” for this project. For example:


  *   draw and tag the boundary polygon with a minimum of
 *   amenity=school
 *   name=*
 *   ref=*
  *   add entrances
 *   at least one entrance=main
 *   barrier=gate where appropriate - I would have thought most schools 
will have gates
 *   others entrances where appropriate
  *   then optionally, but preferably, draw the school buildings and tag 
building=school.

I know we don’t want to be prescriptive, but it would certainly help people 
(like myself) who haven't participated in projects before ’t there was a 
(readily achievable) level of expectation as to what involvement in the project 
meant.

Personally I have been adding in the buildings, but I haven’t been worrying 
(for now) about playing fields and the like - I’ll go back and revisit those if 
I have time. But there are a surprising number of missing schools so I have 
been looking to get those in first.

Cheers
Stuart



On 3 Jan 2016, at 21:54, Rob Nickerson 
> wrote:

Hi all,

Some great ideas and tools already shared and only January 3rd!

This made me think I should set up a wiki page but I have been beaten to it. 
I've expanded on the page to add links to all the resources being discussed 
here. Page at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects

Rob

p.s. Big thank you to our wiki system admins who have now added the 
VisualEditor to the wiki. This makes it much easier to edit the wiki so no 
excuses for not keeping the pages up to date :-)
___
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] Updating maps

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi Adrian,

It rather depends on where they are getting their map tiles from, and how often 
those are updated. Users are really supposed to generate their own.

Here at traveline south east 
(www.travelinesoutheast.org.uk<http://www.travelinesoutheast.org.uk>), for 
example, we have two different sets of tiles, representing different zoom 
levels and delivered from different servers. At our default level you get 
presented with a map tile which is only updated annually. There is a very good 
argument to say that the default should be more often, but I digress. For 
Calverley Park Gardens, it shows the old road designation right now. The two 
levels of zoom below that are delivered from a tile server that is updated 
overnight and re-tiled on the fly. So if you zoom in then you see your edit.

Personally, I would rather re-tile it all. However, as you zoom out you get 
fewer tiles, but there is more data to crunch to produce them - and that can 
leave us not only taking a while to produce the tiles, but also the time to 
then transfer large batches of data to the servers. So we made a design 
decision to do it the way we have.

I’m sure that you will find that Kent Traffic has similar policies. But to know 
what they are, you would have to ask them.

Regards,
Stuart

----
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 4 Jan 2016, at 10:35, Adrian Berendt 
<adrian.beren...@gmail.com<mailto:adrian.beren...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I made a change to openstreetmap.org<http://openstreetmap.org/> last month, to 
correct Calverley Park Gardens in Tunbridge Wells to be the B2249 (previously 
showing as the A264).  Whilst this appears on the map when I open it, when I 
look at other maps based  on openstreets, such as http://www.kenttraffic.info/, 
it's still showing the old information.

When will that map get changed?

Adrian
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] Quarterly project: Map of changesets

[Stuart Reynolds]

That’s what I like to see - 3 different changeset notations! FWIW, since I have 
just this moment uploaded some changes, I used #OSMschools as that seemed to 
offer both the hashtag and also the designation of the “schools” project.

However, how do we to track this progress? Are we matching specific edits to 
specific schools out of Edubase, or are we just counting?

I looked at three schools in this changeset, across the whole of Southend. So 
visually it won’t be obvious what I’ve done, as there will just be a large 
rectangle across the town (although accept that the changeset lists all the 
individual ways I’ve amended). But I got my hand in by tweaking Southend High 
School for Boys (49655265) which was already well tagged and just needed some 
minor edits, I then added rough (armchair) building outlines and entrances to, 
and amended the name of, the existing (amenity=school) polygon of Barons Court 
Infant School (90523274), and finally added the until now non-existent (either 
in it’s old location or new 3-4 year old location) Hinguar Community Primary 
School (389616029). But in this latter case I had to guess, largely, as Mr 
Google shows it, but none of the mapping I can access in JOSM does. So it is of 
necessity approximate (and completely ignores the fact that it is on stilts as 
it was built on a flood plain) - but at least it is there.

Cheers
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 4 Jan 2016, at 22:16, Robert Norris 
<rw_nor...@hotmail.com<mailto:rw_nor...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

___
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 18:15:13 +
From: rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com<mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [Talk-GB] Quarterly project: Map of changesets

Hi all,

Can you please add "OSMschools" to your changesets so that we can track
them. For now you can see any changest with "school" in the comment at
the following site but this isn't restricted to our UK project - hence
the request to use "OSMschools".

http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-changesets?comment=school#5/54.965/-1.780

Rob


I was thinking about this earlier today, but not had a chance to post.

