Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

[Jonathan]

Am I missing something? The 20 mph signs are the same as all speed restrictions 
signs are they not?

Jonathan
http://bigfatfrog67.me

From: Tobias Zwick
Sent: 01 May 2018 10:45
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

This tag is not invented, it exists in other countries where slow zones
exist as well.
Also, there *is* something special about it, otherwise the sign would
not be different from a normal maxspeed sign, wouldn't it? (And the
wikipedia article wouldn't exist)
The special thing about it, is that the posted maxspeed is valid for the
whole zone, in other words, until the maxspeed zone is explicitly posted
to be over. No repeater signs on crossroads and not even for adjacent
streets.

Yes, there is a certain similarity with the "normal" 30 mph limit in the
UK, that is why I mentioned "maxspeed:type=GB:zone30" in my original
post. Remember that OSM is a worldwide project, as long as something is
not the same in the whole world, it is not "normal".

Tobias

On 01/05/2018 11:16, Philip Barnes wrote:
> I wouldn't invent a type tag, it's maxspeed = 20 mph because that's what
> the sign says. There is nothing special about these areas.
> 
> Phil (trigpoint) 
> 
> 
> On 1 May 2018 09:58:23 BST, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> Regarding the 20mph zones
> (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_km/h_zone), analogous to other
> countries where they exist, they would be tagged as 
> maxspeed:type=GB:zone20.
> 
> On 30/04/2018 20:57, Philip Barnes wrote:
> 
> Whilst in theory there is an implicit 30mph when street lights are
> present and there are no repeater signs indicating a higher
> limit then
> the speed limit is 30 mph. It has nothing to do with urban, the same
> rule will apply on lit rural roads. These days it is complicated by
> 20mph limits which also have no repeaters.
> 
> That is the theory, however in over 40 years of driving and even
> longer
> cycling I have never come across an unsigned 30mph limit. It is
> always
> signed as you enter the zone. Whilst it's useful for
> confirmation whilst
> driving, it is not really useful for mapping, you need to survey the
> start points so that it can be split at the appropriate points.
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> 
> On 30 April 2018 18:41:26 BST, Tobias Zwick 
> wrote:
> 
> Hi there
> 
> On tagging implicit speed limits in the United Kingdom, the wiki
> lists
> the following values [1] for "maxspeed:type":
> 
> GB:nsl_single (=60 mph), GB:nsl_dual (=70 mph) and GB:motorway
> (=70 mph)
> 
> I understand that the current legislation defines a road with
> road-lighting as a built-up area in which a lower implicit speed
> limit
> of 30 mph applies. There is no mention of it in the wiki, no
> GB:urban,
> GB:lit, GB:zone30 or anything like that, so something should be
> defined
> and documented by (you,) the British OSM community.
> 
> My question:
> How to tag roads in which such an implicit speed limit for built-up
> areas applies?
> 
> The question is motivated by an issue report for StreetComplete [2]
> 
> Cheers
> Tobias
> 
> [1]
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Speed_limits#Country_code.2Fcategory_conversion_table
> 
> [2] https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/1037
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 


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

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

[Talk-GB] Universal Credits Map

[Jonathan]

The Dept of Work and Pension is using OSM for its map of Universal Credit areas:

http://dwp-stats.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=1713828f61dc4c01a98eb9df1dcc5ab9

Nice to see Gov finally seeing the light.

Jonathan
--
http://bigfatfrog67.me

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

Re: [Talk-GB] ITO World - OSM OS Locator Analysis

[jonathan]

I've made that mistake in the past, it's not the most intuitive of layouts.


Jonathan


http://bigfatfrog67.me







From: Phillip Barnett
Sent: ‎Saturday‎, ‎12‎ ‎December‎ ‎2015 ‎09‎:‎55
To: Shaun McDonald
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org






Sorry, my bad. I wasn't fully understanding the layout and was assuming the 
left hand column would disappear. Now I get it.


On 11 Dec 2015, at 22:17, Shaun McDonald  wrote:




Hi Philip,



Do you have a specific example where the not:names are not working? The left 
hand column on 
http://product.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/area?name=Cambridge has a 
list of the streets where the not name has been used, so that the Ordnance 
Survey can use that information as part of the feedback loop, and to allow 
later review.




I’ve looked at a few examples in the roads missing list, and for the road 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4076126 the comment on the last changeset 
suggests that there should be a not:name added to the street. I’ve not seen an 
example where there is a not:name which is not interpreted, and would be 
interested in any such examples.




The daily updates are from the OSM data, so within 1 or 2 days any changes that 
you make to OSM should show up in OSM Analysis. The updates to the OS data are 
done manually, which I’ve just done for the November 2015 data, and should be 
picked up in the next update. This will mean there will likely be a little jump 
in the numbers of unnamed roads. (Sorry for the delay in updating, I’ve been on 
paternity leave this past couple of weeks.)




Shaun

Developer

ITO World







On 11 Dec 2015, at 20:36, Phillip Barnett  wrote:





I'm slightly confused - I fixed a lot /most of Cambridge with not:name a year 
or two ago but on looking again, find the same errors still there. How do I get 
ITO to refresh this? The site says it was refreshed today.


On 11 Dec 2015, at 17:44, Jez Nicholson  wrote:





Thank you. You've prompted me to renew my quest for 100% in City of Brighton 
and Hove as long as the roads with/without apostrophes aren't counted in 
the percentage.



- Jez



On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 at 23:09 Steve Doerr  wrote:



I think the URL may have changed. Try 
http://product.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/main

Steve




On 10/12/2015 22:34, Robert Neil wrote:




ITOWorld OSM / OS Locator missing street analysis has been off for a couple of 
weeks with page not found.

 

Anyone know what is happening with it?

 

Regards,

 

Robert 



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




  This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. 
www.avast.com 
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


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

___
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] New map style

[jonathan]

Wow!  Thanks for that. Very interesting.

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 02/11/2015 10:02, Paul Sladen wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015, Lester Caine wrote:

On 01/11/15 07:22, Ed Loach wrote:

It very simple, the colours should match the road sign colours: Blue,

Green, Red!
Red?

all the legislation,

...stems from one document:

   Geneva Convention on Road Signs and Signals
   Part I
   Annex 1
   Section G
   Sub-section I
   Paragraph 3

   "3. Advance direction signs or direction signs relating to motorways
   or roads treated as motorways shall bear white symbols or inscriptions
   on a blue or green ground."

   
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road_signs_2006v_EN.pdf
   (PDF Page 65).


Anybody still got signs with red backgrounds in their area?

   "2. Informative signs ... the colour red may be used only
   exceptionally and must never predominate."

-Paul

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFWNzTVc444tukM+iQRAiLcAJ0aVxLlV7JkupXmSCQklmqJQpdg8QCfe6Ev
Oxi/If0oJAKql/uZuoZSKnk=
=Rfvz
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] New map style

[jonathan]

+1

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/11/2015 16:59, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 31/10/2015 22:27, Chris Hill wrote:


We should all keep in mind that the standard map on the OSM website is
not OSM. It is just a single render as an example of what is possible.
There are thousands of renders out there (I must have made more than a
dozen). Making your own map tiles in your own style is not that hard and
not very hard or expensive to host if you have a real need to do it.


Easy for you and me, maybe. But not easy for the average user of 
online maps.


I don't disagree with the basic argument that OSM is fundamentally 
about the data, not the visual appearance of the website at 
http://openstreetmap.org. But, to the vast majority of users of OSM 
(that is, the type of user who is not represented on these mailing 
lists), the website *is* OpenStreetMap. If we are serious about making 
OSM a resource for the ordinary web user, as an alternative to Google 
and Bing, then we need to take those users into account. So the UX of 
the default presentation of OSM does matter, and matters a lot.


Mark

___
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] New map style

[jonathan]

+1

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/11/2015 16:53, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 01/11/2015 09:46, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

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


I agree. I think that meeting ordinary, non-map-geek (and 
non-technical) users' expectations is important.


It used to be the case that both Google and Bing used local mapping 
conventions for their colours. So, for example, in the UK, motorways 
were blue, while primary routes were green, while in France  toll 
autoroutes were green and non-toll autoroutes were red. Those colours 
may be arbitrary, but they were well-established. But both Google and 
Bing decided to stop following local conventions and impose a single, 
global style based on a US-style classification of roads.


That really doesn't work very well. In particular, it breaks really 
badly for Google, because their classification system doesn't map onto 
UK usage. You end up with stupidities such as slip roads at junctions 
being coloured differently to the roads they serve, for example, and 
an inability to distinguish between A roads and unclassified roads 
based simply on colour (and width of a line really isn't good enough, 
particularly at overview levels).


When Google made that change, therefore, it provided an excellent 
opportunity to evangelise for OpenStreetMap, precisely because OSM 
hadn't made the same mistake.


Now, I appreciate that OSM had the opposite problem, in that it 
imposed a UK-style colour scheme on the rest of the world (due to the 
lack of ability for local colour schemes). So something did need to be 
done about that. But I am not at all convinced that the right thing 
has been done about it.


To begin with, I find myself agreeing with the comments made by others 
(possibly more intemperately, but no less valid for all that) that 
creating a system to allow different countries to use different colour 
schemes (like the old Google and Bing did) would have been a better 
option than simply changing the colours. But, assuming that, for 
whatever reason, that's impractical and the colours did need to be 
changed, I still think that the new colours are a long way short of 
ideal.


Specifically, I think that white is the wrong colour for anything 
other than an urban street or a farm track. It's too indistinguishable 
from the background and makes it hard to get a visual overview of the 
local road network. I have a feeling that this choice may have been 
driven by mappers who work primarily in urban areas, where white does 
work. But for rural roads, it just plain doesn't.


At the other end of the scale, I think that the three shades of 
red/orange used for motorways and A roads are too similar. While they 
are different enough to be distinguishable when placed next to each 
other, the colours shouldn't need the presence of a comparator to be 
identifiable. If you see a section of road on its own with no 
surrounding context (and, again, this is more of an issue for mid-zoom 
levels in rural areas), you have to make a conscious effort to think 
about the colour to be sure whether it's a trunk or non-trunk A road, 
or a trunk road or a motorway.


That's bad UI. The colours should be different enough that if you see 
a line of just one colour on an otherwise entirely featurless 
background, it is immediately obvious (to someone who knows the 
colours) what category of road it is. I'm not intrinsically wedded to 
the idea that motorways must be blue, or that trunk roads must be 
green. But I am certain that whatever colours are chosen should be 
chosen with clarity in mind.


Mark

___
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] Restoring a usable map service!

[jonathan]

Form over function, the scourge of modern society.

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/11/2015 10:18, tony wroblewski wrote:

The current problem I see with the new default style is that it's very
very difficult to now plan routes on a zoomed out map. I can't clearly
see, for example, what is or isn't a motorway around Birmingham.
Although the new theme looks nice, it is much less practical than the
old one



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

Re: [Talk-GB] New map style

[jonathan]

+1

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/11/2015 09:46, Stuart Reynolds wrote:

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

Regards
Stuart

Sent from my iPhone


On 1 Nov 2015, at 09:39, Lester Caine  wrote:

On 01/11/15 07:22, Ed Loach wrote:

It very simple, the colours should match the road sign colours: Blue,

Green, Red!

Red?

Was waiting for someone to pick that one up, and yes it has been some
time since red was dropped from the legal framework and therefore the
highway code. But the Blue and Green are well documented and just what
traffic is restricted from accessing a motorway drummed into people.

It would be interesting to find out if our French colleagues have any
plans to switch their servers to the new style, but I expect they will
be a lot more considerate! The default style they provide is actually a
better one for the UK than the 'old' style was (wish I'd found it
sooner!), but along with a few useful variations related to France BOTH
are available. So I would anticipate that the new style will simply
become an option there?

Back to the 'Red' question, and the simplification introduced between
Primary and non-Primary routes. A quick search on google produces no
easy answers, and Wikipedia has references to all the legislation, but
many of the links to VIEW the facts no longer work. It's this disregard
for maintaining history that annoys me most.

The bottom line is that 'non-primary' routes are any road used to link
primary routes, and INCLUDES tertiary routes in many rural areas. Apart
from the way the the style suddenly appeared rather than a proper roll
out, my only complaint about the new style is that tertiary routes are
not included in the 'non-primary' grouping. ADD that to the orange
routes and it will fix that particular bug. As for the new style ... no
I don't find it particularly useful at all.

