Re: [Talk-GB] Street name disagreement - whose right or wrong?

[Tim Francois]

As others have said, I use whatever is actually on the roadsign above
anything else, even if a variety of other resources disagree. Reason? I use
the maps for a sat nav, and actual real-world road names are far more
useful...

On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 2:19 PM, David Earl wrote:

> On Sunday, 26 December 2010, Richard  wrote:
> > My personal opinion is that "Signed on the ground" should always take
> precedence.
>
> +1
>
> But you can always use alt_ name where there is another variant (or
> even completely different name).
>
> David
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Potlatch 2 'sticking' in Bristol

[Tim Francois]

Richard,

I case you haven't received one privately yet:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2&lat=51.46925&lon=-2.60749&zoom=17

I've
just tested this on Ubuntu 10.04, Chromium 8.0.552.224 and whatever the
latest Flash is from the adobe flash player.

Tim

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> Dave F. wrote:
>
>  It appears that it could be the volume of entities as when I pan in to
>> the centre from more rural areas it's fine until it reach densely
>> tagged areas. If I pan quick enough it's fine until the screen has
>> displayed the vast majority of ways.
>>
>
> Could one of you post a permalink to test, please (i.e. including
> lat/long/zoom level)?
>
> I can't promise to be able to fix it straightaway (Christmas slightly
> getting in the way!) but I'll have a look.
>
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Potlatch 2 'sticking' in Bristol

[Tim Francois]

I've just had a go (I tend to use JOSM, but am in Bristol), and it sticks
for me too.

Vista with Firefox 3.6.13

Tim

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Laurence Penney  wrote:

> I've had exactly the same problem in Bristol recently. Latest Safari on
> latest Mac OS.
>
> - L
>
> On 23 Dec 2010, at 13:42, Dave F. wrote:
>
> > Err.. OK this is a weird one & I want to check if it's just me.
> >
> > When editing using P2 in & around Bristol my initial click with the left
> button to pan sticks so that with no buttons pressed, when I move the mouse,
> the screen is still stuck in pan mode.
> >
> > The strange thing is that it only occurs within the Bristol area. Bath,
> Portishead, Newport all work fine.
> > Could someone with a spare minute or two test this out please?
> >
> > Anybody get a similar situation in other parts of the country?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Dave F.
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Visualising speed limits

[Tim Francois]

Thomas,

Check out these links on the OSM maxspeed wiki page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maxspeed#Services

This should help, I
think...

Tim

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:22 PM, thomas van der veen <
th.vanderv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I recently started mapping in South Hampshire and enjoying it, great fun. I
> started adding some maxspeed tags to some roads as sometime the type
> (primary, secondary, tertiary) doesn't always match the actual speed limit
> of the road in question I noticed. Or sometime the speed limit changes for
> certain stretches of road. To make this a bit easier I thought that having a
> map (no pun intended ;) where I can see based on the colour of the road what
> speed limit has been set in the database (either implicit or explicit) .
> That way I can could easily tell where it is incorrect and fix it.
>
> Has someone actually done something like this already? Or does someone
> would like to join me and making a custom version of a map renderer that can
> do this? should be relative simple, just looking for a couple of tags and
> assign a colour accordingly. I have started looking at the Perl SVG
> converter (couldn't get any of the XSLT converter produce proper SVG), but
> it is a big beast.
>
> Thomas
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Spam] oslVosm, OpenData Locator 2010 data and not:name

[Tim Francois]

It would indeed be a shame if we/they just ignored the not:name data - I
grep'd the current Great Britain OSM dataset and there's 1054 instances of
k="not:name", which is not insignificant. (If anyone wants to see the
results download it in zipped txt format http://tm.com/osm/
not_name.zip - I got grep to also provide the line immediately before and
after the k="not:name" instance for some context.)

Tim

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Peter Miller wrote:

> great news.
>
> Regarding the not:name tag at the OS, I think we need to be a bit patient.
> The OS is a large organisation and do take time to change. They are actually
> changing fast at present and have expressed enthusiasm for the not:name
> technique and I think it is just a matter of us using it for some time while
> it gets into their systems. We are going to do some more analysis on it at
> some point and will be working with the OS of the processes. It would be
> shame if we gave up using it before they got into listening! In the mean
> time it is a useful way of stopping people checking a conflict that someone
> else has already determined is a error on their part.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> On 3 October 2010 17:47, Tim Francois  wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>>
>>1. If there are any heroes left using 
>> oslVosm<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OslVosm> [1]
>>to compare OSM data with OS Locator data, I've just updated the script a
>>little so that it now honours the not:name tags. Any highways which 
>> include
>>a not:name tag are automatically assumed to be 100% correct in OSM, 
>> whatever
>>OSL says, and are ignored in any further comparisons. This assumption may
>>have to be reviewed at a later date...
>>2. Anyone else using/noticed that the Locator data has been stealthily
>>'updated'? I remember Robert writing something about it a while back, but
>>can't remember the conversation. In Bristol, a load of roads seem to have
>>disappeared, whilst some more have been added. All in all, there were 
>> about
>>10 more roads than in the '2009' release. Anyone else notice differences?
>>3. not:name. Are many people using it? Is it working? And are these
>>being sent back to OS? The reason I added it to oslVosm is that it seems 
>> to
>>be being used here in Bristol, so it is useful for 'accurate' numbers.
>>
>> For those that may not be aware, oslVosm is a script which compares OSM
>> data against OS Locator data, and can output a gpx, kml or wiki file of any
>> discrepancies. It also tries to do some spell checking if it finds similar
>> names. It is primarily aimed at people with a programming tilt, as it only
>> works from the command line (and probably only in Linux). For those who want
>> an easy to use interface, use Robert's excellent Musical Chairs [2] web
>> interface or ITOs slippy map layer in Potlatch or JOSM [3].
>>
>> Cheers
>> Tim
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OslVosm
>> [2] http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map and
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#Browseable_OS_Locator_to_OSM_comparison_with_fuzzy_matching
>> [3]
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#OSM_and_OSL_Differences_as_Background_Tiles
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] oslVosm, OpenData Locator 2010 data and not:name