I was thinking about a slightly a more general id scheme such as "#GB2016QP1"

Hence with idea subsequent quarterly projects would be #GB2016QP2 and so on. Of 
course the comment/tag is less understandable in of it's own as they would be 
are more for analytics.

However I'm quite happy with 'OSMschools', although IIRC using a hash at the 
beginning of a semantic tag is the preferred form (#OSMschools).
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto: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] New map style

[Stuart Reynolds]

I don't like it for the simple reason that I think it will fail to win over new 
Uk users. There are plenty of people who just want to use default tiles to show 
a location on - sports pitch, scout hall, whatever - and those people will 
inevitably go to Google. Sure, we understand the differences between a map and 
data, but we need to engage first and then draw them into making active 
improvements. And this won't do that because it is so contrary to people's 
experience.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Nov 2015, at 09:39, Lester Caine  wrote:
> 
> On 01/11/15 07:22, Ed Loach wrote:
>>> It very simple, the colours should match the road sign colours: Blue,
>> Green, Red!
>> 
>> Red?
> 
> Was waiting for someone to pick that one up, and yes it has been some
> time since red was dropped from the legal framework and therefore the
> highway code. But the Blue and Green are well documented and just what
> traffic is restricted from accessing a motorway drummed into people.
> 
> It would be interesting to find out if our French colleagues have any
> plans to switch their servers to the new style, but I expect they will
> be a lot more considerate! The default style they provide is actually a
> better one for the UK than the 'old' style was (wish I'd found it
> sooner!), but along with a few useful variations related to France BOTH
> are available. So I would anticipate that the new style will simply
> become an option there?
> 
> Back to the 'Red' question, and the simplification introduced between
> Primary and non-Primary routes. A quick search on google produces no
> easy answers, and Wikipedia has references to all the legislation, but
> many of the links to VIEW the facts no longer work. It's this disregard
> for maintaining history that annoys me most.
> 
> The bottom line is that 'non-primary' routes are any road used to link
> primary routes, and INCLUDES tertiary routes in many rural areas. Apart
> from the way the the style suddenly appeared rather than a proper roll
> out, my only complaint about the new style is that tertiary routes are
> not included in the 'non-primary' grouping. ADD that to the orange
> routes and it will fix that particular bug. As for the new style ... no
> I don't find it particularly useful at all.
> 
> The use of red, orange and yellow to rate the non-primary routes is
> really only a matter of following the OS conventions. It is one of the
> areas that I have actually adjusted in my own clone of the style and is
> a little different on the French version.
> 
> p.s. - Anybody still got signs with red backgrounds in their area?
> 
> -- 
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
> 
> ___
> 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] 'Romantic London' - reusing Horwood's 1790's map

[Stuart Reynolds]

For those of you interested in old maps generally, you may already be aware of 
the site http://www.mapco.net/ which has a wide selection of freely-viewable 
historical maps of London and other places. They are only images, and they are 
not digitised, however they are very useful for finding old places and tracking 
changes of street names. Note that they are copyrighted images so we can’t use 
them in OSM (as far as I can tell) - see http://www.mapco.net/terms.htm - but 
for people who are generally interested in maps you might find it of interest!

Cheers
Stuart


On 27 Oct 2015, at 13:30, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:

I witnessed a fascinating presentation, this morning, on a project
which has digitised the first map of London at building level, and
overlays it with data from other sources:

  http://www.romanticlondon.org/

The data sets are freely available, but the British Library claims
copyright over the map images - I'm sure some of you will have your
own views about this.

I shall notify the project's creator, Dr Matthew Sangster, about this
post, and invite him to join this list. He would be a good speaker for
a future OSM conference.

--
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] Survey: A UK/GB OpenStreetMap group?

[Stuart Reynolds]

…and what does “support the development of OSM tools and apps” mean in this 
context? Support in the sense that we think its great and will promote / aid / 
assist, or support in the sense that we hand over a sum of money towards 
development? And in that case, where does it come from? The membership fees 
indicated in the second question? The minute you introduce a membership fee, 
you are no longer open to all.

Regards
Stuart

On 13 Jul 2015, at 12:39, Dave F. 
dave...@madasafish.commailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote:

You say there's no neutrality, but there's no option to disagree with the whole 
proposal.

On 11/07/2015 21:19, Rob Nickerson wrote:
Dear UK/GB OpenStreetMappers,

From time to time we talk about the potential of setting up a UK/GB 
OpenStreetMap group (name yet to be decided) but we never quite know what it 
should look like.