The use of red, orange and yellow to rate the non-primary routes is
really only a matter of following the OS conventions. It is one of the
areas that I have actually adjusted in my own clone of the style and is
a little different on the French version.

p.s. - Anybody still got signs with red backgrounds in their area?

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

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

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] New map style

[jonathan]

It's a requirement because this is a UK list, the roads are in the UK, 
the UK signs have always been coloured that way.


When British people are navigating they immediately recognise these colours.

But hey, if you like pink then fine let's keep the Barbie look.

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 31/10/2015 22:28, Dan S wrote:

Not obvious to me why that would be a requirement, but I guess it's
fine as a starting point for a UK-only map style... (...which this
isn't!)



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

Re: [Talk-GB] New map style

[jonathan]

I don't like it.

It very simple, the colours should match the road sign colours: Blue, 
Green, Red!


Anything else is just form over function.

Stop playing with aesthetics and concentrate on functionality.

Jonathan.

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 31/10/2015 21:37, Amaroussi (OpenStreetMap) wrote:

Hi all,

For some reason, the barrage of complaints I was expecting on this channel, 
regarding the switch from blue/green/red to rose/red/orange seems to be quiet 
today. I wonder who is unhappy with the change?

I would back blue/green/red being an alternative theme on OSM to calm things 
down, even though rose/red/orange is a pretty fresh change.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] New St station platform alignments

[jonathan]

I went through the new station last week and used it various times during 
construction work and saw/can see no evidence to changes at platform level 
except cosmetics.





Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Andy Robinson
Sent: ‎Monday‎, ‎28‎ ‎September‎ ‎2015 ‎10‎:‎46
To: Lester Caine, 'Brian Prangle', 'talk-gb-westmidlands', 
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org






I think it’s likely the only possible changes since New Street was built would 
be at the throats between the ends of the various tunnels and the start of each 
platform. There is little if any scope for change along the lengths of the 
platforms themselves because the supporting columns for the upper structure all 
pass through them. 

 

Cheers

Andy

 



From: les...@lsces.co.uk [mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk] 
Sent: 25 September 2015 22:42
To: 'Brian Prangle'; 'talk-gb-westmidlands'; 'Talk GB'; Andy Robinson
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] New St station platform alignments

 


I can't remember ... has the track layout been changed yet? I know there were 
some plans to realign, but the core structure hasn't changed since first 
constructed?

Sent from my android device so quoting is crap ... need to kill these painful 
email clients!

-Original Message-
From: Andy Robinson 
To: 'Brian Prangle' , 'talk-gb-westmidlands' 
, 'Talk GB' 
Sent: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 21:12
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] New St station platform alignments

I recall tweaking the tracks some years ago to better fit imagery as they were 
definitely rough drawn before that but I expect with different imagery now and 
folks messing about over that couple of years of changing its all got a bit 
messy. Part of the problem is that a lot of the track radius is out of view. I 
expect by using the NR concourse plan as a starting point you would get a 
better alignment using the escalator locations.

 

From: Brian Prangle [mailto:bpran...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 25 September 2015 13:57
To: talk-gb-westmidlands; Talk GB
Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] New St station platform alignments

 




Does anyone know whether the alignment of the platforms under the concourse is 
based on anything other than pure guesswork? The alignment at either end where 
they can be seen in Bing doesn't look right either. I'm trying to get the 
concourse layout to match the platforms for lifts and escalators and they're 
not quite matching currently.

regards

Brian





No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10703 - Release Date: 09/26/15___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Labelling a greasy spoon caff

[jonathan]

I'd echo this very pragmatic approach.  Don't forget that this list, nor any 
part of OSM, is King, if enough people tag establishments as greasy_spoon then 
it becomes a valid tag. Especially in the UK where everyone would know exactly 
what is meant by that term.


While, 4 is a low use of a tag, it is the use of a tag that tells us exactly 
what we can expect to be served there. In my opinion, 4 examples of excellence 
in OSM, a case of “just map what you see on the ground”






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Bryce Nesbitt
Sent: ‎Saturday‎, ‎25‎ ‎April‎ ‎2015 ‎00‎:‎06
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org









On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:58 PM, SK53  wrote:





cuisine=breakfast seems far too GB/US/CA centric.


There are places in Berlin which do all day breakfasts but certainly not of 
that sort; in most of SE Asia breakfast is likely to be some form of congee, 
and there plenty of such breakfast places in Hong Kong. 
 

Cuisine is inherently local, that's one of the great things about it.

When talking about bicycle tool stands, elsan_points, or toilets, I'd help lead 
the charge for a worldwide tag.


But for cuisine: it should reflect the richness of the area, especially since 
you can tag more than one:




cuisine=greasy_spoon;british;breakfast

 

Note the seeming USA equivalent is "dive".  Most, but by no means all, Diners 
are also dives.   So a Diner 


that's also a dive would likely feel fairly familiar, except without the tea.







There are many tags with low counts that have great potential.  Don't let 
greasy_spoon=4 put you off.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Canal & River Trust maps

[jonathan]

You'd almost think she's getting a kick back from Google! 😉






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Dave F.
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎2‎ ‎April‎ ‎2015 ‎13‎:‎45
To: Lester Caine, talk-gb@openstreetmap.org





On 02/04/2015 12:41, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 02/04/15 12:28, Dave F. wrote:
>> Ah, might as well forget it...
>>
>> Just read Richard F's blog on the CRT website. V. disappointing.
>>
>> https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/blog/odette-myall/new-maps-for-a-new-website
> It is much better to look at this as a positive rather than a negative!
> What *IS* needed is a successful way of using third party data sets
> rather than continually merging now quite complex data sets into the one
> unmanageable whole. I would hope to see the information available as an
> overlay to osm in the same way it overlays google.

As you can see. it's not just me who want CRT to use OSM:
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/blog/odette-myall/thanks-for-the-map-feedback

Note paragraph: "We’re very fortunate to have Google as one of our 
partners, so we won’t be moving away from Google as the base layer for 
the map."

My tweets to Victoria Peckett, CRT's 'digital manager':

I'm disappointed by your decision not to use OSM, especially since it 
has more data, detail & accuracy. When things change, they're updated 
quicker in OSM (especially pubs!). Please reconsider your decision to 
make CRT maps even better.

Genuinely surprised you think Google to be better quality than OSM (sent 
her comparative links)

Her reply:
Thx for feedback. Understand not everyone will prefer Google, but is 
very widely used format & one many people familiar with

Me: It's a shame a collaborative/volunteer org. like the CRT can't 
embrace a similar volunteer/crowd sourced project. OSM already contains 
much canal & ancillary data. Does Google? (which, incidentally, owns any 
data you freely enter into it)

Hi Dave. Understand your prefer OSM but we believe our styling over 
Google base layer does offer good quality experience & data..

Me: As a "digital manager" it's a shame you're unaware of OSM's 
rendering abilities, even better than Google. Annoyed with @richardf

I have to say, considering the response (I found "one many people 
familiar with" especially irritating) I'm struggling to see the positive.

Richard F:
Is it planned to release the SAP database under an open license?

Cheers
Dave F.


>   Then perhaps all the
> material that is simply missing or incorrect on google can be replaced
> with much more accurate local views :) Certainly the paths and access to
> the navigable sections of canals and rivers around here are currently
> totally blank on the google version.
>


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road works

[jonathan]

Not very helpful.






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Dave F.
Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎1‎ ‎April‎ ‎2015 ‎21‎:‎26
To: pmailkeey ., talk-gb@openstreetmap.org





On 01/04/2015 20:51, pmailkeey . wrote:
>
> Can we please discuss and wikify ?


What makes you think it hasn't already?

Dave F.

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] GB postcodes

[jonathan]

+1 on collection times and Postcodes for routing.






Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Pierre Riteau
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎09‎:‎08
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org





On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, at 09:22 PM, Pmailkeey . wrote:




 


What use are post box ref numbers ? Who is really bothered about collection 
times ? The nearest post box is useful info.


 


I can't imagine anyone using postcodes for routing. Postcodes, I guess are only 
of use to Royal Mail for the purpose of organising delivery rounds and 
abbreviating locations inaccurately.


 

 

I am one of the mappers interested in post box data. I find it very handy to 
know the collection times. Around my house there are post boxes collected at 
11:00, 11:30, or 12:00 on Saturdays. When I want to send a letter on a Saturday 
after 11:00, I check OSM for the closest uncollected post box.


 

The fact that the data is not useful to you doesn't mean is it not useful for 
other people!


 

As for routing via postcodes, as pointed out already it is ubiquitous on 
satnavs…___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM UK Qarterly Project: Fix that Road name!

[Jonathan Harley]

On 14/01/15 11:09, Derick Rethans wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Andy Mabbett wrote:


On 13 January 2015 at 15:26, Brian Prangle  wrote:


Coventry still has 38 names to go and has proved a perennial
challenge to us - none of the regulars at our mappa mercia meeting
lives or works there and it's proven difficult to enthuse mappers on
the ground in the past but we shall try again - 38 names is not a
lot after all!

Is there a URL where these roads are listed or mapped, that is
understandable to a lay person? I have contacts at Coventry Council
and could ask them; or we could use social media to crowd source.

http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/area?name=Coventry



Finished!

38 roads may not seem like many, but they were spread widely across a 
city that is never quick to get around due to the lack of through roads. 
And in the process I was able to add several more newly built 
residential streets that are as yet unknown to OS locator and the famous 
web search engines.


The quarterly project thing helped motivate me, any ideas on what next 
quarter's project is going to be?


Jon.



--
Dr Jonathan Harley SpiffyMap Ltd

j...@spiffymap.net  0845 3138457www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Proposed import of approximately 6 bicycle repair tool stands in the UK

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 04/03/2015 22:59, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Ok, last call for comments.

I don't see a huge amount of support for automatically importing these
from the GB community. If there's such a small number, why not just list
them on this mailing list and local mappers can check the accuracy
before mapping them in the normal way.

> Please note this is an ongoing import, so new nodes will show up from
> time to time under the same conditions.

I'm not aware of any previous cases where the community has said it's OK
for an open-ended, ongoing import to happen. They've been done as
one-offs or in batches (e.g. Naptan) but there's always been a limited
set of data.

GB is well-enough served by local mappers for listing potential sites on
the wiki (for example) for later mapping to work. Directly adding
possibly erroneous locations to the map is just going to harm OSM's
reputation for being the most accurate map available.

J.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Road Names Quarterly Project

[Jonathan Harley]

On 17/02/15 10:03, Colin Smale wrote:


It's only "correct" because that's the frame of reference you have 
chosen in this case. The local authority decides what a street is 
officially called. How that is transposed to signs sometimes 
introduces errors, and these errors are sometimes volatile. The OS is 
not the source of the official name either is it?





The frame of reference we use is "ground truth" - what is actually there 
in the physical world.


Also, the signage at the end of the street is what visitors and delivery 
drivers see, so it's surely the most practically useful thing to have on 
a map.



J.


--
Dr Jonathan Harley SpiffyMap Ltd

j...@spiffymap.net  www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Underground services

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 20/01/2015 22:34, David Woolley wrote:

> That information would be extremely valuable to terrorists.  I suspect
> that it would allow a small group of people to disrupt phone, mobile
> phone and internet communications over large parts of the country for
> many days or weeks.

Oh no. I guess if we didn't map these things they'd just have to go back
to blowing up hundreds of people on public transport instead.

J.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Totesport

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 21/12/2014 14:39, David Woolley wrote:


In my view, they are not really bookmakers.  For fixed odds, bookmaking
requires no skill and for the horses, I imagine that all the bookmaking
is done at head office.


I'm not sure this detail is really relevant to us. Apply the Duck Test 
-- you go there to place a bet, so it's a bookmakers.


We should be mapping for general use, and that may sometimes mean 
ignoring technical details of a particular industry if they have no 
effect on the public at large.


J.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC-3 Mechanical edit: UK Shop Names

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 18/12/2014 12:05, Ed Loach wrote:

Perhaps just posting Overpass links and locals manually making the changes 
would be better?


I think Ed has hit the nail on the head here. All your mechanical edit 
does is correct one tiny part of the mapping, and possibly to no great 
effect - it's just the text of the name that's getting corrected under a 
limited set of circumstances.