[Tim Francois]

All,


   1. If there are any heroes left using
oslVosm [1]
   to compare OSM data with OS Locator data, I've just updated the script a
   little so that it now honours the not:name tags. Any highways which include
   a not:name tag are automatically assumed to be 100% correct in OSM, whatever
   OSL says, and are ignored in any further comparisons. This assumption may
   have to be reviewed at a later date...
   2. Anyone else using/noticed that the Locator data has been stealthily
   'updated'? I remember Robert writing something about it a while back, but
   can't remember the conversation. In Bristol, a load of roads seem to have
   disappeared, whilst some more have been added. All in all, there were about
   10 more roads than in the '2009' release. Anyone else notice differences?
   3. not:name. Are many people using it? Is it working? And are these being
   sent back to OS? The reason I added it to oslVosm is that it seems to be
   being used here in Bristol, so it is useful for 'accurate' numbers.

For those that may not be aware, oslVosm is a script which compares OSM data
against OS Locator data, and can output a gpx, kml or wiki file of any
discrepancies. It also tries to do some spell checking if it finds similar
names. It is primarily aimed at people with a programming tilt, as it only
works from the command line (and probably only in Linux). For those who want
an easy to use interface, use Robert's excellent Musical Chairs [2] web
interface or ITOs slippy map layer in Potlatch or JOSM [3].

Cheers
Tim

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OslVosm
[2] http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#Browseable_OS_Locator_to_OSM_comparison_with_fuzzy_matching
[3]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files#OSM_and_OSL_Differences_as_Background_Tiles
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS 10k file name problem

[Tim Francois]

I'm not sure I understand - most code languages allow some form of
case-insensitive working, don't they?

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Lester Caine  wrote:

> Since it would seem that OS are not going to fix the file name problem with
> the 10k image files, has anybody made a start on correcting this problem.
>
> For those who did not know there was a problem, it's to do with the fact
> that the core data is listed and identified using upper case file names, but
> around have of the blocks have been incorrectly named using lower case
> versions ... result ... missing areas on a linux/unix server system :(
>
> I supose an alternative might be to rewrite the mapserver code, but since
> the geo-reference file IS upper case one has to handle both at the same
> time. The idea is to provide the 10k data as alternative layer to the osm
> data at some point, and switching to a windows server seems somewhat
> archaic?
>
> --
> 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//
> Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Volo TV in FGW trains with OpenStreetMap data

[Tim Francois]

List,

I remember reading an email on this list about the Volo:TV service on First
Great Western high speed trains using OpenStreetMaps as their base layer for
a moving map display. Well, yesterday I had the chance to actually use one
of these trains, and luckily managed to get a seat with one of these TVs.

Contrary to reports at [1] and [2], the moving map display is not free to
use (or: is no longer free to use) - the Volo:TV service costs £1.50 per
hour or £3.50 for an unlimited day's use. However, there is a "Try Me"
option which gives you full access to the service for 5 minutes.

Using the Try Me service, I selected the "Moving Map" and the display
changed to that as shown in [2], with the huge Zoom and Back buttons. Just
below the Speed/Altitude bar, another bar is initially visible which says:

"Map data copyright 2009 CloudMade. CCBYSA 2009 OpenStreetMap.org
contributors"

After a few seconds, this message fades away. The actual map render looks
very clean, obviously with railway lines prominently displayed. It does seem
like GPS device is used to update the display (a big blue dot shows your
current position) as the dot fails to move when in tunnels. The position
refresh rate is about 5 seconds.

There are two zoom positions. The default is akin to zoom level 9 on
www.openstreetmap.org. The second is akin to zoom level 12. All-in-all, it
looks quite good.

My two main gripes:
1) The Zoom and Back buttons are far to big for the screen, and cover up a
large portion of the map.
2) There is not enough zoom control - I'd like to be able to zoom in
further, and have more control over the steps.

...but those are probably best relayed to those at Volo.

Anyone else used the service? (If on the off chance that Volo are reading
this list, I was on the 2130 train from Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads,
in coach B). I didn't see anyone watch any paid content (I had a view of
approximately 12 seats with screens, one of which froze (mine!) and one of
which was blank). The service also stopped as we left Bath Spa, which would
have been most annoying if I'd actually paid as I would have expected the
service to continue until the terminus at Bristol. But, although the Try Me
option is only for 5 minutes, this resets after every stop (obviously, as
new passengers wouldn't be able to try the service if someone before them
already has) - so if you have a stop every 5 minutes, they you're sorted!!

Anyway, this isn't really much of an OSM type email - just thought some
might be interested!

Tim

[1] http://opengeodata.org/openstreetmap-data-is-on-your-train
[2] http://www.flickr.com/photos/claypole/4541755224/
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Reporting Errors to OS - Feedback

[Tim Francois]

In that case, it sounds to me like a maintenance nightmare, especially if
everyone adds all the errors they find in the OS data to the Catalog.

I will certainly think before adding too many more errors to the Catalog,
because there is every chance that in six months time (or whenever the next
release cycle is for the particular product) the editor that added the data
might be gone. It's tricky, because we obviously don't want to bombard OS
with multiple emails with the same error (two or three won't hurt, and may
actually be beneficial) - however, 'bombard' might be too strong-a word,
depending on how many people actually pass on errors to OS...

Tough call...

Tim

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Ed Avis  wrote:

> Tim Francois  writes:
>
> >Just thought I'd share some feedback of my experience of reporting errors
> in
> >the OS OpenData products back to OS.
>
> >Additionally, I also added the errors to the OSM Catalog of Errors
> >(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Catalog_of_Errors). However, now I'm
> not
> >sure if that's the right thing to do anymore - once it gets fixed in OS,
> >shouldn't we be taking down the error from the Catalog?
>
> When there's a new release of the affected product(s) and we start using
> it, yes.
>
> --
> Ed Avis 
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Reporting Errors to OS - Feedback

[Tim Francois]

List,

Just thought I'd share some feedback of my experience of reporting errors in
the OS OpenData products back to OS.

