Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest?
On 14/04/2012 21:46, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Maybe we should organize an East Hampshire OSM people (maybe for a pub walk / or mapping party ) get together some time this>>summer - it would be great to meet AndyS, NickW and any other like minded individuals. I'm up for it. Finding enough to sustain a mapping party might be difficult (South Hants is more or less road and footpath complete) but we could make it a social. Anyone else interested? Andy Yes, I'd be interested. Robert - I'm aware of you via 'robbieonsea' edits (usually in the exact same type of areas I tend to go!) so would be great to meet up with you. Anyone else - Caroline? 'Sailor Steve' ? Sure. Also I bumped into jjrscott last night, he might be interested too. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest?
On 29/03/2012 21:38, Andy Street wrote: Yes, there were some rather over zealous remappers in this area. Swanmore, the Forest of Bere and the surrounding area was left in a right old mess which I'll have to fix. Sadly with the number of overlapping changesets it's not going to be a simple revert job so this weekend I'll probably end up going "scorched earth" on the whole area followed by a proper on the ground re-survey. Andy, some large sections of the outline of the South Downs NP have also gone for walk. Do you have the data to repair them too? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Vandalization - No Bere Forest?
On 29/03/2012 19:30, Robert Norris wrote: I've just noticed Bere Forest (and trails) has been wiped from the map: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.91178&lon=-1.15578&zoom=15 It's literally empty space! Probably most where Andy Steets initial trials, but he's agreed so was there some over zealous deletion by some one? Unfortunately the history service contains to many world edits to be of use, and the general OSM history is quit slow at the moment. I think user monxton has tried to repair stuff. If it helps, I don't mind if you revert my changesets to get back to a better place. I reinstated the roads, but clearly there's a lot more that went missing too. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] South Downs National Park
On 20/05/2011 01:12, Andy Street wrote: The boundary for the South Downs National Park[0] has recently been added (more precisely it has been made to render) but is in need of some TLC. With the exception of a small section at the western end it is generally of very poor quality. It is therefore my intention to delete all but the western end and import the rest from OS OpenData which, while less than perfect, is a vast improvement over what is currently there. I know this is a drop in the ocean as far as imports go but as this affects mappers in three counties I thought I'd err on the side of caution and post here first. Anyone have any objections? Good plan. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
On 04/05/2011 15:57, Peter Miller wrote: Here is a global map view showing highway=footway in blue and highway=path in brown. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=97 There is indeed something like an 80/20 split in the UK with noticeable enthusiasm for 'path' in some parts of the country and a noticable preference for its use in the countryside over the town. In Germany the preference is stronger. This map will remain viewable but will not appear in the pull-down list of standard views so do please bookmark it if you want to come back to it. To me, the most significant thing about that map is that it demonstrates how vast swathes of the UK have almost no footpath data at all. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
On 21/04/2011 13:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote: If I were someone wanting the National Byway to render right now, I'd tag it as rcn, not ncn, because I believe "if it quacks like a duck, tag it like a duck" and the quality and design of the National Byway is much more akin to an old-style county cycleway (now generally Regional Routes) than to our National Cycle Network. I agree it feel more like an RCN. I'll retag my local section and see what emerges. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
On 20/04/2011 12:31, Peter Miller wrote: I have created a new ITO Map overlay showing highway=byway in red and designation=restricted_byway in blue. It would also show ways with route=bicycle and name=National Byway as a thick green line, however there aren't any that I can see as yet. You can try it here: http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=90 That's an interesting map, but it's not what we're discussing here. Often the ways officially designated as byway or restricted_byway are not cyclable. Cyclists are entitled to use them, but in practice usually cannot. More often they are usable by MTBs. The National Byway is currently tagged as : route=bicycle network=national_byway name=National Byway () but the proposal being discussed here is to change to network=ncn ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