However, if local mappers could somehow be alerted to this small 
discrepancy, they would probably spot other things in the same area that 
needed updating at the same time. They might not go looking for them 
otherwise.


Finding small problems like this does have an advantage, but it looks 
like fixing them mechanically is actually missing the opportunity to 
improve the map in other ways at the same time.


J.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Getting Highway Agency information into OSM

[jonathan]

I totally agree with Rob, we are tied by the law.  The OS need to 
realise that the data they hold was paid for by us and to restrict its 
use by Govt is plain wrong. The HA should understand this so they can 
pressure their Ministers to open things up.


http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 05/07/2014 21:19, Rob Nickerson wrote:
On 5 July 2014 19:20, John Baker > wrote:




I'll let them them know about the copyright situation (which I was
fully aware from day one was a concern) and there is no real
interest from the OSM community for establishing this.


John,

Please don't tell the Highways Agency that as it is *not* the case. 
The blame lies with the Ordnance Survey and their reluctance to make 
it easy for public sector bodies to release map data based on their 
products. I would rather you highlight that to Highways Agency so that 
they know where the real blame lies.


And yes, if they have maps that are based on OS OpenData (for example 
the OS StreetView maps) then I would love to see them. This is how we 
are working with Birmingham City Council to get maps of their proposed 
20mph zones.


Perhaps step one is to find out what they have.

Rob




___
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] Fwd: In mainland Britain, you are never more than 34 miles from a pub.

[Jonathan Harley]

On 12/06/14 11:12, Nick Whitelegg wrote:


One thing that surprised me was "61 miles from a lighthouse" as (and I 
don't know this) I'd have guessed that some of the central parts of 
England would be getting on for 100 miles from the sea.
But my geography of that part of the world isn't great so I'm probably 
wrong...




Nowhere in Britain is more than 70 miles away from the coast (Coton in 
Derbyshire is the furthest), and some lighthouses are not especially 
close to the sea - there are some near tidal rivers. So 61 miles is very 
plausible.


Jon.


--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

j...@spiffymap.net mobile: 07590 024028 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: New Contributor: YvetteE90

[jonathan]

Great, glad to see it's in hand. Thanks

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 23/04/2014 09:38, Andy Robinson wrote:


I reverted this morning before I saw this thread. I also sent Paul the 
Archivist a message to see if he can help sort the bus routes with 
current editors in Derby.


Cheers

Andy

*From:*SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk]
*Sent:* 23 April 2014 09:18
*To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: New Contributor: YvetteE90

jonathan wrote:

I hate to do this but I don't have time to look in to this for
ages. This new user has made one edit with various changes but a
few pages of deletions.  This always worries me, it may need
reverting?

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/21863539#map=18/52.95394/-1.47650


I dropped her a message last night explaining a bit about ways and 
relations (service roads vs bus services I expect) and offering to fix 
it or help her fix it.  I haven't heard back yet, but wouldn't 
necessarily expect to have so soon.


Cheers,

Andy



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2014.0.4355 / Virus Database: 3882/7378 - Release Date: 04/22/14



___
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] Fwd: New Contributor: YvetteE90

[jonathan]

Hi,

I hate to do this but I don't have time to look in to this for ages. 
This new user has made one edit with various changes but a few pages of 
deletions.  This always worries me, it may need reverting?


http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/21863539#map=18/52.95394/-1.47650

Thanks

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me



 Original Message 
Subject:New Contributor: YvetteE90
Date:   Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:28:30 GMT
From:   



New Contributor: YvetteE90 *Username:* YvetteE90 
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/YvetteE90>

*Mapper since:* 2014-04-22 13:02:58
*First active in:* United Kingdom
Browse one of the first edits 
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/2808756306>
Show one of the first edits on a Map 
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.9250954&mlon=-1.4861772&zoom=18&layers=M> 

How did she/he contribute <http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?YvetteE90> to 
OpenStreetMap?


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bing imagery

[jonathan]

Any updates on this, I'm still experiencing it all over Redditch and 
surrounds?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 04/03/2014 22:26, Andy Robinson wrote:


I think we need to be careful when comparing what might be visible via 
the bing map website and what's available to our editing software 
platforms via the bing API. We are only meant to derive data from the 
latter as far as I recall. Clearly both platforms are not the same.


As for differences that individual mappers see when using the same 
software, that needs more investigation as it doesn't seem logical 
unless it's simply a difference in caching which will presumably 
resolve itself fairly quickly.


Cheers

Andy

*From:*SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk]
*Sent:* 04 March 2014 18:36
*To:* Eric Grosso
*Cc:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Bing imagery

(taking these in a slightly different order)

Eric Grosso wrote:


So from my point of view, the problem described initially by Will is 
still a current one.



Indeed - higher up this thread I mentioned a location in Mansfield 
which used to have > z18 imagery and now no longer does for me (in 
Potlatch 2).



In Wolverhampton, there are different problems which are combined, not 
only a problem with the imagery at a zoom level higher than 19.


To take an example, using the Bing maps website 
(http://www.bing.com/maps/) and searching for Birch street,



Is what I see in "wolves_bing.com_aerial.png" what you're referring to 
here?  I got that by going to Bing.com, searching for Birch Street, 
Wolverhampton, zooming in in the southern end of Molineux and 
switching to "aerial".


Interestingly, I don't see this problem in Potlatch 2 - there I get 
"wolves_p2_background.png" (or JOSM FWIW).



. If you switch to the aerial imagery without showing the labels, 
you can access a reasonable good imagery which is the one which is 
used until the zoom level 19.



I'm not sure what you mean here - I don't use Bing's website so I'm 
not familiar with it and don't obviously see a "show the labels" 
option.  I'm running Chrome on Windows 7 without Silverlight, if 
that's relevant.  It's certainly interesting that I see different 
"aerial" (not Birds Eye) imagery via bing.com than via the OSM editors.


The point that I was actually trying to make (rather badly) was that 
west of there:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2#map=18/52.72277/-2.1 



imagery that was present in December but absent in January had 
reappeared as of this Monday, and therefore any "missing imagery" 
issues that there are currently may be temporary.


Cheers,

Andy


Attachments:

wolves_bing.com_aerial.png:
http://imgur.com/MOCd2xs


wolves_p2_background.png:
http://imgur.com/cdf4ej0



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2014.0.4335 / Virus Database: 3705/7144 - Release Date: 03/03/14



___
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] Bing imagery

[jonathan]

Yes, I was seeing that Steve.

I assumed it was due to local caching by JOSM, you see your old version 
briefly before the newer tile is dragged down into the cache.


I'm guessing but seems likely?

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 02/03/2014 15:39, Steve Brook wrote:

I am getting a strange effect in JOSM where, as I move around I get a flash
of the old higher quality image which then degrades to the newer poor
quality image.  Is the old stuff available but being superseded or
overwritten by the new inferior images - any explanations.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] name=Flooding

[jonathan]

I agree it isn't, however, considering the current conditions some parts 
of the country are experiencing, the continuing weather forecasts of 
more to come and the fact that the ground water is so high that this 
water won't be going anywhere soon, then perhaps we should apply some 
tagging to areas that people have kindly already mapped.  Maybe highways 
should be marked as impassable?  The Highways Agency etc are producing 
such lists.


We would need to revisit these areas to remove it as they subside but 
this information is invaluable to many people, agencies, charities, gov 
departments etc.


There's also a historical benefit having  areas mapped as having 
previously flooded, either as live ways tagged accordingly or as old 
deleted ways that nevertheless are still accessible.


If the HOT team had been activated for this then we would be doing this 
sort of thing just as has been done in many other parts of the World.


I'm beginning to think we are not stepping up to provide this unique 
mapping requirement that no other mapping service is providing.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 10/02/2014 17:29, Steve Doerr wrote:

Is this an appropriate use of the name tag?

http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search.php?q=Flooding%2C+Burrowbridge

Steve

___
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] name=Flooding

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 10/02/2014 17:29, Steve Doerr wrote:

Is this an appropriate use of the name tag?


No.

J.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Please don't edit Dawlish

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 06/02/2014 19:25, jonathan wrote:

Too late:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20413392

Has been edited by a User called Daleks with just 5 edits experience.
Do we reverse?



I'll get DWG to revert it. The username and changeset comment make me 
think it's more about mischief than serious mapping.


J.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Please don't edit Dawlish

[jonathan]

Too late:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20413392

Has been edited by a User called Daleks with just 5 edits experience.  
Do we reverse?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 06/02/2014 12:54, Richard Symonds wrote:
You're sure we can't just change the track to "bridge=suspended, 
suspensiontype=precariously"?


;-)

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England 
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. 
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, 
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a 
global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the 
Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).


*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal 
control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*




On 6 February 2014 09:57, Jonathan Bennett <mailto:jonobenn...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Based on the Somerset Levels thread, I've realised someone will
probably try to edit the railway line, station and other bits of
Dawlish based on the storm damage.

Please don't.

Apart from the temporary nature of the damage (Network Rail are
predicting a few weeks to fix the line) there's no practical
advantage to be gained from taking the damaged section of rail off
the map. It's not like rail travellers will try to get a train
along the line unless they see a gap in OSM.

If the damage turns out to be longer term than we're expecting
then we can have another conversation about how to map it, but
until then it would seem premature to start removing features from
the map.

J.

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




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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Somerset Levels Flooding

[Jonathan]

Mmmm not sure.  There is obviously a line to be drawn between permanent 
and transient but when it comes to roads or even certain POIs I think 
there is a need for mapping the change.  Last year, in Birmingham, when 
they closed the main road tunnels that go under the city centre for a 
number of months, the local OSM group marked the roads a closed.  
Rightly so I feel.


However, we do need some way of tagging the Node where the interruption 
of a Way exists with some indication that there is a temporary closure 
specifying what, when, how, who and why!  That way those systems that 
don't care about transient closures can ignore it and map it as normal 
but routing systems can take it into account.


If such a tagging scheme was agreed then it could apply in many 
instances not just road closures.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 06/02/2014 14:46, Laurence Penney wrote:

Indeed this is surely the right approach. Many people use OSM inside products 
where the map data is updated rarely: all the offline map apps for mobile come 
to mind. Temporary states have no place in these apps, and it’s unfair on their 
devs to force them to work out a long-term state to offer their users.

- L


On 6 Feb 2014, at 14:36, Andy Allan  wrote:


On 6 February 2014 09:43, David Earl  wrote:
I think it would be useful to have a means of indicating road closures etc
which are different from simply pretending the road doesn't exist or doesn't
allow certain users for a while.

I work on the principle of marking the "permanent state" of features,
as much as possible. Obviously everything changes, but if a situation
is deliberately temporary (e.g. a road closed for crane operations, or
for a fortnight for digging, etc) then I don't change the 'permanent
state' of the feature. We had a trunk road in Putney that was one-way
for three months, but I didn't change the map to correspond since it
was clearly not permanent. And I'd encourage people not to mark
flooding as natural=water, or removing bits of railway when they are
certainly going to repair it, or even adding "access=no" tags to
something that might be fixed by the weekend.

If it's deemed important by people to mark the "temporary state"
somehow, then please use a separate tagging system.

Cheers,
Andy

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

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Please don't edit Dawlish

[Jonathan]

LOL

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 06/02/2014 12:54, Richard Symonds wrote:
You're sure we can't just change the track to "bridge=suspended, 
suspensiontype=precariously"?


;-)

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England 
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. 
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, 
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a 
global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the 
Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).


*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal 
control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*




On 6 February 2014 09:57, Jonathan Bennett <mailto:jonobenn...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Based on the Somerset Levels thread, I've realised someone will
probably try to edit the railway line, station and other bits of
Dawlish based on the storm damage.

Please don't.

Apart from the temporary nature of the damage (Network Rail are
predicting a few weeks to fix the line) there's no practical
advantage to be gained from taking the damaged section of rail off
the map. It's not like rail travellers will try to get a train
along the line unless they see a gap in OSM.

If the damage turns out to be longer term than we're expecting
then we can have another conversation about how to map it, but
until then it would seem premature to start removing features from
the map.

J.

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




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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Please don't edit Dawlish

[Jonathan]

I agree.