If I stumble across an error, I report it through customerservi...@ord­
nancesurvey.co.uk. So far I've done this twice, both times with a couple of
errors in each email.

The first time I got a reply from the OS saying that they would be looking
into the matter. Since then, I've heard nothing. The second time, however,
was a bit more 'successful' - I just received the following email:


"Thank you for your email.

We have amended our OS Locator and OS StreetView data as requested and the
amendments will be available in the next release.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to bring this issue to our
attention. We appreciate all feedback from our customers, especially that
which enables us to improve the accuracy of our mapping."


I sent the second email on 28th July, and got the above reply today (after
an initial "Thanks, we'll look into it" kind of email) - about 2 weeks. It
seems like they do appreciate these types of emails, though this could of
course just be PR...

Anyway, just thought I'd share, and encourage anyone who's using OS OpenData
products (esp. StreetView and OS Locator) to report any errors to OS when
you find them. Errors in the data have been mentioned many times in this
list, so I hope these are all being passed on to OS..!!

Additionally, I also added the errors to the OSM Catalog of Errors (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Catalog_of_Errors). However, now I'm not
sure if that's the right thing to do anymore - once it gets fixed in OS,
shouldn't we be taking down the error from the Catalog?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Yet more musical chairs updates.

[Tim Francois]

Welcome to the list, and a special welcome from me as I notice you're doing
quite a lot of work in Bristol - I recently wrote about the number of
'missing' roads in Bristol in OSM - have a look through the archives, and
then see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Tm#Bristol_-_Missing_Roads. PM
or email me if you have any questions about this or OSM in general

For more information about all of the clever stuff behind the musical chairs
script, go to: http://humanleg.org.uk/code/oslmusicalchairs/

Tim

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:25 PM, a_snail  wrote:

> Hi everyone, I'm new to all this, only joining the group yesterday, so I
> think I'm positing to the discussion correctly.  If not, let me know.
>
> That aside, is the aim to investigate all red boxes and typically add the
> road?
>
> Also, with regards to the green boxes that show near matches, any chance
> you
> could say why it's a near match i.e. is it the spelling of the road name,
> classification, or possibly the location of the road.
>
> A_Snail
>
> -Original Message-
> From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Robert Scott
> Sent: 04 August 2010 16:17
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Yet more musical chairs updates.
>
> On Wednesday 04 August 2010, Tim Francois wrote:
> > My question still stands about the fact that there are LOADS of roads
> with
> > the same name in OSL and OSM but are being flagged by a bright green
> > rectangle. Why is this?
>
> In many cultures, green is considered a sign of "good", "OK", or
> "everything's fine". You can see this usage for instance in our traffic
> lights. Hence a green OSL entry -> one that's fine.
>
> Facetiousness aside, I am going to add a non-authoritative mode which shows
> bad matches first, but I still think it's important to show _all_ OSL
> entries in authoritative mode. I have tried to tone down the "near perfect"
> matches to be less "bright green" but they can still appear quite bright
> when there are many overlapping.
>
> > Also, how often is this data updated these days?
>
> Nightly with the odd extra update in the daytime if I want to try something
> out.
>
>
> robert.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Yet more musical chairs updates.

[Tim Francois]

Out of curiosity, why is it "important to show _all_ OSL entries"? Is there
a way to not show the ones where OSL==OSM?

The reason I was confused was that it was showing as a bright green
rectangle (which I correctly assumed meant that OSL matched OSM, as you've
just confirmed), but when clicking on the rectangle it says "Near perfect
match", even though the road names are identical (save for CAPS). Are we
going for the 'nothing is perfect' approach here?! :)

Anyways, good stuff - just integrate into JOSM or Potlatch and we're
done I kid, I kid!!

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Robert Scott  wrote:

> On Wednesday 04 August 2010, Tim Francois wrote:
> > My question still stands about the fact that there are LOADS of roads
> with
> > the same name in OSL and OSM but are being flagged by a bright green
> > rectangle. Why is this?
>
> In many cultures, green is considered a sign of "good", "OK", or
> "everything's fine". You can see this usage for instance in our traffic
> lights. Hence a green OSL entry -> one that's fine.
>
> Facetiousness aside, I am going to add a non-authoritative mode which shows
> bad matches first, but I still think it's important to show _all_ OSL
> entries in authoritative mode. I have tried to tone down the "near perfect"
> matches to be less "bright green" but they can still appear quite bright
> when there are many overlapping.
>
> > Also, how often is this data updated these days?
>
> Nightly with the odd extra update in the daytime if I want to try something
> out.
>
>
> robert.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Yet more musical chairs updates.

[Tim Francois]

Ah, perhaps I should have been more specific - I managed to deduce that bit
on my own, so hopefully no-one thinks I'm that dumb!! :)

I was more wondering about the circles vs rectangles thing, but after
looking closer I think these circles were just artifacts of the lower zoom
levels which hadn't yet had time to disappear.

My question still stands about the fact that there are LOADS of roads with
the same name in OSL and OSM but are being flagged by a bright green
rectangle. Why is this? Or is this part of the bug indicated in previous
email?

Thanks
Tim

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Ed Loach  wrote:

>  The What? dropdown in the top right suggests the rectangles are coloured
> according to how close the match is, which you can see by clicking top right
> triangle in corner of rectangle (at least that works in Opera). Light green
> seems to be near perfect match, red is no match, then there are shades of
> closeness of match in between.
>
>
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> *From:* talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:
> talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] *On Behalf Of *Tim Francois
> *Sent:* 04 August 2010 15:25
> *To:* li...@humanleg.org.uk
> *Cc:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Yet more musical chairs updates.
>
>
>
> Robert,
>
>
>
> Am I missing something here? Go to:
> http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?zoom=16&lat=51.46829&lon=-2.60556&layers=B0TF
>
>
>
> A lot of these have the same name in OSL and OSM, yet are flagged with a
> green circle. What does this mean? (Actually, I've just gone back to it and
> the small circles are turning into rectangles) Is there a page with a legend
> that I can refer to?
>
>
>
> Also, how often is this data updated these days?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Robert Scott 
> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 04 August 2010, Dave F. wrote:
> > What's the different between the circles & rectangles? Is it just to do
> > with the zoom factor?
>
> When there are more than n (currently 1024) results in an area, it shows
> only the first n results. You can choose which n these are (random sample,
> most recently updated...). This is a non-authoritative view.
>
> Once the view is zoomed in far enough to show all results in an area, it
> shows an authoritative view.
>
> Non authoritative views are shown with circles, authoritative views show
> the actual OS Locator bounding boxes. This is partly to do with making a
> clear and obvious distinction between views where you're seeing everything
> and views where there are some thing you're not seeing . It's also to do
> with the way the two different types of geometry behave at different scales.
> If I showed the boxes at low zoomlevels, they would just end up being tiny
> subpixel dots.
>
> > Would it be possible to turn these circles off at lower zoom levels?
> > Personally I like to double click on the map to zoom in at these levels
> > as it centres the city I'm interested in & so I can  then use the bar to
> > zoom accurately to the specific area I'm interested in.
>
> Yeah that annoys me too.
>
> I tend to do the shift-drag-box more though.
>
> Previously you weren't able to select non-authoritative points at all, but
> last night I changed it so that you can make selections that appear to be
> persistent across the authoritative-non-authoritative boundary, as I found
> it stupid that you couldn't see details of a match without first zooming
> right the way in and possibly losing track of which result you were
> interested in.
>
> It would be nice if I could maybe hijack the doubleclick event and pass it
> to the map. I'll have to think about this.
>
> > Are there any differences between what you've done & ITO?
>
> My algorithm does fuzzy matching to find streets with smallish errors and
> AFAIK theirs doesn't.
>
> I keep a history of match state change events, which will probably be
> useful for some fun features in the future.
>
> Theirs supports not:name=, I haven't got round to that yet (I'm slightly
> more interested in being able to tag the actual OSL entry as being
> incorrect).
>
> They've got tiles which are very good for use in-editor. Mine, you've still
> got to pan around in a separate window.
>
>
> robert.
>
> (the first thing I've got to do though is fix a really stupid replication
> bug of mine)
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Yet more musical chairs updates.

[Tim Francois]

Robert,

Am I missing something here? Go to:
http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?zoom=16&lat=51.46829&lon=-2.60556&layers=B0TF

A lot of these have the same name in OSL and OSM, yet are flagged with a
green circle. What does this mean? (Actually, I've just gone back to it and
the small circles are turning into rectangles) Is there a page with a legend
that I can refer to?

Also, how often is this data updated these days?

Thanks
Tim

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Robert Scott  wrote:

> On Wednesday 04 August 2010, Dave F. wrote:
> > What's the different between the circles & rectangles? Is it just to do
> > with the zoom factor?
>
> When there are more than n (currently 1024) results in an area, it shows
> only the first n results. You can choose which n these are (random sample,
> most recently updated...). This is a non-authoritative view.
>
> Once the view is zoomed in far enough to show all results in an area, it
> shows an authoritative view.
>
> Non authoritative views are shown with circles, authoritative views show
> the actual OS Locator bounding boxes. This is partly to do with making a
> clear and obvious distinction between views where you're seeing everything
> and views where there are some thing you're not seeing . It's also to do
> with the way the two different types of geometry behave at different scales.
> If I showed the boxes at low zoomlevels, they would just end up being tiny
> subpixel dots.
>
> > Would it be possible to turn these circles off at lower zoom levels?
> > Personally I like to double click on the map to zoom in at these levels
> > as it centres the city I'm interested in & so I can  then use the bar to
> > zoom accurately to the specific area I'm interested in.
>
> Yeah that annoys me too.
>
> I tend to do the shift-drag-box more though.
>
> Previously you weren't able to select non-authoritative points at all, but
> last night I changed it so that you can make selections that appear to be
> persistent across the authoritative-non-authoritative boundary, as I found
> it stupid that you couldn't see details of a match without first zooming
> right the way in and possibly losing track of which result you were
> interested in.
>
> It would be nice if I could maybe hijack the doubleclick event and pass it
> to the map. I'll have to think about this.
>
> > Are there any differences between what you've done & ITO?
>
> My algorithm does fuzzy matching to find streets with smallish errors and
> AFAIK theirs doesn't.
>
> I keep a history of match state change events, which will probably be
> useful for some fun features in the future.
>
> Theirs supports not:name=, I haven't got round to that yet (I'm slightly
> more interested in being able to tag the actual OSL entry as being
> incorrect).
>
> They've got tiles which are very good for use in-editor. Mine, you've still
> got to pan around in a separate window.
>
>
> robert.
>
> (the first thing I've got to do though is fix a really stupid replication
> bug of mine)
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bristol - a quick (and surprising?) statistic...

[Tim Francois]

If you do find mistakes in the OSL data (and any other OS OpenData
products), please do let OS know - email
customerservi...@ordnancesurvey.co.uk. In addition, add the entry to the
Catalog of Errors: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Catalog_of_Errors.

As for your point: "Tim's analysis is very useful in pointing out areas for
attention, but the reality is not as bad as the figures suggest."

As others have pointed out, that's the reality in your area of 46 roads -
there are 9282 roads covered by my Bristol analysis: the reality in any area
will differ greatly - just see the ITO table for some surprises!!. I have
found, though, that many, many roads here are named just as they are on the
street signs: so shortenings such as rd, pl, ave etc seem to be common
place. This is logged as an 'unfound' road by the script as it obviously
doesn't match the OSL data. So far, I've re-surveyed around 50 roads or so,
and found all but 2 to be errors in OSM - I've logged the errors in the
Catalog if anyone's interested.

