Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 29/07/2019 11:21, ael wrote:
In the case that I mentioned, it was certainly not from their own GPS 
logs.


A few examples I came across while looking at these with a DWG hat on 
were also not from GPS logs.  In one case Amazon would have had to have 
been delivering by tractor; in another the actual building they would 
have been delivering to was first mapped in 2013 and was derelict then.


What I suspect that they were doing was "doing other mapping while they 
were in the area" (which to be fair is pretty much what nearly everyone 
else does too).


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Amazon Logistics edits

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 29/07/2019 09:35, Andy Robinson wrote:

I've just looked at a number of Amazon Logistics in my local area


Just to give everyone a bit of a heads-up about the DWG's involvement 
here - we got a number of messages about Amazon's mapping.  The biggest 
immediate problem was their use of "motor_vehicle=yes" on 
"highway=track" regardless of the actual legal access status.  To cut a 
long story short, they have removed this where they've blanket added it, 
and have since asked exactly how to map sort of thing (at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jguthula/diary/390322 and elsewhere).


The list of Amazon editors is quite long - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amazon_Logistics#Editors - and not 
all are active in the UK.  I used overpass queries like 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Lea to check the edits.  With regard to the 
"motor_vehicle=yes" issue, I contacted each of the Amazon mappers active 
in the UK individually rather than going through a "manager" to try and 
get them talking to the local community.  In order to get from edits 
there to changeset discussion comments, click on an object on that map, 
then on the changeset, then "changeset XML" and copy the "uid=" value 
and use it in a URL such as 
resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=9310279 .


One other issue that people have raised with these edits have been 
"adding connectivity where there isn't any public connectivity" (i.e. 
adding a "highway=service" or "highway=track" that is in reality a 
private farm track, that connects two public roads).  Personally I 
wouldn't assume that either of these had public access in England and 
Wales* (Scotland has a different legal system), and I don't think that 
we can blame Amazon for adding missing geometry but only some missing 
tags.  Local mappers will still be needed to add these.  Amazon editors 
tend to have their own "local area" so a variation of the overpass query 
above can be used to identify newly added objects - I'm sure that some 
people will be able to use local knowledge to say "well obviously way 
XYZ should be access=private" and similar.


While looking at these issues I did notice quite a few other tracks and 
rural service roads (driveways etc.) where the access tags looked a bit 
unlikely - and there are of course many examples were designations 
haven't been added (where that isn't open data, that needs survey).  I 
notice that someone from the National Trust has written a diary entry 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/AJW92/diary/390378 to discuss how to 
tag England and Wales "rights of way" designations.


Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)

* I'd suggest that it's also not correct to tag "access=private" on 
newly traced farm etc. tracks - if the example above 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/120277748 is a "byway open to all 
traffic" then access=yes or motor_vehicle=yes on there will be correct, 
and "private" would be wrong (TROs notwithstanding).





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 06/01/2019 09:51, Neil Matthews wrote:

Presumably only those ways that have a consistent highway value for ways
joined at both ends? If there's a different highway value at ways joined
at each end, then you should at minimum add a fixme to the ford section,
or a note for local mappers to check?


A change of ways would be tricky, but according to taginfo data for the 
UK this will be nodes only - 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/highway=ford shows 645 nodes, 
no ways.  FWIW https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=ford shows 
2 ways only so I suspect that someone has already tidied those (I 
certainly had a go at updating any that I was familiar with many years 
ago to an appropriate highway type).  82 of the 645 have both ford=yes 
and highway=ford (see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/F0w ).


Picking an example near me, 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1467099600/history I'd suggest needs 
a resurvey, but only because it's 7 years since anyone's been there and 
someone might have put a bridge in, not because it wasn't a "ford=yes" 7 
years ago.  A bit of the history of the issue can be seen on that node - 
a previous mechanical edit 6 years ago 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14211906 was reverted in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14236131 .  At the time many 
commonly-used maps didn't understand ford=yes so a mechanical edit with 
no discussion created quite a few complaints.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Climbing new heights in “interesting” tagging

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 14/11/2018 21:25, Andrew Hain wrote:

Road signs tagged natural=peak:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5890628170
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5890628171



I'd be gentle with them - it is their first and so far only edit :)

Best regards,

Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Roads for the Renderer

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 14/11/2018 21:03, Paul Berry wrote:
I've dropped DWG a note because the mapper in question has just 
responded and I need to hold my tongue rather than reply.