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 06/02/2014 09:57, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
Based on the Somerset Levels thread, I've realised someone will 
probably try to edit the railway line, station and other bits of 
Dawlish based on the storm damage.


Please don't.

Apart from the temporary nature of the damage (Network Rail are 
predicting a few weeks to fix the line) there's no practical advantage 
to be gained from taking the damaged section of rail off the map. It's 
not like rail travellers will try to get a train along the line unless 
they see a gap in OSM.


If the damage turns out to be longer term than we're expecting then we 
can have another conversation about how to map it, but until then it 
would seem premature to start removing features from the map.


J.

___
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] Please don't edit Dawlish

[Jonathan Bennett]

Based on the Somerset Levels thread, I've realised someone will probably 
try to edit the railway line, station and other bits of Dawlish based on 
the storm damage.


Please don't.

Apart from the temporary nature of the damage (Network Rail are 
predicting a few weeks to fix the line) there's no practical advantage 
to be gained from taking the damaged section of rail off the map. It's 
not like rail travellers will try to get a train along the line unless 
they see a gap in OSM.


If the damage turns out to be longer term than we're expecting then we 
can have another conversation about how to map it, but until then it 
would seem premature to start removing features from the map.


J.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Use of leisure=sports_centre at Silverstone etc

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 01/02/2014 21:38, Kevin Peat wrote:

Only for helicopters on race weekends and for sightseeing trips, the runway was 
repurposed a few years ago. To complicate things further there is a new 
university building on the site so you could add campus to the list of possible 
tags.



You're all wrong. It's a concert venue:

http://www.gigwise.com/news/87744/kaiser-chiefs-to-perform-british-grand-prix-gig-at-silverstone---tickets


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence

[Jonathan]

I'm no expert, in fact I'm worse than an amateur commenting on legal 
matters, I'm an amateur applying common sense to legal matters, but here 
goes! ;-)


I would have thought that licensing cascades down, so as long as OSM 
attributes OGL then any other uses of OSM are inferring an attribution 
to OGL!  Otherwise when we receive our Oscar instead of just thanking 
our Parents and God, we'd have to thank our parents and grand-parents 
and great gran-parents and great great grand-parents ad infinitum and 
God!  Which means we'd never get to thank God! Then where would we be ;-)


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 25/01/2014 17:09, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

On 24 January 2014 11:00, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
 wrote:

If you read to the end of the OGL, you'll find that it helpfully says:

"These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of
which license copyright and database rights. This means that when the
Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences,
you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply
with the other licence."

So you can be confident that if you have data under the OGL then you
would have sufficient rights to allow re-distribution under the ODC-By
licence, which in turn implies it's ok for OSM to distribute it under
the ODbL.

One thing that confuses me is how different licenses that require
attribution can be compatible, or even how a work under one license
requiring attribution can be re-used under that same license. The OGL
requires the attribution 'Contains public sector information licensed
under the Open Government Licence v2.0' (or a more specific
attribution). Openstreetmap requires '© OpenStreetMap contributors'.
So if someone re-uses Openstreetmap data that contains OGL data and
only attributes it with '© OpenStreetMap contributors', would that not
be a violation of the license of the OGL data, because the government
is not attributed? Can someone clarify that?

Kind regards,
Matthijs

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence

[Jonathan]

Rob, I think you just did ;-)

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 25/01/2014 16:58, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Any volunteers?

Regards,
Rob



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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence

[Jonathan]

+1

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 24/01/2014 17:53, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
I think some unambiguous consensus on this needs to be made clear by 
the OSMF or whoever - as everyone seems to say different things which 
leaves many confused. I will still admit to having no idea as to 
whether I can use the HCC data or not - and I've been contributing to 
OSM for 8 years!


Nick


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence

[Jonathan]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for that extra info about licensing.  I knew OS were at the route 
of most licensing issues to do with maps of the UK but not in what way, 
so that clears that up for me.


However,  my view would be that if a County Council has issued data 
under a license that we recognise as allowing us to use for our 
purposes, then that is all we need.  Querying the council as to whether 
they actually have the rights to give away said rights is unnecessary, 
confusing for them and us and likely to just breed more confusion over 
the issue.


Even if Norfolk don't have the rights to give them away, that's their 
problem. We acted in good faith that the OGL was valid.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 24/01/2014 11:00, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On 24 January 2014 07:29, Bernard Moore  wrote:

Norfolk County Council offer Public Rights of Way data on this page :-
http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/inspire/ (last row of the NCC block).
It is issued under Open Government Licence :-
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ … version/2/
These open licence terms are all very confusing (open not always meaning
open). Therefore my question is, can I copy the RoW lines from the WMS maps
(which open in JOSM) and use the data in OSM?

If data is indeed offered for re-use under the Open Government
Licence, then the answer is yes, you can use it in OSM.

If you read to the end of the OGL, you'll find that it helpfully says:

"These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of
which license copyright and database rights. This means that when the
Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences,
you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply
with the other licence."

So you can be confident that if you have data under the OGL then you
would have sufficient rights to allow re-distribution under the ODC-By
licence, which in turn implies it's ok for OSM to distribute it under
the ODbL.

However, there is one potential problem in this specific case -- and
that is whether or not Norfolk CC actually have the rights to
distribute that data under the OGL. The coordinates in the dataset
will almost certainly have been derived from an Ordnance Survey base
map. If that's the case then Ordnance Survey claim IP rights in the
data. While there is a procedure to allow councils to release such
data, OS insists that it's released under OS's own variant of the OGL,
the OS OpenData Licence. Unfortunately, this licence is probably not
compatible with the ODbL, and hence we can't use such data in OSM. See
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html and
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-gis.html

So before making use of the data, it would be good to get
clarification from Norfolk CC about whether they own all the IP rights
to the data and whether they are actually able of offer it under the
OGL.

If you're interested in Norfolk Rights of Way though, one thing that
we can definitely use in OSM is the set of Definitive Statements that
the council maintains. These aren't restricted by OS's IP rights, and
we have permission to use them under the OGL. See
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/norfolk/ .

Robert.

(On the subject of confusing licences, I've long said the OSM's
Licence Working Group should maintain official lists of "OSM
compatible" and "OSM incompatible" licences that they've reviewed, in
order to save mappers continually having to ask these sorts of
questions and deal with legal interpretations themselves.
Unfortunately, this doesn't deem to have happened yet.)




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bitcoin business listings

[Jonathan]

Just looked at the bitcoin map for near me and noticed:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2541566146

Again, someone just listing their business as a node, no physical 
presence indicated on the map though.  He's just trying to get his 
website linked from OSM!


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 22/01/2014 11:49, Tom Chance wrote:

Hello,

A little while ago Amaroussi posted a diary entry about people adding 
bitcoin payment info to OSM objects:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Amaroussi/diary/20772

I've just spotted somebody adding a node that looks like it's solely 
for the purpose of showing up on listings like CoinMap:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2631585539

In this case, it looks like it's just a business listing for a 
carpenter who happens to live in this tower block, not a physical 
workshop (which could conceivably be added as building=yes and 
craft=carpenter).


Has anyone else noticed these? I'm inclined to contact the user 
explaining why I think he/she should delete the node. I wouldn't want 
to see OSM fill up with pointless info like this.


Regards,
Tom

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


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Warwickshire County Council releases aerial imagery

[Jonathan]

Thanks Brian, excellent resource.  Runs out halfway over Redditch!  :-) 
Dang.  Need to get Worcs CC to invest in the same.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 14/01/2014 10:43, Brian Prangle wrote:

Hi everyone

Warwickshire County Council have released 3 sets of aerial imagery 
under OGL.  You can find them here 
*http://wppgeog3/gs/Aerial_Photography/wms* . JOSM users just add to 
your imagery layers under preferences. I don't know how to add it to 
Potlatch, not being a heavy user.


The best set is from 2012/13 at 12.5cm resolution which is both more 
up to date and more accurate than Bing. Naturally the imagery does not 
stop at the boundary so some of you in neighbouring counties might 
find this useful - not sure how far the imagery stretches - I'm too 
busy remapping inside Warwickshire using the imagery!


We should acknowledge the source when tagging - I suggest Warwicks CC 
aerial imagery OGL2


Regards

Brain


___
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] Warwickshire County Council releases aerial imagery

[Jonathan Harley]

On 14/01/14 12:02, Grant Slater wrote:

On 14 January 2014 10:43, Brian Prangle  wrote:

Hi everyone

Warwickshire County Council have released 3 sets of aerial imagery under
OGL.

Brian: Where did you get this information? I cannot find any public
reference to the imagery being released under OGL.

I recommend that mappers DO NOT use the imagery until usage of the
imagery has been out-of-band confirmed as permissible for mappers.


It has, Jonathan Moules of Warwickshire County Council came to a 
midlands OSM meet on Saturday and told us about it, and subsequently 
confirmed in email to several of us that it is OGL v2.0.


J.


--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Magistrates and Crown Courts listings as open data – hack event coming…

[Jonathan]

Was that a serious suggestion?

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 15/12/2013 13:36, Tim Waters wrote:
I wonder if court listings also has the addresses of those involved / 
defendants? A further source of addresses and postcodes



On 9 December 2013 17:16, Andy Mabbett <mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>> wrote:


From:


http://talkaboutlocal.org.uk/magistrates-crown-courts-listings-open-data-hack-event-coming/

"Officials from HMCTS and MOJ will help organise a hack day with
listings data from the court service."

Possibly useful as a source of the locations of all court buildings
and related data (not least their postcodes!)

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

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




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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 03/12/2013 21:36, Robert Norris wrote:

Normally I visually compare Hants KML (and indeed West Sussex) vs OSM tile 
images to identify missing ROWs and then make that a basis to include in a 
route for a days out walking or cycling.


This might help:

http://bl.ocks.org/Jonobennett/raw/7152386/


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data

[Jonathan]

Can someone clarify the situation for me.  I'm in Worcestershire where 
permission was previously sought to use the Worcs CC PRoW.  However, 
what is the advice in a situation where you can't use official PRoW 
data, Bing shows a path across a field, a ground survey also shows a 
clear path across the field but the signs show a Public Footpath along 
the edge into another field and rejoining on the other side.


Do we map where people are trespassing, maybe with a bland highway=path 
tag and source=bing;survey or just map the official PRoW.  Further more, 
if there are no clear signs somewhere (often the case), do we just leave 
it blank, even though the CC show it on their copyright map or again 
show a highway=path marking the tresspassing.


While we may worry about using copyright material, paid for by British 
taxpayers I might add, I think OSMF could face quite a hefty lawsuit if 
we were to indicate a PRoW across private land on the back of "we 
surveyed it with GPS and everyone else is walking that way so that's why 
we mapped it"?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 03/12/2013 19:32, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi,

The Hants data was one of the first Rights of Way datasets that we got 
access to. It is my understanding that we did get the permission for 
using this OS OpenData licensed data above and beyond what the OS 
OpenData license says (we have permission from both OS and Hants CC).


Having said this, it is worth speaking with the local community as 
they will be best suited to advise on how the data is being 
integrated. For example, Nick Whitelegg (nickw) should be able to 
confirm whether they are incorporating the designation type (footpath, 
bridleway, etc) if a way already exists in OSM without needing a 
survey. I would imagine they are doing a ground survey when they find 
a way that is not yet in OSM as a straight import might not reflect 
what is on the ground.


Best wishes,
Rob


___
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] Changes to OpenStreetMap.org website

[Jonathan]

Well done Tom & Roger on tracking that one down.  Those can be a real 
pain to find.  But surely www.openstreetmap.org redirects to index.html 
at least that's the Apache default?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 03/12/2013 19:41, david wrote:



I've been working with Roger on this for the last couple of hours and I
think we have got to the bottom of it now. Basically, this works:

   http://www.openstreetmap.org/

but this doesnn't:

   http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html

If you use the second one to load the site then you will get an
exception during page load that stops things initialising fully.

I've just pushed a fix that should be live in the next half hour.

Tom


Thanks.
I can confirm my bookmark is set to 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/index.html and it is now working.



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



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

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

[Jonathan]

I agree Tom, I don't think the end result would have been different. 
Personally I'm not bothered but I can see why some may want to "know" 
when things are about to change.