Thanks
Tim

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Richard Moss wrote:

>
>
>
>  On 23 July 2010, Tim François wrote:
> ...
> More info here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Tm#Bristol_-_Missing_Roads
> Perhaps the figure won't be surprising to many, but I thought it was pretty
> large! Is this representative of other similar sized cities/towns? (I know
> OSL isn't 'perfect', but its better than nothing)
>
> ...
>
> I was shocked - here in Cambridgeshire, we thought we were getting close to
> 100% , particularly in the City and South Cambs, so I've had a look at my
> own village to try and understand what's going on.
>
> On the Royal Mail list of postcodes for the village, there are 46 streets,
> and in OSL, 10 of them are wrong - i.e. 78% correct, which is a bit worse
> than the 82.98% figure for South Cambridgeshire given at
> http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/
>
> This is a list of the 10 that are wrong:
>
> Name in OSL Name on OSM Comment
>
> Chapman's Way   Chapmans Way2 road name signs, both say
> Chapmans: OSM correct
> Hill Road   Mill Road   Mill Road is
> correct
> Unwin's LaneUnwins Lane 2 road name signs say
> Unwins and 1 says Unwin's
> High Street High Street (Over)  Useful distinction from
> nearby High Streets in
>Swavesey and
> Willingham, especially when these names
>appear in the like
> of www.cyclestreets.net . I'm not
>going to change what
> has been put on OSM
> Station RoadStation Road (Over) ditto
> The Old Wood Yard   The Old Timber Yard Whoops - my mistake.
> Careless adding of a new development.
>Sign says The Old
> Woodyard (all one word) so both wrong!
>I will correct
> Whines Lane Whine's LaneThere are 2 road name
> signs. One of each
> The Doles   The Doles (East)) OSM reflects
> signs on the ground. OSL agrees with the
> The Doles   The Doles (West)) Royal Mail street
> list.
> Randalls Lane   Randall's Lane  Street sign says Randall's, as OSM
>
> (apologies if the formatting comes out wrong)
>
> In reality, there's only one error in OSM, and 45/46 is 97.8%. I don't want
> to get into a debate about apostrophes!
>
> You could then note that there are various farm tracks outside the village
> which have names in OSL, missing on OSM and not in the Royal Mail postcode
> list: Long Lane, Ouse Fen Road or Bank, Long Holme Drove, Long Drove. There
> is no evidence for these names on the ground. Some have been added to OSM
> from local knowledge: Chain Road, Gravel Bridge Road. Then we are perhaps at
> 47/52 = 90.4%
>
> So I am heartened.  Tim's analysis is very useful in pointing out areas for
> attention, but the reality is not as bad as the figures suggest.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Contacting OS about errors in their data

[Tim Francois]

By way of update, the response I received from OS is as follows (and I
presume this is what most people will receive):


Thank you for your bringing these matters to our attention.  

Your feedback has been passed to our technical team, who will make any
necessary amendments to our mapping in line with Ordnance Survey’s
published specification and revision timescales.

Thank you for taking the time to report these anomalies to us.


So it sounds like that'll probably be the last I'll hear of it until it
has been verified in future data releases. This means that the time
between adding the anomaly to the wiki and marking it fixed will
potentially be very long, but I guess it'll have to do for now!

Tim

On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 17:33 +0100, Peter Miller wrote: 
> On 9 Jun 2010, at 16:57, Craig Loftus wrote:
> 
> > Perhaps OS would be good enough to edit the appropriate way to remove
> > the not:name tag? It would seem like the 'least they could do' in
> > return for having the error pointed out to them.
> 
> That would be great, however it may be beyond them for a while!  What  
> was can do it modify the ITO test to highlight redundant 'not:name'  
> tags  which relate to OS Locator (ie not:names for OS Locator that are  
> not in the current OS Locator dataset). That might need a little more  
> structure in the OSM data to indicate which dataset the error was in  
> (OS Locator/Google/Streetview etc) but would require zero additional  
> activity from the OS which would be a bonus.
> >
> > One of the few benefits I hope to see from the Tories "Big Society"
> > cuts will be some kind of closer relationship being developed between
> > OSM and OS. Does anyone know if such discussions are already taking
> > place?
> 
> I am not aware of such discussions, however Tom Steinberg from My  
> Society will probably get the possibilities and is advising the  
> government. The rumours are however that budgets at the OS have been  
> significantly cut so they may not know what they are doing for a bit.
> 
> >
> > As another thought; I believe it has been mentioned before that the OS
> > thinks that OSM could fill a valuable role in keeping footpaths
> > up-to-date (as the OS don't)... previous discussions on the list
> > seemed to reveal some uncertainty surrounding footpaths. Perhaps if
> > the OS did the leg work to open up all the footpaths we could just
> > take it off their hands entirely? With them becoming the downstream.
> 
> That would be great and I think we could get there in time. First  
> steps first though, we have expressed our interest in supporting the  
> OS with feedback so lets get them to listen to the not:names content  
> and other feedback from OS Locator for starters.
> 
> I will draw their attention to this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > On 9 June 2010 16:38, Andrew Ainsworth   
> > wrote:
> >> It's good to hear that those errors will be routed over to OS, one  
> >> question
> >> though. How will we know if they are/have acted upon it other than  
> >> when
> >> OSSV/OSL gets updated as part of the usual update cycle?
> >>
> >> On 9 June 2010 15:00, Peter Miller  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 9 Jun 2010, at 14:28, Tim Francois wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks for all the responses guys. Here's what I did.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) email OS [1] with details of the errors.
> >>>> 2.a) Add the errors to wiki [2].
> >>>> 2.b) Included note in the description explaining that an email has
> >>>> been
> >>>> sent to OS.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll update the note as and when I get information back from OS.
> >>>
> >>> Do be aware that the not:name field will also be routed back to  
> >>> the OS
> >>> from the OSM database.
> >>>
> >>> We are in the process of setting up a reporting mechanism for the OS
> >>> (and other providers) using that tag.
> >>>
> >>> Fyi, there are 77 ways with not:name tags in the UK dataset as of a
> >>> couple of days ago.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Peter
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> Tim
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] customerservi...@ordnancesurvey.co.uk
> >>>> [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ca

Re: [Talk-GB] Contacting OS about errors in their data

[Tim Francois]

Thanks for all the responses guys. Here's what I did.