Survey time!! Please fill in the following 2 minute survey:

http://goo.gl/forms/Z797QhC27c

Your responses to page 1 will be shared when we close the survey (in a few 
weeks). If you respond to the optional page 2 questions (your details), your 
responses will be used for the purpose of administrating the group only (they 
will only be seen by myself and any designated administrator should a UK/GB 
group be set up).

So stop reading and go to the survey:

http://goo.gl/forms/Z797QhC27c

Best regards and happy mapping,
Rob




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





[Avast logo] http://www.avast.com/

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.comhttp://www.avast.com/


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.orgmailto: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

[Stuart Reynolds]

Without wanting to get into specific tags, or indeed into specific renderers, 
let’s step back and see if what we have got is what we want?
The answer is probably no, IMHO.

Take Newnham College 
(http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.19959/0.10973layers=H) which I know 
fairly well. It is one site - Newnham College - and is part of the university. 
But the individual buildings within it are just that - buildings. In fact, the 
distinction between the various buildings is really only of relevance to the 
people within it, given that you can walk between the extremities Strachey in 
the east to Peile in the west without every going outside, and the fact that 
much of it is student’s rooms.

So:

- we need to be able to identify the site as Newnham College
- we need to be able to identify Newnham College as part of the University of 
Cambridge
- we need to be able to name and identify the buildings on the site, and to 
have them linked to Newnham College. But we do NOT need to reference them as 
universities in their own right

So long as we use tagging and/or relationships which maintain those 
associations, we have clarity on the data and renderers can choose what to do 
with it.

Stuart

On 22 May 2015, at 14:22, Andy Allan 
gravityst...@gmail.commailto:gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:

On 22 May 2015 at 14:03, Christopher Baines 
m...@cbaines.netmailto:m...@cbaines.net wrote:
On 21/05/15 22:39, Dan S wrote:
I don't relish bringing this up since it's a bit of a tangle, but I
noticed Cambridge has a lot more universities than I thought!
Apparently 1219, judging from the number of amenity=university tagged
objects. In real life I'm aware of two: Cambridge Uni, Anglia Ruskin
Uni.

I think that it is a poor assumption to make that there exists a one to
one mapping between objects (nodes, ways, relations) tagged with
amenity=university, and actual organisations.

Sure, but then you need to look at what is actually being tagged.
We've already heard that there are 1219 different universities in
Cambridge, so I was intrigued as to what they are. After all, I would
expect amenity=university; name=University of Somewheresville to be
a university. If there were two objects tagged as universities with
identical names within a few dozen miles, I could make a guess they
are the same university and write some rendering rules to suit.

But they are all different. There's a university named Music Centre.
There's another university called Pavillion D. There's a third
university called Forbes Mellon Library which is a surprising thing
to call a university. There's a bunch of little unamed universities.
And they all have different operator tags too.

I suspect these are the names of buildings, not universities. I
suspect they are operated by different sections of the one university,
but there's no easy way to tell from the operator tag without a
natural-language parser coupled with a wikipedia-based explanation of
the constituent college system.

Have a look at the data, and you'll see it's not as straightforward as
you think. Sure, there's no one-to-one mapping between the real world
and OSM features. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Thanks,
Andy

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.orgmailto: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] Can anyone help with mapping in Stanford-le-Hope?

[Stuart Reynolds]

Greetings,

Is there a friendly mapper out there local to Stanford-le-Hope who wouldn’t 
mind surveying the new Sorrell’s Rounabout junction at The Manorway / 
Corringham Road? OSM at present has only part of the change and Google has 
slightly more (the top third of the new roundabout), but still not all of it. 
What is generally missing is the new Manorway alignment to the east of the 
roundabout. The net effect of the missing bits is that you cannot exit 
Corringham Road and head east on The Manorway.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/29171779#map=16/51.5169/0.4458

also see 
http://www.volkerfitzpatrick.co.uk/dynamics/modules/SFIL0200/view.php?fil_Id=6373
 for a “proper” diagram of the new road, but without sufficient locational 
detail on it to allow it to be mapped precisely.

Thanks
Regards
Stuart


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Any mappers in Colchester who can help map a road?

[Stuart Reynolds]

Brilliant - thanks.
Stuart


On 9 Apr 2015, at 09:53, Ed Loach edlo...@gmail.commailto:edlo...@gmail.com 
wrote:

The “North Approach Road extension” opened yesterday according to today’s 
Gazette; I’ll be able to go get a GPS trace or two after work tomorrow. The bus 
lane by Colchester North station will reportedly be complete by the end of 
overnight roadworks at 5am on Monday (the first buses being at 7am).

Ed

From: Stuart Reynolds [mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk]
Sent: 02 April 2015 15:31
To: Ed Loach
Cc: talk-gb OSM List E-mail
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Any mappers in Colchester who can help map a road?