Thanks (email received, BTW).

One other thing - if anyone sees issues with "highway" changes in Leeds, 
Manchester or MK that don't match their recollection please add a 
changeset comment with specifics - "I believe that road X is a Y not a Z 
based on ABC".  I've commented on one of the Lancs ones already.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Roads for the Renderer

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 14/11/2018 19:48, Paul Berry wrote:

Hi,

Not for the first time I'm having a run-in with a user regarding 
arbitrary mapping of road classifications in Leeds. Latest changeset 
comments: http://osm.org/changeset/64361310


In this particular case I'd drop a mail to the DWG at 
d...@osmfoundation.org as they're not unfamiliar with this mapper.




Does anyone have previous experience of nipping this kind of thing in 
the bud?


Lots of locals saying "no, that's wrong - X is not a Y, it is a Z, which 
is how it was mapped before" is a good place to start.  There are 
exceptions to "A road is primary" etc. in the UK (e.g. Oxford High 
Street among others), but they are fairly rare.




I don't mind manually reverting changes at some point but I'd rather 
not do that just to start/prolong what might be an edit war.


Once there's a a concensus of local mappers it's not so much an edit war 
as one person who doesn't agree with everyone else.


I'd also suggest a review by locals of their changes in MK too (and 
sadly for me I'm probably more familiar with the centre of MK than the 
centre of Leeds these days).


Best Regards,

Andy

(from the DWG, although I wasn't directly involved in issues involving 
this mapper previously)



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Changing wikipedia links

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 01/10/2018 23:39, Dan S wrote:

Op ma 1 okt. 2018 om 23:15 schreef Neil Matthews :

Looks like an automated edit - albeit a human curated one - without
discussion, certainly on Talk-GB.

The "imports" mailing list would be the right place to discuss it, if
it's a bulk edit (is it?). It doesn't seem to have GB-specific
implications for this list IMHO (even though this particular changeset
is of course within gb).



For completeness, this sort of thing has been discussed on "imports" - 
see 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-September/thread.html#78902 
and the subsequent messages.  Quite a lot of that thread is about other 
things (as tends to happen) but it has been discussed before.


In this particular case as Dan says brand:wikipedia looks like a more 
correct tag than wikipedia.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Access restrictions for lorries above a certain GVM

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 26/09/2018 12:53, SK53 wrote:
I can only answer for my self. I generally tag these I usually see 
with a plain hgv=destination, possibly with maxweight=7.5t. The sign 
is very rare without an additional plate allowing for deliveries. I do 
this largely because I want to capture the information rather than 
because it is the most precise tag. Such restrictions are extremely 
common in Leicestershire & Rutland, and very noticeable along the A606.


I'd take that approach too.

In the specific sign example "hgv=no" or "maxweight:hgv=7.5" if there's 
no "destination" conditional part; or


hgv=destination
or
maxweight:hgv:conditional=none @ destination
(see 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/maxweight%3Ahgv%3Aconditional for 
other forms)


if there is a "conditional" part.

There's quite a lot of "maxweight:conditional" in OSM too, presumably 
for the same signs where people think they apply to buses too.  I'd 
agree with what's previously been said in that I don't think the "lorry" 
sign on it's own applies to buses (but would be happy to be proved wrong 
on that).


Best Regards,

Andy


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

[Talk-GB] Wickham Market, Suffolk

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

Is anyone familiar with this area?  Someone's mentioned on IRC that 
Wickham Market has been changed from town to village and back a couple 
of times:


http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=114148812

Obviously it's been "town" more than village (and the person who added 
it as such was/is pretty local) - but is that still correct?  I'll 
comment on the latest change about this thread so that everyone's aware 
of it.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM AGM and notification

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

(just to add a bit to what Jerry said...)

Hi Tony,

First of all, welcome!

You've probably already found the "Contact channels" page on the wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contact_channels .  OSM globally 
uses lots of different mailing lists, forums, social network sites etc.  
It can be a bit confusing, but Bryan Housel (the tireless main developer 
of the iD editor) is planning to tie some of these loose ends together a 
bit better, and the summary I gave for his benefit at 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-April/080447.html 
for GB might also be useful.