1) email OS [1] with details of the errors.
2.a) Add the errors to wiki [2].
2.b) Included note in the description explaining that an email has been
sent to OS.

I'll update the note as and when I get information back from OS.

Thanks
Tim

[1] customerservi...@ordnancesurvey.co.uk
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Catalog_of_Errors

On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 00:18 +0100, Gregory wrote:
> How about adding a column(or encouraging a note in the description) to
> say the date the source was connected and the date the error was known
> to be fixed?
> 
> On 8 June 2010 22:16, Nick Austin  wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Frederik Ramm
>  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Andrew Ainsworth wrote:
> >> When I reported some errors recently I contacted
> >> customerservi...@ordnancesurvey.co.uk
> >> . They passed
> it onto
> >> someone and then I received a reply saying they would
> resurvey and
> >> correct it.
> >
> > May I suggest that you create a wiki page and collect these
> things
> > there. This can later be used as a good argument for others
> to release
> > data: "Look, these guys gave us their data and we helped
> them improve it
> 
> 
> I listed the error I found here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Catalog_of_Errors
> 
> Nick. 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Gregory
> o...@livingwithdragons.com
> http://www.livingwithdragons.com 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



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

[Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Tim Francois]

In answer to myself, the reason they are missed out in the ITO layer is
obvious: within the OSL bounding boxes the ITO script finds ways named
Cleeve Green, Cameley Green etc in OSM, but these ways are actually
named footpaths - the unnamed roads next door are ignored.

oslVosm finds these discrepancies because it doesn't use the OSL
bounding box, only the OSL road centroid.

I'll be using both to mop up the area!

Tim


I've just been having a go with the ITO layer and the results from the 
oslVosm script, and there are some discrepancies between the two:
namely, the ITO tiles seem to be missing some missing-roads (to coin a
phrase!) which the oslVosm script IS picking up.

One example is a road called Shaws Way in OS Locator, but Shaw Way in
OSM. The ITO tiles which I have setup as a backdrop in JOSM do not flag
this up.

Other examples include Cleeve Green, Cameley Green and Pennard Green
(all OSL names). These names coincide with unnamed ways in OSM, but
again ITO does not flag these.

(All these road names are in Bath).

Is there a reason for these missing missing-roads?

Tim



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

[Talk-GB] Map layer with OS Locator comparison from ITO

[Tim Francois]

I've just been having a go with the ITO layer and the results from the
oslVosm script, and there are some discrepancies between the two:
namely, the ITO tiles seem to be missing some missing-roads (to coin a
phrase!) which the oslVosm script IS picking up.

One example is a road called Shaws Way in OS Locator, but Shaw Way in
OSM. The ITO tiles which I have setup as a backdrop in JOSM do not flag
this up.

Other examples include Cleeve Green, Cameley Green and Pennard Green
(all OSL names). These names coincide with unnamed ways in OSM, but
again ITO does not flag these.

(All these road names are in Bath).

Is there a reason for these missing missing-roads?

Tim


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

[Talk-GB] Using OS Shapefiles

[Tim Francois]

Chris

Any chance of providing some command snippets for using gdal's ogr2ogr
for us plebs who've never used it? I do not understand the man page
whatsoever!!

Thanks
Tim


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping progress in Surrey Heath

[Tim Francois]

Just adding my support for wiki instructions - after messing around with the
OS Locator data I thought I'd have a go at the vector stuff, but couldn't
really get to grips with it. So yeah, some instructions would be very
useful!
 
As someone else has said, I've just been tidying up the area of my previous
residence, adding some green areas and leisure facilities, and re-aligning
some paths which I'd added from gps traces. No doubt the aerial imagery is a
very useful!
 
Tim

  _  

From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Jason Cunningham
Sent: 10 May 2010 16:47
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping progress in Surrey Heath




You might also consider using the shape files from OS VectorMap for the
water ways. This provides a ready-made, quite detailed outline of
waterways. I have supplied a few people with help doing this, so think I
should write up the process in the wiki.

Cheers, Chris



I was also going to suggest using the ready-made vector data for
lake/rivers/streams. I've worked out a way of converting, but a guide on the
wiki would be very useful.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView

[Tim Francois]

Craig, Russ - thanks for that link. I was convinced that I'd seen that
somewhere before when wiki surfing months back but couldn't for the life of
me remember where. Looks like I'll be reverting my edits back to 'Saint',
and updating my OS Locator script - I'm happy to stick with the rules!

Cheers
Tim 

-Original Message-
From: craiglof...@gmail.com [mailto:craiglof...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Craig Loftus
Sent: 05 May 2010 14:43
To: Tim Francois
Cc: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView

> Follow the street sign. This usually means "Street", but not "Saint".
>
> I think St-as-in-Saint has become a distinct word (pronounced "Sunt"

I'm not convinced; about the street sign being the final arbiter or about
'St' being a word. I will accept it is colloquially pronounced Sunt by
people with certain accents, but that doesn't make it a different word.

According to 'convention' (see URL) abbreviation should be left to the
interface. I impy this to mean that the surveyor should do the work to
determine whether it is Street or Saint that is meant. We can apply the
convention in reverse by seeing the maps and street signs that the names are
taken from as 'interfaces' - which can include abbreviations and mistakes.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Street_
Names