Ed, hi

Thanks. For info, Essex County Council have told me that they “...can confirm 
that the NAR3 is still being worked on and is planned to be open before the PR 
is open”. As you are aware, the PR service is due to start 13th April, a week 
on Monday.

Given the short time before it is opening, does anyone object that I have 
marked the road as a standard tertiary highway? I need it to be available for 
routing in our system, as the PR bus does NOT go along Boxted Road, but 
equally I don’t want to inconvenience anyone else by having “wrong” data in OSM.

Regards,
Stuart

On 2 Apr 2015, at 14:53, Ed Loach edlo...@gmail.commailto:edlo...@gmail.com 
wrote:

It isn’t open yet (at least when I last checked) – I’ve left the A12 where the 
park and ride is being built to the north of J28 and headed south to see if it 
was open. I’ve made a note where I amended the section to the south that was 
open (and still roadworks) when I last drove through:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/264728#map=15/51.9227/0.9052layers=N

Still closed yesterday according to this story in our local paper
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/12693243.Roadworks_trigger_Park_and_Ride_changes/
and a temporary route will be used until the over-running roadworks is 
completed.

I subscribe to the local paper as well as follow them and a number of their 
reporters on Twitter, so when it does open I’ll go up there and get a GPS trace 
as I did the day J28 first opened (although anyone else local is welcome to try 
and get there first…)

Ed (Clacton-on-Sea)

From: Stuart Reynolds [mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk]
Sent: 02 April 2015 14:37
To: talk-gb OSM List E-mail
Subject: [Talk-GB] Any mappers in Colchester who can help map a road?

Hi,

Are there any mappers in Colchester who could survey the new Northern Approach 
Road phase 3 to the east and south of the old Severalls Hospital? The proposed 
alignment is shown on OSM, but Google has it differently at the western end, 
and also shows a set of roads south of Colchester Rugby Club (NW of Mill Road, 
opposite Brinkley Grove Road) that are not on OSM.

Essex County Council need me to route a bus along it, so a) I understand from 
them that it is open and no longer under construction and will annotate OSM 
accordingly, and b) I am going to go with the alignment shown for the time 
being as it seems to align to a route map that I have been sent.

But clearly surveyed data would be better if we can get it, please!

Regards,
Stuart

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

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

[Stuart Reynolds]

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

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

[Stuart Reynolds]

Brian,

I'm curious. Where does it say in the sign up that there's this bunch of people 
on a mailing list and you'd better check with them before you do anything?

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, of course, but I genuinely don't believe 
that people are editing the map to make it worse, and they may be as close to 
the ground as any one of us, even if their views differ from either the 
majority, the accepted way, or both.

That is precisely why the wikis are important - they are the style guide that 
most users see and try to follow.

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 19 Nov 2014, at 21:23, Brian Prangle 
bpran...@gmail.commailto:bpran...@gmail.com wrote:

I'll defend Birmingham because I live here and I've contribruted to the data 
and I've discussed its structure with other mappers. It works for us. If we're 
not happy with it we'll change it ourselves. If anyone else is not happy with 
it ask us and we might just agree with you (or not) and do the necessary work. 
A little bit of courtesy to the mappers on the ground goes a long way.

Regards

Brian

On 19 November 2014 20:54, John Baker 
rovas...@hotmail.commailto:rovas...@hotmail.com wrote:

I understand the arguments against the wiki from the haters here. However it is 
used as a point of reference and should be more respected and anti-wiki 
comments are just insulting to those that actually take the effort to edit it. 
If the wiki is wrong change the wiki - the concept is not difficult.
Slowly there is more cohesion between the default renderer, wiki and the 
editors just stubborn old timers in OSM that will not change.

I argument that things have been there a long time therefore they are right is 
foolish. Many times things are just left because so many fear of changing 
anything as they think someone else has done it right.  Again discouraging 
new editors in the long tail.
I cannot believe anyone here thinks all the changes are wrong in these edits. I 
await to see people defend the Quarters in Birmingham as they were.
If anyone is that passionate about their own personal standards here (which 
is less consensus than a wiki as it is only 1) over than that is in more 
established sources like the wiki then at least put a note in there explaining 
why. That is normal practice.

Reverting will just leave the status quo of leaving erroneous information in 
OSM. I am not saying all of them are right but some will be.

Personally I avoid highway=path. However what about the same situation is in 
reverse. Should I tell everyone not to change highway=path to highway=footway?! 
If that is not my place, is it your place to do the other. However it raises 
the bigger issue of if there is no consensus then we will just get a mixture 
throughout the UK.