On 20/04/2011 12:11, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Peter Miller wrote: What tagging would you expect us to use within OSM to identify something as being part of this network? Just route=bicycle, name=National Byway should be enough IMO. I wouldn't really call the National Byway a network - it's a circular route with the odd spur - but I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. People seem to find this an important distinction, but it's a little opaque to me. I mean, I understand that mathematically a network is a collection of connected points (so that you can always navigate between any two), and that a route is one way between two nodes. But that doesn't help me distinguish between the NB and the Sustrans NCN - just that the Sustrans network is bigger. If I am planning a cycling trip (oops nearly used the word route there) then I will choose whatever works best, which is likely to be a collection of segments from several different routes. (Bear in mind that, though I wouldn't go so far as to call the NB "vapourware", its ambition has thus far exceeded its reach. It's a lovely project but I think the completion date has slipped by about 10 years so far. It's a bit like standing at a station when the departure board always says it'll be here 3 minutes from now... and does so for an hour. We should be fairly careful to tag what the NB is, not what it wants to be. Even the 'National Map' on the NB website overstates its existence: there is no signage in Gloucestershire, and only intermittent signage in Oxfordshire where it coincides with the NCN, even though it claims both were completed in 2009.) I completely agree about only tagging what's on the ground. But I've had the opposite experience of the NB from you - in the south west I have found signs in places where I had not expected them. (Mind you it's hard to know what to expect as the NB south-west map is out of date and out of print too.) That's one reason I am keen to get them rendered on the OCM. Oh, absolutely. The National Byway is not made up of byways - in fact, it's expressly meant to be more an "on-road" network than (say) the NCN, which is why touring cyclists like it. I think there's an older meaning of the word "byway" to mean any minor / unclassified / back road. Perhaps that meaning has been eclipsed since the (relatively) recent reclassification of RUPPs and BOATs, but I guess it was what the NB people intended. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
On 20/04/2011 11:24, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: This raises an important point that cropped up last week in Brum where Brian had tagged a serious of routes that the local campaign group, Pushbikes, are promoting. The issue was that these routes don't exist on the ground. Like a bus route there is nothing really to tell you a route exists though there is clearly information around (paper map etc) that confirms they do and shows you where they go, a bus route map would be similar. So for me whether it is part of a network or not is immaterial. As far as I'm concerned using ncn/lcn/lcn is the best way of tagging a signed logical route whether its part of a bigger network or not. For routes that are not signed perhaps another layer is needed so that you can print the route and follow it but it doesn't clutter the signed physical network version of the cycle map. Bus routes do have a physical manifestation inasmuch as they usually have physical stops which usually list the routes which stop there. This is pretty much like a bicycle route which has signs only at the junctions. But yes, I would only tag a bicycle route which is signed on the ground. Though the OCM does support "proposed" routes, using dashed lines. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
On 19/04/2011 17:05, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: monxton [mailto:gm...@jordan-maynard.org] wrote: These, and other threads I haven't listed, tend to end with Andy saying that he will render the National Byway tags in their own colour some time in the future. I guess we need to be patient with Andy. Yes it would be nice to see it rendered as a brown line or whatever with little http://www.thenationalbyway.org/img/nb_logo.gif shields instead of the Sustrans NCN numbering. But I'm sure it will happen eventually. It would be nice to see it rendered anyhow. I really, really, don't want to annoy Andy, because if we didn't love the cycle map so much we wouldn't care what it rendered. So I hope his sense of humour is robust enough for me to mention that it's 3.5 years since since the schedule for rendering the National Byway was "this week". I'll get my coat. I know not everyone here cares for the National Byway. For me, it hits the spot for route planning much better than the Sustrans routes, which tend to be just too slow for long journeys. The two are trying to do very different things, each to their own. That's something that's said a few times on this list, but IMHO it's only partly true. I'd rather say that the Sustrans routes are trying to do about three different things, and the National Byway does only one of those three. If that were not so, there would not be so many places where the NB takes the same route as a Sustrans route. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] National Byway rendering on OpenCycleMap