Craig

On 5 May 2010 12:26, Tim Francois  wrote:
> Just to be clear, we were originally talking about St-as-in-Saint!
>
> Tim
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: 05 May 2010 12:17
> To: Tim Francois
> Cc: Craig Loftus; talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView
>
> Follow the street sign. This usually means "Street", but not "Saint".
>
> I think St-as-in-Saint has become a distinct word (pronounced "Sunt"
> not "Saint", and with no full stop after the t) and looks peculiar 
> when expanded, whereas St-as-in-Street is only an abbreviation.
>
> Richard
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Tim Francois 
wrote:
>> Oh, really? I've just changed a few from "Saint" to "St." based on 
>> road signs. Personally, I'm not bothered either way (though it does 
>> mean that my neat OS Locator comparison table will never reduce to
>> zero!!) as most people know the difference, but is there a general
> consensus on this?
>>
>> Also, apologies for suggesting you walked anywhere...!! ;)
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: craiglof...@gmail.com [mailto:craiglof...@gmail.com] On Behalf 
>> Of Craig Loftus
>> Sent: 05 May 2010 11:56
>> To: Tim Francois
>> Cc: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView
>>
>>> OSM has the apostrophe after being surveyed to check (thanks Craig!).
>>
>> Although I did make the correction and a number of other; this 
>> instance wasn't based on a ground survey, I just decide it made sense.
>> The track runs passed a cemetery which indicates that it is is 
>> holiness himself that owns the way; for which an apostrophe would be
> required.
>>
>> Although I don't want to discourage you getting more sunshine, 
>> apostrophes are a fun example... street signs can't be taken as the 
>> final word on the name of a road. I know of roads which are signed 
>> with an apostrophe at one end and without at the other. However, do 
>> we then need to worry about street names that have 'legitimately' 
>> (with
>> time) changed as the result of misspelling?! Hmm... much scope for 
>> shed painting in that issue.
>>
>> The main occurrence of this problem is roads named after saints. 
>> Which have the additional problem of the abbreviated saint (St) and 
>> whether or not periods follow them. I've been fanatically changing 
>> them to the full 'proper' form irrespective of what a particular source
says e.g.
>> "Saint John's Square".
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On 5 May 2010 11:31, Tim Francois  wrote:
>>> Is that layer 17 I see before me?!
>>>
>>> Also, after my email about name discrepancies between the OS Locator 
>>> and OS StreetView packages, I can now confirm that OS StreetView 
>>> DOES display apostrophes on SOME roadnames. For example, have a look 
>>> at Pope's Walk 
>>> http://os.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.369529&lon=-2.348878&zoom=17. OS 
>>> Locator says it's Popes Walk (no apostrophe), but StreetView

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView

[Tim Francois]

Just to be clear, we were originally talking about St-as-in-Saint!

Tim 

-Original Message-
From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: 05 May 2010 12:17
To: Tim Francois
Cc: Craig Loftus; talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView

Follow the street sign. This usually means "Street", but not "Saint".

I think St-as-in-Saint has become a distinct word (pronounced "Sunt"
not "Saint", and with no full stop after the t) and looks peculiar when
expanded, whereas St-as-in-Street is only an abbreviation.

Richard

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Tim Francois  wrote:
> Oh, really? I've just changed a few from "Saint" to "St." based on 
> road signs. Personally, I'm not bothered either way (though it does 
> mean that my neat OS Locator comparison table will never reduce to 
> zero!!) as most people know the difference, but is there a general
consensus on this?
>
> Also, apologies for suggesting you walked anywhere...!! ;)
>
> Tim
>
> -Original Message-
> From: craiglof...@gmail.com [mailto:craiglof...@gmail.com] On Behalf 
> Of Craig Loftus
> Sent: 05 May 2010 11:56
> To: Tim Francois
> Cc: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView
>
>> OSM has the apostrophe after being surveyed to check (thanks Craig!).
>
> Although I did make the correction and a number of other; this 
> instance wasn't based on a ground survey, I just decide it made sense.
> The track runs passed a cemetery which indicates that it is is 
> holiness himself that owns the way; for which an apostrophe would be
required.
>
> Although I don't want to discourage you getting more sunshine, 
> apostrophes are a fun example... street signs can't be taken as the 
> final word on the name of a road. I know of roads which are signed 
> with an apostrophe at one end and without at the other. However, do we 
> then need to worry about street names that have 'legitimately' (with
> time) changed as the result of misspelling?! Hmm... much scope for 
> shed painting in that issue.
>
> The main occurrence of this problem is roads named after saints. Which 
> have the additional problem of the abbreviated saint (St) and whether 
> or not periods follow them. I've been fanatically changing them to the 
> full 'proper' form irrespective of what a particular source says e.g.
> "Saint John's Square".
>
> Craig
>
> On 5 May 2010 11:31, Tim Francois  wrote:
>> Is that layer 17 I see before me?!
>>
>> Also, after my email about name discrepancies between the OS Locator 
>> and OS StreetView packages, I can now confirm that OS StreetView DOES 
>> display apostrophes on SOME roadnames. For example, have a look at 
>> Pope's Walk 
>> http://os.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.369529&lon=-2.348878&zoom=17. OS 
>> Locator says it's Popes Walk (no apostrophe), but StreetView does 
>> include the apostrophe. OSM has the apostrophe after being surveyed 
>> to
> check (thanks Craig!).
>>
>> I guess even more reason to get outside!
>>
>> Tim
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView

[Tim Francois]

Oh, really? I've just changed a few from "Saint" to "St." based on road
signs. Personally, I'm not bothered either way (though it does mean that my
neat OS Locator comparison table will never reduce to zero!!) as most people
know the difference, but is there a general consensus on this?

Also, apologies for suggesting you walked anywhere...!! ;)

Tim 

-Original Message-
From: craiglof...@gmail.com [mailto:craiglof...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Craig Loftus
Sent: 05 May 2010 11:56
To: Tim Francois
Cc: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView

> OSM has the apostrophe after being surveyed to check (thanks Craig!).

Although I did make the correction and a number of other; this instance
wasn't based on a ground survey, I just decide it made sense.
The track runs passed a cemetery which indicates that it is is holiness
himself that owns the way; for which an apostrophe would be required.

Although I don't want to discourage you getting more sunshine, apostrophes
are a fun example... street signs can't be taken as the final word on the
name of a road. I know of roads which are signed with an apostrophe at one
end and without at the other. However, do we then need to worry about street
names that have 'legitimately' (with
time) changed as the result of misspelling?! Hmm... much scope for shed
painting in that issue.

The main occurrence of this problem is roads named after saints. Which have
the additional problem of the abbreviated saint (St) and whether or not
periods follow them. I've been fanatically changing them to the full
'proper' form irrespective of what a particular source says e.g.
"Saint John's Square".