Just because an area (suburb, etc) has shops in doesn't mean that should be 
classified as a village, town, etc. Just because something was a village, etc 
hundreds of years ago doesn't mean it is now.
And no-one has ever answered I live in the village of Peckham to the question 
of What town/city/village do you live in? and yes I lived there too.




From: t...@acrewoods.netmailto:t...@acrewoods.net
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:01:33 +
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits
To: ajrli...@gmail.commailto:ajrli...@gmail.com
CC: rovas...@hotmail.commailto:rovas...@hotmail.com; 
talk-gb@openstreetmap.orgmailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org


Thanks for all the comments.

Could somebody revert the two London changesets? The move to the alternative 
hierarchy of suburb/quarter/etc can always be done later after some more 
considered thought. These existing hierarchy was a settled consensus of sorts 
resulting from years of tweaks. I myself spent quite a bit of time reviewing 
all the places in South East London some years ago.

To respond to John, discussions on the wiki have always involved a fairly small 
number of mappers, and the convention is that you shouldn't go around changing 
long-established data because some people on the wiki decided one logical 
approach was the best. As Richard Fairhurst said in the comments to the 
changeset, the fact that these place names have been there for a long time 
suggests there is a good reason for them to be so. We've not just overlooked 
this all those years. The same could be said of that awful tag highway=path, 
which has been around for a long time but which I - and many others - refuse to 
use. It's fine if you want to use it, but please don't go changing 
highway=footpath and so on to highway=path because some wiki page says it's 
better.

Personally, I think it is important to recognise that Peckham, Lewisham, 
Brixton, Wimbledon and so on are town centres, they are not just suburbs. They 
are recognised as such in planning policy, they fulfil an important town centre 
function, and would be considered town centres by many people who live, work 
and shop there. This isn't tagging for the renderer, it's 

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from a bit of checking.

[Stuart Reynolds]

Greetings, all.

Mentz (aka mdv) is a German company that provides the journey planner used by 
a number of the traveline regions, as well as for Transport for London. As you 
may recall from my previous posts, a number traveline regions are now using OSM 
as the GIS. We found a problem (internally) with how railways were mapped, and 
mdv told us that they had found a way around it. It looks like that involved 
amending things in ways that are not appropriate.

Please pass the details back to me, and I will discuss it with them and also 
with the community if things need reverting.

Regards,
Stuart

-Original Message-
From: SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk] 
Sent: 12 November 2014 10:23 AM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from 
a bit of checking.

More info on this - it seems to be a bunch of people working for this
company:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/%C3%96V_Firma_Mentz_Datenverarbeitung_GmbH

I've had no reply from the mapper that I tried to contact (although they have 
fixed at least one of the problems that they created) so I've tried again via 
direct message, comment on the firm's OSM wiki page and an OSM message to the 
company's main OSM account.

What concerns me is that they're still editing (with various accounts).  
It's relatively easy to trace straight lines from Bing, but it needs experience 
and interpretation (and a local survey!) to see how everything on the ground 
relates to everything else.

Based on their error rate so far I'd definitely still suggest that local 
mappers check their edits.

Cheers,

Andy


On 08/11/2014 22:51, SomeoneElse wrote:
 An anonymous note adder (http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/267719) and 
 someone on IRC noticed some problematical railway edits near
 Sutton-in-Ashfield:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311380489#map=15/53.1247/-1.2346laye
 rs=N


 It looks like an attempt to dual the Robin Hood line went a bit wrong 
 and ended up slicing through an industrial estate and some areas of 
 housing (though I'm sure it was cock-up rather than conspiracy as 
 Sir Bernard Ingham would have said).  Looking at some other edits in 
 the same changeset, there are some other, less obvious, issues too, 
 which I've added to the changeset discussion:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26590071

 The most obvious problem seems to be tracing the railway in but not 
 joining properly to other features (such as crossings).  Some 
 information (e.g. cutting=yes) has also been lost.

 Another local changeset:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26587435
 has some similar issues.

 There have been a number of other edits, some with rather a lot of 
 deletions in them, including:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26613977

 All of these changesets could probably also benefit from a review from 
 local mappers to identify potential issues.

 Cheers,

 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] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from a bit of checking.

[Stuart Reynolds]

OK. I agree that it is odd, but my ability to influence them will be restricted 
to UK edits that they will have done (theoretically) to resolve issues that we 
have raised with them. I'll take a look at some of the other edits referred to 
in the trail below.

Regards,
Stuart

-Original Message-
From: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 12 November 2014 11:09 AM
To: Stuart Reynolds; 'SomeoneElse'; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Cc: project
Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from 
a bit of checking.