Slightly further afield than Manchester, there are regular meetups in 
the East and West Midlands, which might be doable from Chorley (I'm in 
the East Midlands and have worked occasionally just west of Chorley, 
though I've never tried a late-night train journey...).


With regard to the Manchester OSM UK meeting, I'm sure when the OSM UK 
folks are ready with an official annoucement at https://osmuk.org/ it'll 
get featured in the regular "weekly" - country-level meetups often do.  
Anyone can submit news for that by the way - have a look at 
http://www.weeklyosm.eu/this-news-should-be-in-weeklyosm for details.


Best Regards,

Andy


On 14/04/2018 13:51, Tony Shield wrote:

Hi All

Starting to get into OSM mapping and things OSM - so I've found this 
talk-gb mail system, I've just found the website OSM UK and seen the 
weeklyOSM 403 global newsletter.


I can't see the AGM details on the OSM UK website, nor details on the 
AGM in the list of events carried in the weeklyOSM letter. Should the 
AGM be added to these places?


I hope to attend the AGM  - Manchester is close to me as I live in 
Lancashire - so I hope to be able to meet you guys and check what I am 
doing is correct.


To help identification will people be wearing name cards with their 
OSM handle, name and location e.g. . . .


TonyS999

Tony Shield

Chorley, Lancashire


Regards.


___
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] Edits in Wales

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 25/03/2018 21:49, Miguel Sevilla-Callejo wrote:

...
Sorry to insist but you will undermine, especially, Welsh names, for a 
generic rendering that uses "name" tags. Think about that.


Can you give a specific example of that?  Are you saying that "it's 
important to pretend that Welsh names are displayed even where they 
aren't used very often" by sticking them on the end of the more commonly 
used name?  The other way around (using Welsh in "name" because it is 
the most used name) presumably wouldn't "undermine ... Welsh names".  It 
could be that I'm completely misunderstanding what you're saying here 
but I really don't follow the argument at all.




Of course, for me, it's a must to fill "name:cy" and "name:en" too.


That's great news - it'll allow maps like https://openstreetmap.cymru/ 
(and mine!) to render appropriate names in appropriate areas.



On 25 March 2018 at 20:30, Curon Davies > wrote:


  * The fundamental problem is that there is no "name" which
is correct. In the medium term, as long as the name:cy and
name:en are correct then the value of "name" should become
less significant. Then it can be up to the user to decide
if they want to display English, Welsh or both (and if
both which language taking priority).

The problem currently, is that display choice isn't available.



I don't think that that's actually true - I can think of at least 3 
choices right now:


 * OSM "Standard map" (and a number of others), which just use the
   "name" tag:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.88362/-5.26565

 * Openstreetmap.cymru, which uses "name:cy":


https://openstreetmap.cymru?h=51.88397494833407&ll=-5.264972448348999&ch=17

 * Mine, that show one of "name:cy", "name:en", "name:ga" or "name"
   depending on location:


http://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=18&lat=51.883531&lon=-5.264898

and of course anyone making their own maps (Garmin etc.) can do whatever 
they want.


Best Regards,

Andy

PS: Apologies to Curon if his message wasn't meant for the list - I'm 
guessing that it was but that he's actually not subscribed yet and his 
reply went both to that and Miguel.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 25/03/2018 16:18, Ben Proctor wrote:
(snip)


  * But what about the city of Henffordd or the town of Amwythig? They
have Welsh names and English names so the logic would be to use
both in the name tag. Except Hereford - Henffordd and Shrewsbury -
Amwythig are in England and, I suspect, there would not be support
to use bilingual names in OSM outside of the current boundary of
Wales. I don't challenge that but I'd see it as a political
judgement about the boundaries of Wales and the status of the
Welsh language within the United Kingdom rather than a mapping
decision.



Personally, I'd say there's just as much a case for a Welsh language map 
that also shows welsh names as the "default name" for use by Welsh 
speakers as there is an English-names map for English speakers and a 
German-names map for German speakers.  Which name any individual map 
chooses to show is as you say up to it.



  * In the UK generally "name" refers to the name by which it is known
when communicating in English. It seems most straightforward, and
least politically fraught, to me to continue this practice in Wales,.