Craig

On 5 May 2010 11:31, Tim Francois  wrote:
> Is that layer 17 I see before me?!
>
> Also, after my email about name discrepancies between the OS Locator 
> and OS StreetView packages, I can now confirm that OS StreetView DOES 
> display apostrophes on SOME roadnames. For example, have a look at 
> Pope's Walk 
> http://os.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.369529&lon=-2.348878&zoom=17. OS 
> Locator says it's Popes Walk (no apostrophe), but StreetView does 
> include the apostrophe. OSM has the apostrophe after being surveyed to
check (thanks Craig!).
>
> I guess even more reason to get outside!
>
> Tim
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>


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

[Talk-GB] OS OpenData StreetView

[Tim Francois]

Is that layer 17 I see before me?!
 
Also, after my email about name discrepancies between the OS Locator and OS
StreetView packages, I can now confirm that OS StreetView DOES display
apostrophes on SOME roadnames. For example, have a look at Pope's Walk
http://os.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.369529

&lon=-2.348878&zoom=17. OS Locator says it's Popes Walk (no apostrophe), but
StreetView does include the apostrophe. OSM has the apostrophe after being
surveyed to check (thanks Craig!).
 
I guess even more reason to get outside!
 
Tim
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] London Mapping Marathons

[Tim Francois]

How funny, I was just checking out Oxford Street to get some answers to a
question I had: namely, if there were buildings in the OSM map, and they
were split into their individual shop, what's the best way to tag it as a
shop/café/restaurant etc? 

Would you tag the building shop=* (or amenity=*...), or add a POI with
shop=* on top of the building? The POI Overkill map does not render shop
icons for buildings with the shop=* tag (same with restaurants etc), so I'm
gonna presume that many other (non Mapnik and Osmarender) don't either, so
placing POIs would seem to be the best solution.

Anyone got any input?

Thanks
Tim

-Original Message-
From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Nick Black
Sent: 15 April 2010 16:02
To: Someoneelse
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] London Mapping Marathons

Well, hope I can make it to the next one :-)

For all the POI mappers out there, CloudMade have been experimenting with a
style I like to call "POI Overkill"

http://maps.cloudmade.com/?lat=51.516755&lng=-0.133896&zoom=17&styleId=6618&;
opened_tab=0



--
Nick



On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Someoneelse 
wrote:
> Jo Walsh wrote:
>> "Donde estan los frikis con mapas?"
>>
>> mucha suerte,
>>
>>
>> jo
>> --
>
> How about in Catalan...
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>



--
--
Nick Black
twitter.com/nick_b

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


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

[Talk-GB] Partial Roads in Route Relations

[Tim Francois]

Hi guys,
 
This should be quick. 
1) Say I had a bus route which turned onto a street. This turn in to the
street is halfway down, and the route does not encompass the first half of
the street. What's the correct thing to do here? I've been splitting the
street where the bus joins, so only the relevant part is added to the
relation, but this brings me onto part 2...
2) Does splitting a street destroy any existing relations on that street? It
seems like I may have broken the ncn through town here...!
 
Thanks
Tim
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey

[Tim Francois]

To whomever can answer:
 
The fact that the following link is up on the wiki:
http://edgemaster.dev.openstreetmap.org/streetview_tiles/ossv.html?zoom=15
 &lat=60.16917&lon=-1.16243&layers=BTF.
 
Does this mean we can (gasp!) start tracing in Potlatch and JOSM? If so,
what's the final verdict on source=* tags?
 
Thanks
Tim
 
(Who's pretty excited at getting roads up North of Northampton...)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey

[Tim Francois]

Ah, I see - I've been following the mailing list but must have missed that
memo. No problem, I'll hold fire! :)

(Out of interest, how is an image tile reprojected? Any good references I
could read? Just curious...)

Tim 

-Original Message-
From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst
Sent: 02 April 2010 12:35
To: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey

Tim Francois wrote:
> Hollowell, Church Brampton, Ravensthorpe, Spratton and Chapel 
> Brampton. It seems to work OK, but manually lining up the tiles takes a
bit of time.

Please, have patience. We will have the maps reprojected for you into a
background layer in double quick time.

cheers
Richard

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey

[Tim Francois]

To further this, I got a bit excited yesterday at the thought of all this
yummy data arriving. So I had to have a go with it.

I sometimes travel in and around East Haddon, NW of Northampton - the OSM
coverage here is/was patchy at best. I've uploaded some GPX tracks
previously, but the distances between places are vast and cycling around is
pretty knackering!

So I experimented a bit with the StreetView rasters, seeing if I could
import them into JOSM and manipulate their size/orientation to fit the
existing OSM data. Luckily, this didn't prove too difficult, and so I set
about tracing the missing roads in and around East Haddon, West Haddon,
Hollowell, Church Brampton, Ravensthorpe, Spratton and Chapel Brampton. It
seems to work OK, but manually lining up the tiles takes a bit of time. 

I haven't done all the roads yet, nor named all of them, nor added any
source tags (not sure which one yet). My intention is just to get the roads
in to this forgotten area, for someone else to go verify them with a GPS
later (though judging by the lack of tracks in the area, not many mappers
about around here?). I added FIXME tags to most roads.

See the results against Google here:
http://sautter.com/map/?zoom=14&lat=52.3179&lon=-0.98652&layers=BT
See the results against Meridian2 here:
http://gibin.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~ollie/osopendata/meridian/?zoom=14&lat=52.3179&;
lon=-0.98652&layers=BT

Just thought I'd confess, and let you stop me if you think I'm stepping over
some boundaries

Tim

-Original Message-
From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Russ Phillips
Sent: 02 April 2010 11:09
To: OSM Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey

On 1 April 2010 09:39, Richard Bullock  wrote:
>>As Andy says, I say we start with getting boundary data fixed up from 
>>Boundary Line and then look at Vector Map District in a month's time 
>>and decide what the next step is
>
> I agree with this; especially as boundary data is hard to come by any 
> other way

I also agree with using OS's boundary data to fix up our boundary data.

In the meantime, however, I think the Street View rasters have some use, if
only for adding street names for roads that don't already have them.

Russ

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


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