Here's just one example of an odd type of edit. Adding priority=yard to rail 
objects.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/96973880

I did not see anything on the schema page to suggest odd tags:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=detl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2F%25C3%2596V_Firma_Mentz_Datenverarbeitung_GmbH%2FModellierungsvorschl%25C3%25A4ge

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Stuart Reynolds [mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk]
Sent: 12 November 2014 10:59
To: SomeoneElse; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Cc: project
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from 
a bit of checking.

Greetings, all.

Mentz (aka mdv) is a German company that provides the journey planner used by 
a number of the traveline regions, as well as for Transport for London. As you 
may recall from my previous posts, a number traveline regions are now using OSM 
as the GIS. We found a problem (internally) with how railways were mapped, and 
mdv told us that they had found a way around it. It looks like that involved 
amending things in ways that are not appropriate.

Please pass the details back to me, and I will discuss it with them and also 
with the community if things need reverting.

Regards,
Stuart

-Original Message-
From: SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk]
Sent: 12 November 2014 10:23 AM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from 
a bit of checking.

More info on this - it seems to be a bunch of people working for this
company:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/%C3%96V_Firma_Mentz_Datenverarbeitung_GmbH

I've had no reply from the mapper that I tried to contact (although they have 
fixed at least one of the problems that they created) so I've tried again via 
direct message, comment on the firm's OSM wiki page and an OSM message to the 
company's main OSM account.

What concerns me is that they're still editing (with various accounts).  
It's relatively easy to trace straight lines from Bing, but it needs experience 
and interpretation (and a local survey!) to see how everything on the ground 
relates to everything else.

Based on their error rate so far I'd definitely still suggest that local 
mappers check their edits.

Cheers,

Andy


On 08/11/2014 22:51, SomeoneElse wrote:
 An anonymous note adder (http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/267719) and 
 someone on IRC noticed some problematical railway edits near
 Sutton-in-Ashfield:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311380489#map=15/53.1247/-1.2346laye
 rs=N


 It looks like an attempt to dual the Robin Hood line went a bit wrong 
 and ended up slicing through an industrial estate and some areas of 
 housing (though I'm sure it was cock-up rather than conspiracy as 
 Sir Bernard Ingham would have said).  Looking at some other edits in 
 the same changeset, there are some other, less obvious, issues too, 
 which I've added to the changeset discussion:

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26590071

 The most obvious problem seems to be tracing the railway in but not 
 joining properly to other features (such as crossings).  Some 
 information (e.g. cutting=yes) has also been lost.

 Another local changeset:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26587435
 has some similar issues.

 There have been a number of other edits, some with rather a lot of 
 deletions in them, including:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26613977

 All of these changesets could probably also benefit from a review from 
 local mappers to identify potential issues.

 Cheers,

 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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from a bit of checking.

[Stuart Reynolds]

Mdv tell me that they have replied to SomeoneElse - presumably privately, as 
I didn't see it on the list - and have withdrawn the editor in question. They 
will also send a response to the list.

Regards,
Stuart

-Original Message-
From: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 12 November 2014 1:31 PM
To: 'Tom Hughes'; Stuart Reynolds; 'SomeoneElse'; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Cc: project
Subject: RE: Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from a bit of 
checking.

taoxue is listed on:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/%C3%96V_Firma_Mentz_Datenverarbeitung_GmbH#Users_that_work_for_us

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Tom Hughes [mailto:t...@compton.nu] 
Sent: 12 November 2014 12:03
To: Andy Robinson; 'Stuart Reynolds'; 'SomeoneElse'; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Cc: 'project'
Subject: Re: Railway edits in the UK that could perhaps benefit from a bit of 
checking.

On 12/11/14 11:40, Andy Robinson wrote:

 According to http://hdyc.neis-one.org .The ÖV Firma Mentz Datenverarbeitung 
 GmbH users that have edited in the UK are:

 tklug
 thomas-oliver-berlin
 mjessen
 Gavaasuren
 haytigran
 rotkelch
 taoxue

I don't see anything to link that last one to mentzdv?

Tom

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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-2 mechanical edit: UK shop names

[Stuart Reynolds]

I have to say that this is all getting rather intense. We are talking about one 
chain of shops! And clearly we aren't going to get an agreement on 
standardisation.

To be honest I've never quite understood the obsession with mapping individual 
shops. Fine if it is done everywhere, but it isn't. Shops come and go, and if I 
was to do this in Southend High Street I'd have to walk up it on a weekly basis 
at present to capture all the changes. Frankly, I've got better things to do 
given many missing crossings, footpaths, cycle ways etc that would really 
enhance the data.