Actually I'd disagree here - I'd suggest "... most commonly used name" 
(which might be one of at least Welsh, English or Gaelic, depending on 
the languages locally in use).  I wouldn't use an English name for a 
place as "name" in a primarily Welsh-speaking area.  I don't think that 
English should have a special status in the OSM database, even for 
places in the UK.


I'd absolutely agree that getting "name:en" and "name:cy" added for 
names in use makes sense though.


Best Regards,
Andy


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

[Talk-GB] Rendering of old phoneboxes (was: Mistagging of old telephone boxes)

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 24/12/2017 01:12, Craig Wallace wrote:
It would be good to have some better tags for phoneboxes (which may or 
may not actually contain a working phone). The phonebox is often a 
distinctive landmark, especially the classic red ones, and many are 
now listed buildings.



...

Why not a specific tag for telephone_box or something?
It would also be useful to tag that it is a classic red phone box, 
even if you don't know what exact model it is.


Hi,
I've been thinking for a while about how to render these, and after 
noticing how many were now tagged with something, have had a go at 
rendering current and former red phone boxes like this one:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1210961179
http://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=18&lat=52.970323&lon=-1.459425

There will, I'm sure, be errors (for a start it doesn't exclude Hull, 
where there are no red phone boxes) and it will obviously show the wrong 
use where someone's used an old photo rather than a current survey to 
say that a phone box is still there.  The code's here:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/6efbd8138581c0dc079f4f238786dc3b82e90fbf/style.lua#L800

That's based on the values in OSM as of about a week ago.

Are there any "current uses" of phoneboxes that I'm missing beyond 
library, defibrillator, tourist info, atm, bicycle repair station, 
disused and (obviously) telephone?


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hull road renamed after rugby league star - BBC News

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 27/01/2018 13:32, Steve Doerr wrote:

On 27/01/2018 13:21, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On 27 January 2018 at 09:51, Colin Spiller  
wrote:



I see malcolmh has already renamed it.

Cool, but my question was "Does anyone have the coordinates, or the ID
of the way, please?"


To which the answer, I think it's safe to say, is 'yes'.



:)

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=Roger%20Millward%20Way

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/vrn

It'll probably need a local to check signage on the bridge in the middle.

Cheers,
Andy (a different one)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Birmingham Tree Import

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 13/04/2017 20:26, ael wrote:

And none of the 3 suggested causes applies in my case.


What was the problem in your case?

Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Import Progress

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 19/03/2017 12:52, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On 18 March 2017 at 18:52, Brian Prangle  wrote:


I'm off for a break and I'm leaving a couple of key imports partially
complete so I thought it best to give you an update of where I'm at:

I'm told that Brian has been blocked for these edits This is
outrageous.


No, he was sent this message:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1271

because it appeared that the link between changeset discussions and his 
email inbox was broken.



There is clearly consensus for them in the local mapping
community, and a well-defined and transparent plan for the process has
been published.


That was one of the questions asked in changeset discussions - can you 
please link to where the "well-defined and transparent plan" for the 
"trees" import was published, and where discussion took place?



A well-respected member of the community should not be treated this way.


No-one doubts that Brian is well-respected member of the OSM community - 
few if any have put in as much effort as him over the years.  
Unfortunately even well-respected community members can have email 
filters go rogue on them - it's not the first time that it's happened 
and I'm sure it won't be the last  :)


Best Regards,

Andy

(cc:ing talk@ because I know there's been discussion, including on IRC, 
outside the West Mids about the trees import and as similar sort of 
council work is being outsourced elsewhere, it's useful to discuss it 
more widely).





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Peak & Northern Footpath Signs

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 14/09/2016 15:15, SK53 wrote:
Over the weekend I noticed a number of Peak & Northern footpath signs 
. 
A friend who is a member of the society told me that there are over 
500, and that some people try to visit them in numerical order (just 
goes to show there's always someone dafter than OSM editors).


I could never find a decent icon for them so have always just gone with:

http://i.imgur.com/PXOS7g8.png

via

https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L763

https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/openstreetmap-carto-AJT/blob/master/amenity-points.mss#L155

Cheers,

Andy

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Vandalism by https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/JoeanPlanck

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 21/08/2016 20:39, Ed Catmur wrote:

Does anyone feel like sending a welcome message and/or keeping an eye
on them for any subsequent vandalism this week or next weekend?