Is there some place we weren't looking that lists upcoming changes and 
time scales?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/12/2013 19:41, Tom Hughes wrote:

On 01/12/13 19:14, Brian Prangle wrote:


@Rob - I know you communicated this change and asked for feedback  for
which I'm grateful- I'm just pissed  off that there was no obvious
communication  of the date of implementation - at best that's just
unprofessionally poor communication, at worst it's taking the community
for granted.


Why does the date of implementation matter?

There was a long discussion with, thanks to Rob, much more community 
involvement that any previous changes. Those comments were discussed 
and many changes and improvements made and the discussion had largely 
come to an end so I did a technical review of the code and got a few 
more issues fixed and then merged it.


I would probably have left it longer after the merge before going live 
except that yesterday was a a hack day when we had lots of people in 
one place and ready to fix issues and such like so it seemed like a 
sensible time to do it.


What difference would it have made to you to have been told a specific 
date and time? That's not an attempt to be nasty or anything, it's a 
genuine question so we can try and do things better in the future.


If we have announced it would go live at 11am yesterday what things 
would you have done differently as a result?


Tom




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

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

[Jonathan]

Or at the very least choose one spelling and stick with it!

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/12/2013 18:51, Richard Mann wrote:

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


On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Brian Prangle > wrote:


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

Regards

Brian


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

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


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

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

Now what was the fork of OSM called? Informationhighway?

ael


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



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




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


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

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

[Jonathan]

But Brian, why aren't you logged in? It's not there then.

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/12/2013 18:45, Brian Prangle wrote:
+1 for a close button.  That box just screams at me to be closed - my 
brain wants to see what's behind it!  Not sure what communication went 
out about this notifying the community of the date of implementation - 
I certainly wasn't aware of anything. I saw lots of discussion about 
the design but the first I knew about implementation was when I saw it 
live. Surely we can do better than this?


Regards

Brian


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


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


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

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

Now what was the fork of OSM called? Informationhighway?

ael


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




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


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

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

[Jonathan]

I think you've just summed up the real power of Open Data, specifically 
Open Map Data.  If you don't like how it is rendered then choose another 
renderer or render the data yourself.


So cool! Everyone's happy.  Try viewing Google's or Microsoft's data 
some other way if you don't like their rendering!


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 01/12/2013 18:03, ael wrote:

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


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

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

Now what was the fork of OSM called? Informationhighway?

ael


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



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

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

[Jonathan]

Why re-invent the wheel? There's nothing wrong with "copying" a source 
that is open, yes, there's always the caveat of the quality of its data 
and yes verify some of it with your own survey but there is too much of 
the World to map and too few people.  Stand on the shoulders of Giants!  
Last week the council were outside with theodolite things (a technical 
term) confirming council boundaries, I'm not going to doubt their 
measurements, when that data comes online I'll take it and concentrate 
on other stuff.


Armchair mapping is good, [caveats here].  The people of the Philippines 
are very grateful for us armchair mappers. :-)


Ground surveying is good, [caveats here]. But the huge percentage (based 
on bytes, changesets or manhours) of what is being added to the map 
going forward is not from GPS.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 18/11/2013 13:03, SomeoneElse wrote:
If "other methods" means "copying from other data sources rather than 
actually going out and surveying" then you're never going to get "the 
best map", only "a map that is in some areas almost as good as some 
others".



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

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

[Jonathan]

I should re-phrase my comment, GPS traces are important, but for small 
niche parts of the map or brand new developments.  I do use GPS, but the 
bulk of editing is done from other sources, and I don't mean Bing, there 
are loads of sources coming online every day.


In Worcestershire, where the local council make available a TMS service 
of the public rights of way and add to that overhead imagery to confirm 
where people are actually walking across a field and I've mapped a huge 
percentage of the PRoW around here without leaving home.  Yes some bits 
need an onsite verification but the bulk is armchair.


I'm not ashamed of armchair mapping and all power to those who have the 
time and resources to go and survey on foot but the vast percentage of 
my mapping time is spent online.  If I do ground survey it's when I'm 
somewhere for work.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 18/11/2013 13:15, Philip Barnes wrote:


 Also the area we are lacking at the moment is rights of way, these 
are often not visible on satellite imagery and the only way to map 
them is to go out and walk them with a GPS.



Phil (trigpoint)

--

Sent from my Nokia N9


On 18/11/2013 13:03 SomeoneElse wrote:

Jonathan wrote:
... but are traces really that important now? They have some uses but 
the bulk of sources now and going forward are from other methods?


If "other methods" means "copying from other data sources rather than 
actually going out and surveying" then you're never going to get "the 
best map", only "a map that is in some areas almost as good as some 
others".


For example, yesterday I was here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/53.2346/-0.3269 
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/53.2346/-0.3269>


Without going there you'd be able to guess at the exent of the 
woodland (depending on the age of the Bing imagery) and you'd think 
(based on what OS OpenData says) that it's called "Stanfield Wood".


If you go and have a look you can see the correct name ("Stainfield 
Wood" - which matches the village to the north), who runs it, and the 
fact that it's not open to the public.  The actual GPS trace is useful 
for helping to spot places where Bing is offset from reality (although 
here in flat Lincolnshire it's only a 4-5m at a guess).


Cheers,

Andy




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


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

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

[Jonathan]

Well yes and that would fall under the data side, but are traces really 
that important now? They have some uses but the bulk of sources now and 
going forward are from other methods?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 18/11/2013 10:16, SomeoneElse wrote:

Jonathan wrote:


I can almost see OSM splitting into two halves, one half 
concentrating on the human facing side of OSM, such as map rendering, 
interfacing with users and building user apps and features, and the 
other half concentrating on the data side, such as editing, data 
structure, integrity, imports and exports?


Presumably someone still needs to go out with a GPS and collect the 
data :)


Cheers,

Andy


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



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

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

[Jonathan]

Yes David, I think you're right.  Those are some very good points which 
I think needs to be address by us.


I can almost see OSM splitting into two halves, one half concentrating 
on the human facing side of OSM, such as map rendering, interfacing with 
users and building user apps and features, and the other half 
concentrating on the data side, such as editing, data structure, 
integrity, imports and exports?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 18/11/2013 00:45, David Woolley wrote:

On 17/11/13 21:47, Jonathan wrote:



I don't believe OSM is about rendering maps, isn't it about creating a
cartographic database?


That's not going to be true of the new mappers you are trying to 
encourage.  I suspect you are nearing saturation for the people who 
actually appreciate the underlying database and are now competing with 
Google mappers.  To the extent the data is not being used for end user 
maps, or only for ones for which you have to pay, a lot of people will 
see no point in contributing.  To the extent that it used in 
customised rendering, you should be getting those sites to provide 
access to the editing tools, so that mappers can edit on the sites 
they are using for working maps.





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

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

[Jonathan]

Just read this after sending my reply to Oliver and I think you're 
right, also think the http://openstreetmap.de/ or even 
http://openstreetmap.us/ are right also.


If we are to render a version of OSM then it should just be seen as a 
"reference implementation" of the DB and not some holy grail.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 17/11/2013 21:42, Rob Nickerson wrote:
On 17 November 2013 21:14, Oliver Jowett <mailto:oliver.jow...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Is the response to "Here's a usability issue with the proposed
changes" really "use something else then"?

Oliver


Not at all. I am trying to help you by communicating the fact that 
this change is upcoming, and I am collating responses and feeding them 
back to John. I simply noted that this request has been made 
previously and it was rejected on the basis that the OSM.org website's 
primary focus is to spread the message of how OSM is different. There 
are some people within the community that think we should not provide 
a map on the home screen and instead do something like 
http://openstreetmap.de/ or even http://openstreetmap.us/


I will feed these comments back, and ask for the issue to be 
reconsidered, but please this is by no means a guarantee that thing 
will be changed.


Regards,
Rob

p.s. This redesign is a proposal from John of the MapBox team. It will 
ultimately be accepted or rejected by the OSM Foundation/working 
groups. Anyone can propose changes, so if you have the coding skills 
to make this change then feel free to do it and add a "pull request" 
on github.





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


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

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

[Jonathan]

I think the point Rob was making is that OpenStreetMap.org can't be all 
things to all men and neither should it attempt to be.  There are many 
many instances of OSM map data rendered in ways that appeal to various 
users, the OpenStreetMap.org page should show a generic map use with 
information and links to encourage new users and new contributors.  As a 
regular contributor I rarely go to OpenStreetMap.org, I approach the map 
data from other more specialised routes depending on my needs.


I feel that the new layout is an improvement on the current and pretty 
well gets the balance right.


Personally speaking I don't feel it would be a terrible idea to ditch 
the OpenStreetMap.org map and just have this page as the homepage:  
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OpenStreetMap


I don't believe OSM is about rendering maps, isn't it about creating a 
cartographic database?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 17/11/2013 21:14, Oliver Jowett wrote:
On 17 November 2013 15:06, Rob Nickerson <mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com>> wrote:



To use the map I'd prefer not to have that signup box floating
around all the time (I am only logged in when I am about to edit).

Oliver


You could tick the stay logged in button,


I don't retain cookies between browser sessions.

or alternatively if you want a full screen map there are plenty of
sites that provide alternate views of OSM data. One such full
screen example is at:


http://faffy.openstreetmap.org/?zoom=4&lat=47.63024&lon=1.75347&layers=B


Is the response to "Here's a usability issue with the proposed 
changes" really "use something else then"?


Oliver



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


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

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

[Jonathan]

The Welcome box doesn't linger once you've logged in, so in a way having 
it in the way may encourage some to join and login?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 16/11/2013 18:01, ael wrote:

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 01:36:40PM +, David Earl wrote:

On 15/11/2013 20:15, Rob Nickerson wrote:

(The aim of this email is to provide prior knowledge of an upcoming change to 
the
OSM website and to give you an opportunity to provide constructive feedback)


Would it be possible to have a dismiss button on the Welcome to
OpenStreetMap box (including Learn More and Sign Up, but not
including search)? Just like the x on the panels that replace it,
e.g. when you search. Perhaps if you dismiss it it could join the
green buttons as 'Welcome' to get it back.

On iPad and netbooks, this box takes up a substantial part of the
screen obscuring the map. Less of a problem on larger screens, but
still intrusive if you want to see the whole map. Clearly it is a
very important part of the page when the whole point is to promote
OSM, but being able to make it go away would be helpful when you're
just trying to make use of the map.

+1

ael


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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Moderation (WAS: Primary or Trunk? PITA?)

[Jonathan]

To lay this to rest.

I posted the original question to both lists because, while it only 
affected the UK, I felt it may have broader interest.  And I was right, 
there was more response on the Tagging list than talk-gb.


I don't mind people dis-agreeing with me, surely that is the whole point 
of a "talk" list, but if I am dredging up the past then I would expect 
those involved in the original question to either clear up any confusion 
or keep quiet.  What is not constructive are "tuts" and comments about 
this having already been discussed, although I am thick skinned enough 
to brush off such comments.


What upset me, yes I was upset, call me a whimp if you like, but if you 
ask anyone who has met me they will hopefully confirm I am not an 
over-sensitive wet, but nevertheless when, out of the blue, I received a 
direct email asking why I was being a pain in the ass, no discussion, no 
further questions about my confusion or my opinion just a direct 
insult.  That upset me, I felt attacked and I felt like I didn't want to 
engage and further with the mapping community.  Then I became angry that 
I was being bullied into submission and not even in public.  If you have 
an argument in a pub with a group of friends/colleagues then later one 
of them comes up to you when you're on your own and they use abusive 
language about your opinion how are you to feel?


How many times has this happened to new-comers and they've just walked 
away from the project?  When Alyssa Wright gave her presentation to SOTM 
2013 about a wider membership of OSM beyond White Anglo Saxon Males (my 
phrase not hers) I felt she was wrong in it being intimidating for other 
groups to join us, I now feel I was wrong.  Because as a White Anglo 
Saxon Male I sometimes feel intimidated so demographics who are lesser 
represented must feel worse. We must address this if we want to grow.


On the original question, clearly there is a lot of clash with this 
terminology.  Trunk roads were terms that my parents and grand parents 
used (I'm 46) but I've not heard it used in common speak for many years, 
let alone beyond the UK borders.  However, my real confusion is that GB 
trunk roads do not match the main description on the wiki for Trunk 
Roads, so I feel the wiki needs improving, I don't think that what has 
been tagged is wrong.