As I read about a million messages ago, the user of the data can find Brantano, 
or Coral, or whatever, in all its various forms by processing the data. I've 
found three different ways of mapping bus lanes so far, which to me is more 
important than one chain of shops. But we live with it, and code it up so that 
we account for it rather than proposing to change everything wholesale to 
identical schemas.

Any chance we can just move on from this?

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Nov 2014, at 07:21, Colin Smale 
colin.sm...@xs4all.nlmailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:


I'm glad you say you agree Lester, but to me, the words common default name 
imply some level of consensus, not the subjective opinion of an individual 
mapper. I see issues here which we should not conflate; on the contrary, we 
should address them in order, as they form a hierarchy.

Firstly, should there be (as I contend) some objective consensus-based 
normalised value for names

Secondly, how does the community work out what that value should be

Thirdly, (how) do we backfit that value into existing data

Fourthly, (how) do we encourage the use consensus value in preference to what 
Joe Mapper might think

As compliance with rule 4 cannot be ensured, we can apply rule 3 
periodically to tidy things up.

There are people who object to rule 1, rule 2 seems to be a war of 
attrition. The arguments about rule 3 are polarised into camps, and rule 
4 is at the whim of tool developers who decide what assistance to offer 
based on their personal preferences and the feelings of the day.

We live in a free society, and OSM is possibly more free than most. But even in 
a free society, there need to be rules and limits to safeguard the good of the 
society as a whole. Let us not act out a certain novel which comes to mind, but 
have a shared idea of what data quality means and find the right balance of 
measures to work together towards that.

C.



On 2014-11-04 23:54, Lester Caine wrote:

On 04/11/14 22:04, Colin Smale wrote:

Hang on a minute... the name tag should contain the most common name, or, as 
the wiki puts it, the common default name.

Totally Agree Colin ...
The name tag should not be subjected to a 'mechanical edit' to change
what has been entered by a local mapper, so please vote against this
proposal on principle.

The 'discussion' on Brantano Footwear is a particular element of that
edit which would change what IS on the local signs, because the second
line is simple is description of the shop, which is what I'm objecting to.

No problem with the other 'documentary' tags, it's just the name tag
which is contentious here.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.orgmailto: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] RFC-2 mechanical edit: UK shop names

[Stuart Reynolds]

 Mapping small shops is probably of limited use, but I do try to remove
 the bias of what I do map and sometimes the only way is to map 
 everything. As a community dominated by male geeks we do tend to 
 add POIs in the order of pubs, take aways, food shops, petrol stations.

 That said pubs are a traditional landmark in the UK and have been used 
 to give directions since long before OSM. In the modern world 
 supermarkets are becoming equally important navigation points. It is 
 certainly important to add these, and they are useful to be able to search 
 when in a strange area. I am unlikely to want to find Brantano, but many
 a time I have needed to find Tesco/Asda when away from home.

Phil, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that people shouldn't many ANY shops, 
and clearly doing so adds a richness to the mapping layer so long as you can 
avoid map clutter. There are definitely categories of navigation milestones 
that people look for, and in addition to pubs  supermarkets that would also 
include Post Offices, petrol stations... I'm sure we can think of others. 
Rather, my point was more that people were getting hung up on (as I see it) 
minutiae when there are other things to address.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC Mechanical edit: shop=betting to shop=bookmaker for selected names

[Stuart Reynolds]

Fine with me. OSM's tagging versatility is at times it's weakness so 
standardising can only be a good thing.

Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

 On 22 Oct 2014, at 23:06, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote:
 
 Dear all,
 
 For all objects tagged with shop=betting and name Betfred, Coral,
 Ladbrokes, Paddy Power or William Hill, I am planning to change the
 tag shop=betting into shop=bookmaker.
 
 Please see 
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Math1985/Betting
 for more information.
 
 Please let me know if you have any comments. If there are no further
 comments, I will invite list members to vote on this automatic edit. I
 will not proceed without at least 8 votes with 2/3 approval.
 
 Kind regards,
 Matthijs
 
 ___
 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] Confused over access...

[Stuart Reynolds]

Hi

Very quickly, if I have a road that is for bus/psv use, and is tagged like this:

Access=no
Bus=yes
Psv=yes

does that mean that buses are, or aren't, allowed to use it? Currently the bus 
lane around Preston Bus Station is coded this way, but my contractor isn't 
treating it as a bus lane, and before I go and  hassle the contractor I thought 
I would check my understanding. I got the impression that access=no took 
everything out.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Confused over access...

[Stuart Reynolds]

Ed,

There isn't a foot=yes tag because that particular road isn't walkable. There 
are two at-grade zebras from the street outside, and a tunnel, that take you up 
into the bus station. Think of it like an airport - the bus road is like the 
airport tarmac and gates, and the bus station is like the terminal building, 
accessing the vehicles from inside.