I've applied a 0-hour block 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1005 (essentially a "message 
that has to be read before they can continue mapping"). Their locale is 
zh-CN so it's possible that not all of that message will be intelligible 
to them (though their changeset comments are all in English), but it 
should at least cause some pause for thought.


Essentially what BCNorwich had already done in 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41583904 was exactly right - send 
a constructive, helpful, non-blaming message to the new user. As we've 
seen from some of the MAPS.ME edits not everyone who edits OSM for the 
first time knows what it is or what they're doing.


Cheers,
Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Admin boundaries for unparished areas - how to handle?

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 20/08/2016 13:33, Colin Smale wrote:


In the East Midlands Alex Kemp has been adding relations for these 
unparished areas, only distinguishable from Civil Parish relations by 
means of the value of the "designation" tag. This is contrary to our 
normal practice and feels counter-intuitive - why add an object to OSM 
which by definition does not exist?





It's pretty clear here that there's a concensus behind _not_ mapping 
these "holes" as admin_level=10 (EdLoach's "boundary=unparished_area" 
would make sense to me), but presumably we can wait until after Tuesday 
(when the next East Midlands pub meet is, and all local participants in 
the discussion will have an opportunity to be there).


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Does "Great Britain" need a relation with "place=island" on it?

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 18/08/2016 14:32, Colin Smale wrote:


I wonder if there is a place=island for Australia? Does that include 
Tasmania?


-



There seems to be a "collection" of coastline ways for Australia in 
4095122.  No place=island.  Tasmania is a place=island, 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4097659 .


The Isle of Wight is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3955402 , 
and coastline ways there aren't part of the "island of Great Britain".


As to the place=island for Great Britain, I presume that someone who 
cares particularly about the "errors" mentioned on 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37713755 can either fix them or 
comment on that changeset.


Cheers,
Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Meet Abbots Bromley 30th Dec

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

Many thanks from me too.

Here's one quick view of the progress so far:

http://i.imgur.com/UPTks3v.png

It might be missing some updates (and is certainly missing the town 
detail) but does show a very different picture to what there was a 
couple of weeks ago.


Cheers,

Andy


On 30/12/2015 18:10, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Wed, 2015-12-30 at 17:46 +, SK53 wrote:
Many thanks to all who came despite the weather: a very decent turn 
out of 7 people from 4 Midland counties.


Jerry


Thank you for organising it Jerry.

A good day, despite the weather.

Phil


On 29 December 2015 at 13:47, SK53 > wrote:
Just a reminder that this meeting is tomorrow. I've added some 
details on the wiki 
.


Meeting times: 10:30 Buttercross, Abbots Bromley
   12:30-12:50 Coach & Horses.

The weather forecast is not promising, wrap up well. I'm afraid it's 
a bit difficult to predict a few weeks in advance with what seems 
like an endless sequence of winter storms coming in.


I'm now going out to enjoy some sunny weather.

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Nature Reserves

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 25/10/2015 20:47, SK53 wrote:

As I said earlier finding the bounds of NRs is actually quite difficult.

I sort of know roughly the bounds of Lathkill Dale at the Over Haddon 
end, but not how it finishes higher up.


Yes - exactly the problem!

For info the signs I saw are listed in 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/traces/2057266 (the name's 
in the comment field there)


I believe this and many other NNRs in the same area are now lumped 
together as Derbyshire Dales NNR. One thing is absolutely certain: 
signage is very likely to be out-of-date or in conflict.


I'll just add the signs then I guess, as they currently stand.

Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Nature Reserves

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 25/10/2015 14:42, Brian Prangle wrote (in a slightly different order):

> Do we need to tag Natura 2000 SACs and SPAs?  I've looked at the  
protected_area wiki page and quite

> frankly lost the will to live.

:)

I'm guessing that, a bit like rights of way, the tagging will sort 
itself out.  Actually working out the bounds of the reserve itself is 
the hard bit.


Only today I walked past one "welcome to Lathkill Dale NNR" sign, then 
at some point exited (no sign) and then entered again past a different 
"welcome to Lathkill Dale NNR" sign.  It's a familiar problem - I went 
path several signs on the south wales coast earlier this month whether 
one side of a reserve was clearly marked but the other wasn't.  You 
could I suppose align to walls, fences and hedges (and in extremis the 
sea), but in many cases there are several plausible possibilities for 
boundaries.  Sometimes there's a "sign at each corner" like at 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53745064 , but it's rare.