BTW, since complaining about the PITA comment I've had other, shall we 
say, "non-friendly" off-list comments. So a big thank you to those of 
you who have kept their comments on-list and in public, especially those 
of you who have agreed with me, at least in part.


Now, I'm knackered and am going to bed :-)

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 04/11/2013 09:50, Andy Robinson wrote:

For those who need to know the origins of the trunk/primary tag you need to
go back to the very first version of Map Features, which I hold my hand up I
developed. At the time I researched a lot of things but clearly not
everything in detail and as a result I have a number of regrets that some
tags that are now used worldwide aren't perfect. The trunk tag may be one of
them as I'm sure if I had researched a little more in detail at the time I
would have spotted, as TomH eloquently points out, we had moved on in the UK
to a Primary  Route Network definition. But then again, would it apply to
very country?

I think the root of the issue, as its been raised many times in the past, is
that I didn't have the foresight for highways to separate out the physical
descriptions from the administrative and legal ones. After all we were only
tagging segments with simple tags at the time.

I noted last week that there are those who wish to change the
highway=bus_stop tag to something that slots it in with public_transport
mapping. I have no problem with any of that, objects can receive additional
new tagging at any time to fit in with the bigger picture. I can see a time
in a decade or so when there are lots of new tags, defined by a new wave of
mappers who see the needs of OSM (and its uses) differently from the way
many of us see things today. That's fine too, the project is meant to be
organic.

Anyway, enough of the history lecture, let's please remember we are all
friends here, we all share a common enjoyment and goal.

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Tom Hughes [mailto:t...@compton.nu]
Sent: 04 November 2013 08:35
To: Rob Nickerson; Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Moderation (WAS: Primary or Trunk? PITA?)

On 04/11/13 00:23, Rob Nickerson wrote:


To summarise: a simple question was asked entirely inocently, and I am
100% sure that it was not meant to belittle 10 years of tagging. An
answer was given in quite a "matter of fact" tone which in face to
face communication would be fine but due to the un human nature of
email could be interpreted as negative. Again I am 100% sure it was
not meant negativel

Re: [Talk-GB] Primary or Trunk? PITA?

[Jonathan]

I've just googled PITA and it would appear that it stands for Pain In 
The Ass.  The below quoted email I received to my personal email is not 
a snippet but the full and entire transcript I received this evening.


I can't stress strongly enough how insulted, and a little scared, I feel 
for this personal attack.


Is Chris Hill (user: chilly) trying to intimidate or bully me outside of 
the list?  Is he threatened by my questioning the Status Quo?  Was he 
upset that I didn't shut up after he proffered the first answer  to my 
question?


I thought these lists were aliases for "discussion"?  It would appear 
that if you ask a question that was raised 3 years before then that 
instantly make you a "PITA"?


I realise there are mappers like Chris who have many years/edits of 
seniority over us newer mappers but that gives them no right to abuse 
anybody, if anything it confers a responsibility to help newer mappers.  
That help shouldn't come in the form of "I say it is so accept it", if 
they can't justify their opinion with a reasoned argument then don't 
give the opinion!


Abusing the  questioner is unacceptable. Either within the list or without.

I was on the fringes of the organising committee for SOTM2013 and the 
subject of an anti-bullying policy was raised, suggesting it should be 
documented and published.  I was against it because I felt it was just 
common human courtesy to treat everyone with respect and kindness.  
Maybe I was wrong, maybe it should be documented so that people like 
Chris Hill (chilly) can be officially sanctioned, given warnings over 
their conduct, and in the extreme, have their account blocked.


I'd like to state that I shall withdraw all involvement in the the 
Trunk/Primary debate and will think twice about any future questions to 
these lists.


If anybody wants to see OSM flourish and bring in new participants from 
other walks of life and grow to be a well respected global organisation 
then think again, some may need to leave before others feel they may 
want to join.


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 03/11/2013 19:55, Chris Hill wrote:

Why are you being a PITA about this?




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Primary or Trunk?

[Jonathan]

Sorry if I've not seen the old posts on this, the wiki pages are 
contradictory which is why I asked the question.


In the UK we are defining Trunk or Primary based on some arbitrary 
definition not on anything that is of use to any user or renderer.


What we should be mapping is reality, so that people can use that data 
to build on.  Whether a road is signed in Green, Pink or Purple tells a 
user nothing, it may have a legal definition but that is all.  The tag 
we give it should tell the user something about the road's capabilities, 
importance, size and potential timings/traffic flow.  A Trunk road that 
is a dual carriageway with a maxspeed of 70 mph is very different to a 
Trunk road that winds around fields and has a maxspeed of 50 mph or less!


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 03/11/2013 00:14, Tom Hughes wrote:

On 02/11/13 18:47, Jonathan wrote:


I'm not clear with the distinction of a Trunk road in the UK. The wiki
suggests a trunk road is "high performance roads that don't meet the
requirement for highway
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=motorway
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway>" which to me
would suggest an A road that is a dual carriageway.  Further on in the
wiki it says that any A road in the UK  signed with "Green" signs is a
"Trunk" road.

I know of many "Green" "A" roads that aren't much more than country
lanes, they are definitely not "high performance" and I don't feel they
should be "Trunk" roads, I feel they should be "Primary" roads.


It's really very simple, and has been discussed here many, many times 
before and I'm sure there are multiple pages on the wiki covering it.


First, forget the question of which roads are formally designated as 
trunk roads by the Department for Transport (which is not very many 
these days).


Second, understand that there is something called the Primary Route 
Network defined by DfT which covers those A roads connecting specific 
major towns. Those are the A roads with the green signs, and are what 
we tag as highway=trunk. Other A roads are highway=primary.


In many cases those will be major roads, often ex trunk roads, but in 
more rural areas like the highlands they might look more like a B road 
does in other parts of the country. That is irrelevant though.


In the UK it is really only residential/unclassified/tertiary where 
you need to make a judgement call. Everything else has a well defined 
mapping:


  Motorways => highway=motorway
  Green Signed A Roads => highway=trunk
  White Signed A Roads => highway=primary
  B Roads => highway=secondary

Hopefully that will explain everything ;-)

Tom




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

[Talk-GB] Primary or Trunk?

[Jonathan]

This question is really aimed at UK roads but the same may apply to 
other countries.


I'm not clear with the distinction of a Trunk road in the UK. The wiki 
suggests a trunk road is "high performance roads that don't meet the 
requirement for highway 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=motorway 
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway>" which to me 
would suggest an A road that is a dual carriageway.  Further on in the 
wiki it says that any A road in the UK  signed with "Green" signs is a 
"Trunk" road.


I know of many "Green" "A" roads that aren't much more than country 
lanes, they are definitely not "high performance" and I don't feel they 
should be "Trunk" roads, I feel they should be "Primary" roads.


Where do we draw the line?  (No pun intended)

Thoughts?

Jonathan





--
http://bigfatfrog67.me

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Notes feature

[Jonathan]

Yes, I like this, very simple. I guess it just adds a POI?  Who's behind 
onosm.org?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 27/10/2013 16:21, Rob Nickerson wrote:


Great idea.

I spotted http://onosm.org/ the other day. Perhaps this could be used 
to capture the details.


Rob


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping climbing routes/areas.

[Jonathan]

OK, thanks for that.

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 23/10/2013 12:14, Derry Hamilton wrote:

Hi Jonathan,
I think that was exactly the basis of BMC vs Rockfax.  The BMC author 
had put up and named several routes specifically for the guide book, 
and there was no other original source for those names, so the BMC 
sued and lost when Rockfax published a guide that included those 
routes.  The route name, its location and way up were held to be 
statements of fact and thus un copyrightable, but that descriptions, 
topo,  grade etc. were copyrightable.


Thanks,
Derry


On 23 October 2013 12:06, Jonathan <mailto:bigfatfro...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I wasn't thinking they could name the physical place but more the
route up. They could devise a particular route up a cliff,
involving certain techniques maybe and give it name that they may
claim is proprietary.  So while we could survey and map the route
we maybe infringing their intellectual property to name it as they
have in their guide???  I don't know, just surmising.

Just like you can download and compile your own version of Firefox
but you can't distribute it as Firefox with their permission! 
Hence Iceweasel :-)


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 23/10/2013 11:27, Nick Whitelegg wrote:


Don't know if you can do that on hills too?

If there's an unnamed hill somewhere I'll call it "Proprietary
Peak" and charge people one million pounds to use it. ;-)

Nick

-Jonathan 
<mailto:bigfatfro...@gmail.com> wrote: -
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
From: Jonathan 
<mailto:bigfatfro...@gmail.com>
Date: 23/10/2013 11:17AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping climbing routes/areas.

Hi Derry,

I'm no lawyer, but if the route name was first used in a copyrighted
publication and never used before that publication then they
*may* have
claim to it.  Bear in mind that while a route name may not be
covered by
copyright it may be covered by a trademark!?

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 23/10/2013 07:43, Derry Hamilton wrote:
> Opinions I've seen are that route names are not copyrightable, any
> more than road or mountain names.


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


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



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




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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping climbing routes/areas.

[Jonathan]

As I said, I'm not a lawyer, just erring on the side of caution.  My 
worry is that if you add the "Nike Chimney" (fake name) as a climbing 
route, we may be using something that is not without legal encumbrance.  
I'm just paranoid :-)


I would suggest that if anyone goes out, surveys and climbs their own 
route and then uploads to OSM then that would be fine.


On a further note, I don't know how you map a vertical route on a flat map?

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 23/10/2013 11:54, Derry Hamilton wrote:

Hi Jonathan,
I believe the lack of copyright on route names and location was 
settled in BMC vs Rockfax, when the BMC sued on exactly that basis and 
lost, but I don't have a cite to hand.


Thanks,
Derry


On 23 October 2013 11:13, Jonathan <mailto:bigfatfro...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Hi Derry,

I'm no lawyer, but if the route name was first used in a
copyrighted publication and never used before that publication
then they *may* have claim to it.  Bear in mind that while a route
name may not be covered by copyright it may be covered by a
trademark!?

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me


On 23/10/2013 07:43, Derry Hamilton wrote:

Opinions I've seen are that route names are not copyrightable,
any more than road or mountain names.



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




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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping climbing routes/areas.

[Jonathan]

I wasn't thinking they could name the physical place but more the route 
up. They could devise a particular route up a cliff, involving certain 
techniques maybe and give it name that they may claim is proprietary.  
So while we could survey and map the route we maybe infringing their 
intellectual property to name it as they have in their guide???  I don't 
know, just surmising.


Just like you can download and compile your own version of Firefox but 
you can't distribute it as Firefox with their permission! Hence 
Iceweasel :-)


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 23/10/2013 11:27, Nick Whitelegg wrote:


Don't know if you can do that on hills too?

If there's an unnamed hill somewhere I'll call it "Proprietary Peak" 
and charge people one million pounds to use it. ;-)


Nick

-Jonathan  wrote: -----
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
From: Jonathan 
Date: 23/10/2013 11:17AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping climbing routes/areas.

Hi Derry,

I'm no lawyer, but if the route name was first used in a copyrighted
publication and never used before that publication then they *may* have
claim to it.  Bear in mind that while a route name may not be covered by
copyright it may be covered by a trademark!?

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 23/10/2013 07:43, Derry Hamilton wrote:
> Opinions I've seen are that route names are not copyrightable, any
> more than road or mountain names.


___
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] Mapping climbing routes/areas.

[Jonathan]

Hi Derry,

I'm no lawyer, but if the route name was first used in a copyrighted 
publication and never used before that publication then they *may* have 
claim to it.  Bear in mind that while a route name may not be covered by 
copyright it may be covered by a trademark!?


Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 23/10/2013 07:43, Derry Hamilton wrote:
Opinions I've seen are that route names are not copyrightable, any 
more than road or mountain names.



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

[Talk-GB] Geological Data

[Jonathan]

Hi,

I was wondering whether anybody had discussed importing geological data 
into OSM before.  We map surface details about the land cover and 
underground use if it's man-made so why not geological data?


The BGS have a load of data at 
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/opengeoscience/downloads.html.


So was wondering what people thought about it?

Jonathan

--
http://bigfatfrog67.me


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Probation offices

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 07/08/2013 13:47, Steven Horner wrote:
> Thanks I will go with office=probation unless others disagree. 