Lately I've been doing some tagging of the South-West region of the National Byway, and I'm finding it quite disappointing that it is not rendered on the cycle map. I've rummaged around in the history of this issue and located what I think are the most relevant thread starters: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-May/009449.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2007-September/005861.html also Richard's summary on the forum: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=4141 These, and other threads I haven't listed, tend to end with Andy saying that he will render the National Byway tags in their own colour some time in the future. Is there any likelihood that that time is nigh? I know this sounds like a nag, so if there anything that can be done (style files?) to help get to that point, I'm happy to volunteer. (I know not everyone here cares for the National Byway. For me, it hits the spot for route planning much better than the Sustrans routes, which tend to be just too slow for long journeys.) -- digression -- FWIW, I don't really agree with the view that the regional cycle route tags should be exclusively reserved in the UK for Sustrans regional routes. The National Byway regions fit pretty well as regional routes. There exist other regional routes which are not Sustrans routes; for example the Wiltshire Cycleway is a signed route which is too extensive to be categorised as an LCN. So if I start tagging it as an RCN, will that be allowed to stand? I can't see it would be sustainable to have distinct tagging / cycle map rendering for every RCN as is required for the National Byway regions. And I understand that Sustrans is doing away with its regional route numbering anyway, so will the RCN tags eventually fall out of use in the UK? -- end digression -- ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Maxspeed tagging for the UK
Sorry I'm late to the party, but I'd like to emphasise the point that others have made that the NationalSpeedLimitApplies sign should not be tagged the same as a 60mph sign. Apart from the fact that it means different things for different types of vehicle, it may not even mean 60mph for cars. Between 1973 and 1977 (which I remember well, though I was not a driver!) the NSL was modified in various ways, including reducing the max speed on single-carriageway roads to 50mph. This was an energy-saving initiative, and perhaps it could happen again. We should tag what we see on the ground, not convert it to whatever is the current meaning of NSL. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging areas with paid access
On 10/04/2011 09:22, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hi, Near me there are a couple of areas with paid access only - Marwell Zoo and Exbury Gardens. Original tagging for the latter is foot=permissive which seems inappropriate as you have to pay to get in, and foot=permissive suggests completely open access. What would others do in this situation? access=private is probably more appropriate than foot=permissive but still doesn't 100% convey the situation on the ground. access=paid or foot=paid? amenity=parking has the tag access=customers. This seems similar. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Wiki - United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines
On 01/03/2011 17:55, Andrew wrote: The great strength of OSM is that it can be a platform for many (and hopefully more to come) applications written by people all round the world. Country-specific tagging guidelines make it more difficult to share applications with the rest of the world. "Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do". Only there are, and in England & Wales we have footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways, byways and maybe some other weird stuff. It's important to collect those details and render them for UK maps. Hence it's necessary to have country-specific guidelines to specify how to capture that information. What we should be striving for is a basic set of tags which are understood internationality, plus a local set of guidelines which allow us to add our country-specific details. Isn't that one of the things the "new" guidelines are trying to achieve, by separating the physical information from the access rules? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Wiki - United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines
On 01/03/2011 13:31, Richard Mann wrote: A new page seems to have appeared on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines This states a preference for highway=path+foot=designated over highway=footway (etc). I don't remember this being discussed or agreed, but my memory could be failing me. I think the article should probably state existing usage (based on tagwatch), rather than promote minority alternatives. Views? It wasn't exactly a new page. It was created as a merge of (at least) two predecessor pages: UK Countryside mapping: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=UK_Countryside_mapping&oldid=394794 and Public rights of way in England and Wales: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Public_rights_of_way_in_England_and_Wales&oldid=553259 (The links are to the most recent versions of those pages before they were reduced to redirect pages.) Although I was pleased when Bobious merged these two pages, as I had to keep consulting them both, there was a lot of good information in the old pages, including the arguments by NickW and others for the "new" scheme, which may have been lost when the combined page was created. To avoid simply rehearsing old arguments, it would be good if everyone taking part in this discussion would go back and review these pages, and their discussion pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Public_rights_of_way_in_England_and_Wales http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:UK_Countryside_mapping ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