Thanks to all.

Stuart

From: Ed Loach [mailto:edlo...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 October 2014 5:19 PM
To: Stuart Reynolds; 'Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org'
Subject: RE: [Talk-GB] Confused over access...

The more specific access tags take priority over the more general, so in your 
example access=no precludes all traffic, but bus=yes and psv=yes means buses 
and taxis are allowed.

See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Transport_mode_restrictions

I am surprised there is no foot=yes tag (or perhaps access=no should be 
motor_vehicle=no).

Ed

From: Stuart Reynolds [mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk]
Sent: 14 October 2014 17:02
To: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.orgmailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Confused over access...

Hi

Very quickly, if I have a road that is for bus/psv use, and is tagged like this:

Access=no
Bus=yes
Psv=yes

does that mean that buses are, or aren't, allowed to use it? Currently the bus 
lane around Preston Bus Station is coded this way, but my contractor isn't 
treating it as a bus lane, and before I go and  hassle the contractor I thought 
I would check my understanding. I got the impression that access=no took 
everything out.

Thanks.

Stuart

---
Stuart Reynolds
For traveline south east  anglia

email: stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.ukmailto: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] Stansted - cartography vs routing, and levels

[Stuart Reynolds]

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Deletions and newbie editors

[Stuart Reynolds]

This is digressing somewhat into a discussion about NaPTAN but before I get 
into that point, if I can just pick up on the comment about leaving things in 
because it shows a history of what the data looked like. Sorry, but OSM IS a 
dynamic data set and doesn't AFAIK have the facility to keep a history in that 
sense. Personally I would not want to see a road alignment that no longer 
existed- it would be clutter.

On NaPTAN, deleted stops are those that have been removed and should 
correspondingly be removed from OSM. However there is evidence that some 
authorities delete stops simply because no service calls there-but that is 
wrong. Suspended stops on the other hand should rightly remain in the data.

CUS stop types are the custom and practice ones that have no physical 
infrastructure. In the case where a stop says stops both sides then there 
should be one MKD (marked) stop and one C US in NaPTAN. Unfortunately it 
doesn't always happen like that.

If you find examples you consider to be erroneous then please DM me and I will 
try and pass it on to three people concerned and/or SeT who look after the 
standard. Just don't inundate me, ok :-)

Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Oct 2014, at 12:33, Ian Caldwell 
ian1caldwell+...@googlemail.commailto:ian1caldwell+...@googlemail.com wrote:


On 5 October 2014 12:11, David Woolley 
for...@david-woolley.me.ukmailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote:
Could I ask please the logic behind retaining references to a stop that
does not exist?

In rural area there are places that buses stop but no physical stop. And in 
Malvern there are examples of where this only a physical stop on one side of 
the road (it says both directions) but NaPTAN has two stops.



Ian
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.orgmailto: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] Deletions and newbie editors

[Stuart Reynolds]

That should have been DfT in my last sentence. Curse autocorrect!

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Oct 2014, at 18:00, Stuart Reynolds 
stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.ukmailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk 
wrote:

This is digressing somewhat into a discussion about NaPTAN but before I get 
into that point, if I can just pick up on the comment about leaving things in 
because it shows a history of what the data looked like. Sorry, but OSM IS a 
dynamic data set and doesn't AFAIK have the facility to keep a history in that 
sense. Personally I would not want to see a road alignment that no longer 
existed- it would be clutter.

On NaPTAN, deleted stops are those that have been removed and should 
correspondingly be removed from OSM. However there is evidence that some 
authorities delete stops simply because no service calls there-but that is 
wrong. Suspended stops on the other hand should rightly remain in the data.

CUS stop types are the custom and practice ones that have no physical 
infrastructure. In the case where a stop says stops both sides then there 
should be one MKD (marked) stop and one C US in NaPTAN. Unfortunately it 
doesn't always happen like that.

If you find examples you consider to be erroneous then please DM me and I will 
try and pass it on to three people concerned and/or SeT who look after the 
standard. Just don't inundate me, ok :-)

Stuart

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Oct 2014, at 12:33, Ian Caldwell 
ian1caldwell+...@googlemail.commailto:ian1caldwell+...@googlemail.com wrote:


On 5 October 2014 12:11, David Woolley 
for...@david-woolley.me.ukmailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote:
Could I ask please the logic behind retaining references to a stop that
does not exist?

In rural area there are places that buses stop but no physical stop. And in 
Malvern there are examples of where this only a physical stop on one side of 
the road (it says both directions) but NaPTAN has two stops.



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