No disagreement, but *please* document what you've used the tag for on
the wiki. Don't bother with the "approval" process, but do give a brief
description of what a probation office does and why you'd want to visit
one, so people have an idea when to use the tag.


J.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mass edits of landuse /natural tags

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 25/04/2013 16:23, John Baker wrote:
> 
> There are always more suitable tags than natural=grass, landuse=grass
> being the most obvious

Are you claiming that the land *is used for* grass? That the purpose man
has put that piece of land to is just "grass"? surface=grass yes,
landcover=grass maybe (and if it's the "natural" bit you're objecting
to, you might be able to justify man_made=grass) but landuse=grass
absolutely not. Landuse is for general planning/zoning classification,
such as residential, industrial, mixed etc.

The feature that has a grass surface will be something else, something
more specific like a park, a residential garden, a meadow, a field
(landuse=agriculture), or maybe the grass is just there because
*something* has to be (e.g. the centre of a roundabout). You're using a
tag originally intended for a sociopolitical construct (land use and
zoning) to show a physical characteristic of the land (what it's covered
with). The two are only loosely connected at best, and a surface covered
with grass can be put to many different and mutually exclusive *uses*.

J.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Highways Leading to Farms and single residential properties in rural areas

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 11/03/2013 21:26, Dudley Ibbett wrote:
> Is there a correct answer for this or is it a matter of mapping style? 
> I am leaning towards using Highway=Service for these and keeping
> Highway=Track for "tracks" that link from fields to farms or roads to
> fields (i.e. not from roads to farmyards or residential properties).  It
> would seem to suggest this in the wiki on Track.  The wiki would also
> suggest the use of Service=Driveway when using Highway=Service.

I'd say that a track only exists because vehicles have passed that way,
and will only exist while vehicles continue to use it (which in some
ways implies it's unfenced), whereas an unsurfaced/dirt service road has
been constructed in some way, even if it's not been sealed or metalled.

Does that help?

Jonathan


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way

[Jonathan Harley]

On 26/01/13 14:41, Brad Rogers wrote:

John Aldridge  wrote:

In one case, the location of the path is clear, because it runs between
two walls and the green "Public Footpath" signs are present, but a
section of it has become completely and densely overgrown with
brambles. It also has a large pile of earth obstructing it, which makes
me wonder whether the obstruction is deliberate. It's been like this
for at least a couple of years.


Report it to the relevant PRoW Officer.  The landowner should be forced
to maintain the Way.



Actually, AIUI, the landowner can't be forced to, but if the landowner 
won't reinstate and clear the path, the council must. The council can 
then charge the full cost of them doing so to the landowner - which is 
likely to be far more than if the landowner did it. The threat alone is 
almost always enough to get them to do it. But occasionally, I suppose, 
the landowner can't be tracked down. The local authority still has to 
keep PRoWs open.


Also you don't need to figure out, yourself, who the PRoW officer is - 
just contact the highways department of the local authority.


J.


--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :   Managing Director  :   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 08453138457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry, CV4 7EZ

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Pronunciation of place names

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 10/01/2013 13:30, John Sturdy wrote:
> We could have a keyword convention for indicating the pronunciation
> (in various languages) using the International Phonetic Alphabet; for
> example, we could supplement name:=* with
> name::IPA=*

I did this:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/18167379



J.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Telegraph releases Green Belt data

[Jonathan Harley]

On 28/11/12 20:46, Tom Chance wrote:
On 28 November 2012 19:40, Andy Robinson <mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Some of the area’s most certainly are not “protected” as they are
actively being discussed for development. 



These are probably areas that have been de-designated, or are being 
considered for this fate, since the Telegraph's data source was compiled.


This points to the major flaw with importing this data - it changes 
year to year, and we can't easily observe the changes on the ground. 
We might spot development on green belt and so remove the designation, 
we don't spot where new green space is designated as greenbelt. Unless 
we had ongoing co-operation from local authorities, within a year we'd 
be hosting a dataset that's out of date and impossible to check.


Hardly impossible, since it's public information. Green belt land is 
supposed to be "permanent", if I remember the Town and Country Planning 
Act correctly, so it should change less often than local government 
boundaries, which have no evidence on the ground at all in most places - 
yet we still maintain them in OSM.


Local authorities normally publish green belt maps as part of their 
planning statements. Unfortunately these are often in hard-to-use 
formats like PDF.


I'm not arguing for a rush to import this dataset, but it would be great 
to have this information in OSM and much easier to maintain it after 
import/tracing than to author it by hand. When I say it would be great 
to have it, in fact I believe this is a huge opportunity for OSM to play 
a vital role in local democracy. And when I say vital, I'm not exaggerating.


The Localism Act 2011 sweeps away a lot of restrictions on planning. 
There is now a thing called "neighbourhood planning" which means that 
communities - or in practice, the tiny proportion of people who take an 
interest in planning - will be able to grant planning permission where 
"they want" to see things built. It limits the powers of professional 
planners to place restrictions on what will be built where - if "the 
community" votes to allow building, it will be allowed without any 
professional input. (Sorry, I mean interference from government.)


This means that property developers will be able to "convince" just a 
few people to vote in favour of a development (you can use your 
imagination how this convincing might be accomplished) and it will go 
ahead. The only safeguard left against this will be to get enough people 
involved in the process, and that requires people to be well informed.


I had some discussions with someone at the Campaign for the Protection 
of Rural England a while ago and they sound very keen to provide tools 
to help communities understand their local geography, given these huge 
new responsibilities that we have been given. Maps are of course key to 
this. If we can present this sort of information in OSM, it could even 
become the de facto source of information for community planning activities.


Worth a shot, no?

J.

--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [Talk-GB] SotM 2013

[Jonathan Harley]

On 27/09/12 20:27, Tim Waters wrote:

Hi

On 17 September 2012 18:00, Jonathan Harley <mailto:j...@spiffymap.net>> wrote:



Just to throw another venue idea into the mix, how about Warwick
University? Advantages: it keeps winning awards as one of the best
conference venues in the UK, and can offer a very full-service
event where the venue will provide all the materials needed for
the organisers as well as things like extra people to help do the
running around (putting up signs etc). I work within walking
distance and could act as venue liaison. Coventry isn't far from
Nottingham which will host FOSS4G. Takes just over an hour on the
train from London and is in the centre of the motorway network too.

Traditionally SOTMs have been run by us, the volunteers, versus 
 professional organizers. (In comparison the larger FOSS4G is run by 
professionals). I think this keeps costs down and in my opinion makes 
it a more friendly affair. I'm not sure if this is set in stone, but I 
think we should be prepared to run everything ourselves.




Hi Tim, I agree completely. On the other hand, having organised a con 
where a couple of organisers dropped out at a late stage it is nice to 
have a contingency plan. Or perhaps you'd argue that if we don't have a 
big enough team that we would not be able to cope if a couple of people 
dropped out just before the event, we shouldn't bid.


All of which begs the question - just how many volunteers do we need to 
get a credible bid together?


Jonathan.


--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [Talk-GB] SotM 2013

[Jonathan Harley]

On 13/09/12 13:30, Gregory wrote:
Ah I was going to suggest this two but I was going to make the topic 
thread "SotM13 to be hosted in the UK" to get your attention. :)


I was wondering about Durham beacuse:
a) I live there and it's a lovely place
b) North England (silent/slow) community could be helped by it
c) We have good rail connections, air connections via Newcastle, and 
many conference venues




I think Durham is a nice idea because it's in a very pretty part of the 
country, which would help attract people. Not so sure about Guildford.


I think I'm very good at overall administration and would be willing 
to put lots of work in but wanted to know who else would be up for 
helping?


Other city suggestions (I would still help loads!)?

If it's close time wise to FOSS4G then this would help so 
internationals can make one trip here.




Agree on that too, a UK bid needs to be close in time to FOSS4G. 
Preferably just before it - many UK universities start their autumn term 
in the last week of September and so wouldn't be available to host a 
residential conference.


I am willing to help too. I have helped organise both a professional 
(IT) conference and a community convention before.


Liaising with the venue alone can consume an entire volunteer's time. 
IMO it's essential to pick a venue where at least one of the team is 
close enough to visit it as often as required.


Just to throw another venue idea into the mix, how about Warwick 
University? Advantages: it keeps winning awards as one of the best 
conference venues in the UK, and can offer a very full-service event 
where the venue will provide all the materials needed for the organisers 
as well as things like extra people to help do the running around 
(putting up signs etc). I work within walking distance and could act as 
venue liaison. Coventry isn't far from Nottingham which will host 
FOSS4G. Takes just over an hour on the train from London and is in the 
centre of the motorway network too.



Jonathan.


--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [Talk-GB] SotM 2013

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 13/09/2012 13:30, Gregory wrote:
> Other city suggestions (I would still help loads!)?

Although everyone is going to do this, I'd like to suggest Guildford,
where I live. The things is has going for it is:

* less than an hour from both Heathrow and Gatwick for international
attendees.
* 40 minutes by train from that there London
* Rail connections from Reading for the civilised parts of the country
* The A3 trunk road (by OSM *and* DfT definitions) runs right through
the town, connecting with the M25 and the south coast.
* So does the Wey Navigation, so RichardF can even get there
* The University of Surrey is an established conference venue, with
low-cost accommodation on-site
* The town & campus are already well-mapped
* Alan Turing used to live here
* There's some *fantastic* cycle routes around here...

Thoughts?


-- 
Jonathan (Jonobennett)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Google Maps using Sustrans Cycling data

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 23/07/2012 23:17, SomeoneElse wrote:


but I'm not actually a cyclist -


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Stations and platforms=*

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 28/06/2012 17:19, Tom Chance wrote:


According to Wikipedia's actual page on the station it has 8 platforms.


[citation needed]

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Stations and platforms=*

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 28/06/2012 11:32, David Earl wrote:

Might this be of help, if the info were included with the station. It
seems to be "official":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_railway_station_categories



If I could find the actual *information*, yes! However, it's UK-only, 
and platforms=* can be applied worldwide.


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

[Talk-GB] Stations and platforms=*

[Jonathan Bennett]

tl;dr: Please tag your local station(s) with platforms=n where n<>2

I had a conversation with Andy Allan, ooh, ages ago (it was probably at 
WhereCampGB in Notts) about his lovely transport layer 
(http://osm.org/go/euup98?layers=T) and mentioned it would be great to 
see station names at lower zooms than it currently renders.


While not disagreeing, Andy pointed out that this was currently very 
difficult to get right, because station density varies so greatly across 
the country. In London, they're barely a mile apart, whereas in the 
sticks you get one every 50 miles. There was no obvious way of ensuring 
that the "right" stations get rendered in high-density areas while 
showing all stations in rural areas.


At some point post-conversation that one way of filtering the stations 
would be based on the number of platforms, since this roughly 
corresponds to "importance" (yuck) in London, at least. It's not 
perfect, but it's better than nothing.


Andy hasn't *promised* to do anything with this information, but put it 
this way: If it's there, he might. If it's not, he can't.


I've already added platforms=* to the preset for a station in Potlatch 
2, so it's not even that tricky. Go on. Please.


J.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to work with Government Open Data (e.g. Boundaries, Rights of Way)

[Jonathan Harley]

On 19/06/12 09:10, Nick Whitelegg wrote:


On 18/06/2012 13:28, Gregory wrote:

How do footpaths work legally with textual descriptions?
If a field has a stile/gate at opposite corners. The footpath may have
originally cut across, legally the landowner has to allow access
between the two gates, but can he make people walk round the edge of
his field. Also in reverse, if the footpath was originally walking
round the edge until people walked diagonally across and the landowner
allowed that by leaving a gap in crops and blocking the edge.
Has the footpath/access changed?


No, it hasn't. A landowner can offer an alternative route, but that
doesn't affect the right of way which remains in the same place as it
always was. (Assuming they haven't taken legal steps to change it.)
Landowners are required to reinstate the surface of a footpath after
ploughing, and keep it clear of vegetation to a width of 1 metre if
crosses a field or 1.5 metres if it goes round the edge.
Jonathan.

Which frequently they don't


Indeed they don't - and that's to say nothing of replacing stiles with 
unclimbable fencing or even putting electric fencing across the line of 
a RoW, as one farmer near my last house used to do all the time.