> and the Natural England OpenData source and there seems to be a 
significant amount of data inaccuracy in

> my local area

Is that actually genuine, OS IP free, proper OGL licensed "Open" data?  
At the start of the month earlier in this thread Jerry commented:


> There are Natural England datasets for National NRs, Local NRs and 
SSSIs. I think these are under OGL these
> days, but like PRoW or Land Registry inspire data, they may 
incorporate OS MasterMap data, and I have

> always treated them as not fully open.

I had assumed that Natural England datasets such as these (also access 
land, see 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-August/thread.html#17638 
) were at the very least not "whiter than white" for the reasons 
discussed in that thread.  Fine for a uMap to survey and monitor 
progress by, but not for OSM itself.


... and of course there's the issue of "a significant amount of data 
inaccuracy" in the available datasets that you mention, which is another 
issue entirely.


Cheers,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 16/08/2015 22:04, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

On 16 August 2015 at 22:57, ajt1...@gmail.com  wrote:

Until I provided a counter-example there, the only example on
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747 was of a
well-mapped central European city.  If there is evaluation of the results in
both rural and urban settings in multiple countries, it's not getting posted
to Github.

This is the PR only, other areas were discussed in the corresponding
issue: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/211

... which contained examples from Krakow, Krakow, Krakow, suburban 
Vancouver* and urban Vancouver, so yes - a slight improvement, but a 
very first-world-centric selection.


* which illustrates what's been lost nicely: 
http://b.tile.openstreetmap.org/13/1288/2799.png



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 16/08/2015 21:20, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

On 16 August 2015 at 21:06, ajt1...@gmail.com 

That makes some sense, but OSM-Carto's biggest problem is that a number of
the changes over the last year have been dedicated to making well-mapped
central European urban areas "look nice" at the expense of the rest of the
planet.

I would like to point out that this statement is incorrect. For all
change requests, we always evaluate the consequences for both rural
and urban settings, and changes are always tested on multiple
countries.


Until I provided a counter-example there, the only example on 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/747 was of a 
well-mapped central European city.  If there is evaluation of the 
results in both rural and urban settings in multiple countries, it's not 
getting posted to Github.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Paths and Footways

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 16/08/2015 18:26, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

Given that paths and footways are now rendered the same way in the 
default OSM style I wonder whether it is time to look at how the map 
can provide better information.


For rural mappers tagging a path/footway as unpaved surface results in 
it having less prominence on the map. As most major public rights of 
way are unpaved this makes these paths harder to view on the default 
OSM map.


Some possible changes:

1. Render all paths/footways that are tagged as 
designation=public_footpath (or other RoW) more prominently.


Are we talking about OSM-Carto here?  That's by definition an 
international style and I don't think that rendering 
designation=public_footpath outside of England and Wales makes a lot of 
sense, although it would make sense as a "local style" for England and 
Wales (you've mentioned that as a possibility recently).  I don't know 
how far the "core paths" network in Scotland has progressed either on 
the ground or in OSM, but perhaps some variant based on that could work 
up there.


2. Render those paths/footways that make up a long distance walking 
route more prominent (relation data).


That makes some sense, but OSM-Carto's biggest problem is that a number 
of the changes over the last year have been dedicated to making 
well-mapped central European urban areas "look nice" at the expense of 
the rest of the planet.  There's a lot more that would have to be done 
to make OSM-Carto usable for e.g. rural footpaths outside cities.  
There's chapter and verse already in github issues (including "not 
rendering foot=yes access=private ways at some zooms" and "not rendering 
major landscape features such as abandoned railways"), so no need to 
repeat here, but a lot of the last year's changes would need to be 
reversed to make the style usable for that purpose.  This doesn't make 
the changes "wrong" or "bad" of course; every map style has to decide 
what to show and what not to show - try and show everything and you end 
up with a complete mess.


3. Render based on another tag such as trail visibility [1] or maybe 
we need a brand new tag to indicate path dominance (like we have 
motorway/trunk/primary/etc for roads).


I'm not sure there's "room" in the presentation of footway etc. for 
this.  I do render (using a modified style based on osm-carto from some 
time ago*) designation and width, but do throw 
footway/bridleway/cycleway/path into the same bucket. 
http://imgur.com/JQGc0YR is an example of that (compare with 
http://tile.openstreetmap.org/13/4061/2663.png ) - red means "public 
footpath", blue means "bridleway", grey means "no designation"; and dots 
mean "narrow" and dashes mean "wide".  I suspect that trying to display 
the many values of trail_visibility would be difficult or impossible 
(and what should be the default value where it is not recorded?).


One approach (if we're just talking about raster tiles here) might 
involve transparent overlays**, though that means even more data 
downloaded over what is likely to be a dodgy cellular data connection if 
you're in the middle of a field.  If we're not (and if we're not 
starting from OSM-carto, we don't need to) then other people have 
already suggested something else entirely***.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)

* See https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style and 
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/openstreetmap-carto-AJT .  I'm not 
suggesting this is a "style for all rural map users" of course (it'd be 
rubbish for cyclists, for example).  It's just included as an example of 
the problems of displaying yet more different elements in the data.


** Like the Met Office use on their OpenLayers site (but better than 
that, obviously)


*** The author of http://blog.systemed.net/post/13 for one.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Retain existing style sheets for UK server

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 08/08/2015 23:24, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

On 8 August 2015 at 22:55, Lester Caine  wrote:

What is the best way of cloning the existing style setup for a UK tile
server?

Some useful resources:

https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/manually-building-a-tile-server-14-04/



and (apologies for stating the bleeding obvious)

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/INSTALL.md

Not tried it, but the version requirements in there don't seem to 
obviously clash with Ubuntu 14.04. 
"manually-building-a-tile-server-14-04" uses Mapbox's "OSM Bright".


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 13/07/2015 17:46, Paul Sladen wrote:


Any UK-specific rendering is not going to solve the core issue: that
large numbers of perfectly extent bridges and tunnels are not
rendered;  Most of these old tunnels in Nottingham are not rendered:

   "Relation: Tunnels of Nottingham"
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2446849

It would be preferable to solve the _generic_ problem that affects all
countries, which solves it for everyone at once, and doesn't risk
altering colour choices which are (for better or worse) part of OSM's
current brand image.



This neatly illustrates the problem.  "What gets shown on a map" has to 
be a trade-off - some people want to see what is beneath their feet but 
most, I suspect, will not.  OSM's "standard" map is currently trying to 
be "the primary feedback mechanism to mappers" but also have "clear 
design" (1).  I genuinely don't believe that you can do both well in one 
map style.


I didn't agree at the time with the decision to not render abandoned 
railways that are significant landscape features, but fully understood 
why it was made - unless we're trying to replicate the old Osmarender 
rendering (shows everything, but looks like an explosion in a crayon 
factory) something has to miss the cut.  At about the time that the 
"standard" style stopped being useful to me(2) I stopped using it, so 
for me, Thrapston Viaduct never went away (3).


With regard to what a "GB" map render would show, I know what I'd like 
to see - field boundaries, stiles, public footpaths and bridleways (and 
whether they're over paths or tracks) etc.(4). Public footpaths of 
course are just an "England and Wales" thing, so that's even more 
parochial than "blue motorways" and "green trunk roads".  Unfortunately 
I suspect what I'd choose works well for a certain type of countryside, 
but less well for town centres (which is why (2) happened in the 
standard style in the first place of course), so I suspect that we'd 
soon hit the same sort of issues as the standard style has, with one 
style being pulled in multiple directions.  In the meantime I'll stick 
with (5), render them locally, and shoe-horn those tiles behind osm.org 
as per (6).


Cheers,

Andy

(1) 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b90b3b054f30f709db7e76d879cc69449206b6fd/CARTOGRAPHY.md


(2) This was more about the fact that it stopped rendering footpaths 
clearly at a useful resolution when planning a longer walk.  Also the 
issue as described in 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542#issuecomment-44789930 
.


(3) http://imgur.com/3FS8XMV

(4) http://imgur.com/HL0sCsb

(5) https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style and 
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/openstreetmap-carto-AJT


(6) 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse/Your_tiles_from_osm.org



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