It's the responsibility of the County Council/Highway Authority to make 
sure paths are kept clear, so they're the ones to contact about it. They 
have the power to clear the path and charge the work to the landowner, 
though I'm told usually just the threat of this works.


J.

--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [Talk-GB] How to work with Government Open Data (e.g. Boundaries, Rights of Way)

[Jonathan Harley]

On 18/06/2012 13:28, Gregory wrote:

How do footpaths work legally with textual descriptions?
If a field has a stile/gate at opposite corners. The footpath may have 
originally cut across, legally the landowner has to allow access 
between the two gates, but can he make people walk round the edge of 
his field. Also in reverse, if the footpath was originally walking 
round the edge until people walked diagonally across and the landowner 
allowed that by leaving a gap in crops and blocking the edge.

Has the footpath/access changed?



No, it hasn't. A landowner can offer an alternative route, but that 
doesn't affect the right of way which remains in the same place as it 
always was. (Assuming they haven't taken legal steps to change it.) 
Landowners are required to reinstate the surface of a footpath after 
ploughing, and keep it clear of vegetation to a width of 1 metre if 
crosses a field or 1.5 metres if it goes round the edge.


Jonathan.

--
Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd

Email: m...@spiffymap.com   Phone: 0845 313 8457   www.spiffymap.com
Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ


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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject

[Jonathan Harley]

On 06/05/12 17:22, Andrew M. Bishop wrote:

Andy Street  writes:


On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
I'd agree that generic consumers will struggle with highway=path,
designation=* but that is a wider OSM issue and not limited to the
path/footway, etc. debate. Anyone using OSM data should be
pre-processing it to take into account local laws/customs and their
particular use case. For example, you are probably going to come a
cropper if you go around assuming that roads across the globe without an
explicit maxspeed tag all have the same default value.

As the author of a consumer of OSM data I for one would prefer it if
there was a single set of tags worldwide.  In my case the consumer of
the data is Routino a router for OSM data (http://www.routino.org/).


That makes sense - but the question is, should tagging be optimised for 
mappers/map editors, or for map consumers, if those things conflict?



My personal opinion is that the biggest risk to OSM's future is if we
don't agree on a subset of tagging rules to be used worldwide.  The
idea that there could be a pre-processor to handle local laws and
customs is impractical.  There are literally hundreds of regions that
might use their own tagging rules each of which needs to be defined by
a geographical region and list of rules.  Each consumer of data then
needs to implement the full set of pre-processor rules.


No; only consumers of data who want worldwide coverage (and who care 
about the tags that vary around the world) would have to do that. And I 
think that would still be easier than getting mappers worldwide to 
conform to a rigid tagging system.


I'm not sure what I think is the biggest risk to OSM's future but I 
think attempting to impose an unwieldy system of tags on contributors is 
right up there. I think a large part of OSM's success so far is due to 
its simplicity and informality.



With a single set of rules a way can be taken from an OSM XML file and
it will be immediately apparent who is permitted to use it.  With a
pre-processor it is necessary to take the way from the file, search
through the whole file to find the nodes that are referenced by it,
search through all defined regions to determine which one the nodes
belong to and then apply the selected pre-processor.

One thing that we shouldn't lose sight of is that each item in OSM is
created once and edited a few times by a small number of editors but
used many hundreds of time each day by many dozens of data consumers.
Since the number of times the data is read far exceeds the number of
times the data is written (by orders of magnitude) the complexity
should be in the writing side and not the reading side.


I disagree. Consumers of OSM data should embrace Postel's Law. Besides, 
rule-based processing is just CPU cycles. Those are far less valuable 
than OSM contributor brain power.


Also, there's no reason data consumers have to use "raw" OSM data. 
Someone could post-process OSM to produce dumps that have "normalised" 
rights of way information, and publish those files for the benefit of 
that subset of consumers who happen to care about rights of way being 
consistent around the world. I think that's a much better way to go than 
laying down rigid rules for mappers, or running bots that try to bash 
OSM into the shape needed by a particular consumer.



Jonathan.

--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Designation: should we begin using prefixes

[Jonathan Harley]

On 02/05/12 16:38, Chris Hill wrote:

On 02/05/12 16:29, Andrew Chadwick wrote:

designation=* has been evolving recently, and has added some open land
classifications:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation#UK_Protected_Areas

With the proliferation of these designation codes, would it make sense
to begin coming up with country- or jurisdiction-coded prefixes for
them, similar to the way we denote "national" speed limits?
Not really, if the tag is in the UK (or, say, England if that makes a 
difference) it is understandable that it is not anywhere else in the 
world. It is a location-oriented database after all. The UK prefix on 
speed limit tags is bonkers.




+1 for prefixes to designate a country on features which are already 
geographically located in a country being bonkers.


I'm not clear what problem these prefixes are supposed to solve, but if 
the problem is something like "how to identify tag usages within a 
specific country", build a tool that knows how to search a specific 
country, rather than placing the burden on mappers.


Jonathan.

--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest?

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 16/04/2012 12:26, Barnett, Phillip wrote:

Off -topic ---
Apparently it's not been a good year for bluebells - wrong kind of spring.


The ones in my garden have flowered for the first time in years!

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Licence change - one month to go

[Jonathan Bennett]

Further to this, one helpful thing is if everyone makes sure they've
uploaded all their traces to OSM. I know I'm guilty of working from the
trace files locally when mapping, then forgetting to upload them so
other mappers can make use of the data.

That way we're not entirely reliant on OS data to fill in some gaps.

Jonathan

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Using Bing in hilly areas (was: GB License Change Readiness)

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 08/01/2012 13:49, Michael Collinson wrote:
> I find it very easy to replace them with much better since we now
> additionally have Bing for position and OS StreetView for names

On this one particular point, use Bing for positioning with caution in
coastal and hilly areas. The parts of Cornwall I've mapped (Polruan
being the biggest example) have shown that the Bing imagery is only
coarsely rectified. Where there are steep hills, the features on them
aren't positioned correctly.

I've found that OS StreetView matches my traces much closer in areas
like this, so use a combination of sources and some judgement.

-- 
Jonathan (Jonobennett)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] License change & anonymous edits

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 11/01/2012 10:02, Ed Avis wrote:
> OK guys, it's public domain.  Enjoy.
> 

Ed,

Thank you, from a mapper whose work doesn't overlap with yours very
much. You've made a lot of contributions over the years, and it's great
that OpenStreetMap can continue to use them.

The licence change process hasn't been elegant, and no-one's pretending
it's perfect, but that's not a reason to try to find a way forward.

Again, thanks.

Jonathan

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Dorset County Council maps now offer OSM Mapnik as default base layer

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 19/12/2011 00:31, Nick Austin wrote:

1) Judging by the status message that Firefox produces they are using
the OSM tile server. Is that allowed?


Yes, and it won't cause a problem. Browser-based applications like this 
only request a small number of tiles at a time for the area the user is 
viewing.


The problem occurs when an application starts bulk downloading tiles for 
use offline, particularly at high zoom levels.


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

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

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 28/11/2011 18:29, SomeoneElse wrote:

The problem with "proposed" routes is that they don't exist yet and so
the usual "on the ground" check is difficult.


Then don't map them. Seriously, if these networks aren't at the 
implementation stage, there's little point in adding them to OSM. Even 
worse, if a route relies on some improvement work (e.g. clearing of a 
railway trackbed) that hasn't been done, having the route there could 
even be dangerous.


J.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 08/11/2011 11:12, Andy Allan wrote:
>> The easy-for-mappers-but-maybe-a-bit-computationally-intensive scheme
>> you're trying to avoid
> 
> Colon-delineated key namespaces are the exact opposite of
> "easy-for-mappers", 


Sorry if I wasn't clear -- I wasn't necessarily referring to colons and
namespaces as being easy to use, just generally hand-waving about what
you should or shouldn't consider when creating a new tag.

"Easy for mappers" is probably "use your editor's presets/templates" anyway.


-- 
Jonathan (Jonobennett)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 07/11/2011 16:58, Jonathan Bennett wrote:


misunderstanding of the situation. I think *any* new tag added to
osm.xml results in an extra column, whether it has a colon or not.


By osm.xml, I did of course mean default.style

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Drinking Map of UK

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 05/11/2011 21:48, Graham Jones wrote:


I know that tagging for the renderer is frowned upon, but I really do
not like all these colons in key names, because (as far as I know) that
means having an extra column in the database produced by osm2pgsql for
renderingand every time I want to add an extra column it means an
entire re-import of the databse.


I don't claim to be an osm2pgsql expert, but I think that's a 
misunderstanding of the situation. I think *any* new tag added to 
osm.xml results in an extra column, whether it has a colon or not.


Generally you shouldn't consider any performance implications when 
creating a tag, because you don't know what will change in the next 
version of the code. The 
easy-for-mappers-but-maybe-a-bit-computationally-intensive scheme you're 
trying to avoid may become a non-issue with a few lines of code changed. 
Equally the opposite may happen.


For information, I'm assured that extra columns produce next to no 
performance degradation anyway since osm2pgsql started using hstore.


Jonathan.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Surrey Cycleway

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 03/11/2011 14:22, Ed Loach wrote:

Wasn’t Ted Pottage out of Postman Pat?



No, that's Ted Glen.




I'll get me coat.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Aligning buildings in JOSM

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 23/09/2011 13:22, thomas van der veen wrote:


Is there a good trick I am missing?


Yes. Merkaartor's "Axis align" tool. :)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Routing and other problems west of Uttoxeter

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 08/08/2011 16:06, Tom Hughes wrote:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/blocks/64


First changeset after expiry:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/8976461

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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot

[Jonathan Bennett]

On 10/06/2011 13:43, Ed Avis wrote:

a footpaths maniac might
consider the map only 50% complete if footpaths were missing even though
everything else were perfect.
And a complete nutter who's obsessed with, say, postboxes might say the 
level of completeness is even lower -- 0% even. That's before you 
consider the coffee shop aficionados, hardened cider drinkers and public 
convenience frequenters.


Surveying gets you all these things. Importing and tracing *without 
surveying* gets you none.


Jonathan

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

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

[Jonathan Harley]

On 03/02/11 11:51, Ed Avis wrote:

Lastly, I don't believe that adding data from external sources discourages
contributors.  Quite the opposite.  It is a blank canvas that puts people off.
The way to bring in contributors is to show a map with a few missing details 
that
are so tempting to fix 'just one thing'...



I don't think you can generalise this - the blank canvas attracts some 
people (including me) and repels others.


However, I used to be quite active in wikipedia, and the experience 
there is clearly that there are far, far more people who want to be 
editors than who want to contribute brand-new content. I suspect if OSM 
did more to attract "gardeners" as someone else put it, there could be a 
big, largely untapped source of contributors out there.


Jonathan.

--
Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd

Email: m...@spiffymap.com   Phone: 0845 313 8457   www.spiffymap.com
Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ


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

Re: [Talk-GB] invisible

[Jonathan Harley]

On 18/01/11 11:02, Chris Saunter wrote:

I have an iOS app that renders vector map data on the fly, to allow
configurable rendering with selectable views (contours, waterways
etc).  Streaming data to the app is a bit of a problem, so it runs
from an offline binary cache that is pre-optimised for fast rendering.

I can imagine a similar approach for OSM as a whole, where there is a
vector data server that provides data pre-optimised for configurable,
on the fly rendering.  This could then be used in a variety of ways
such as:

1) Custom viewer applications, mobile or desktop - with local cacheing
of vector data this is blindingly fast
2) Browser based viewer using javascript - this could be a hybrid
bitmap/vector renderer that annotates bitmap tiles

The key thing is to make a vector viewing tool, not a full-blown GIS
tool - so an emphasis on redraw speed and ease of use over raw power.


You've just imagined our first product, which is a javascript vector map 
viewing tool. We'll be launching it in a few weeks and OSM data is one 
of the data options (we have a highly optimised internal format rather 
than taking data directly from OSM). However it will not be free.


We're an un-funded (as yet) startup, so we can't afford to give stuff 
away at this point - but if someone had a way of paying for our server 
costs we'd be very happy to host these kinds of specialised views of OSM 
data.


Jonathan.

--
Jonathan Harley: Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd

Email: m...@spiffymap.com   Phone: 0845 313 8457   www.spiffymap.com
Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ


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