[Talk-GB] Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens & CROW Open Area land
Millennium Greens cover a wide range of on the ground usages. Same are clearly gardens, some parks, some nature reserves. Please do not retag these features to some perceived standard. I would also avoid overloading the designation key - better to have an explicit key than to reuse and existing key. About the only thing these area have in common is that they were all funded as part of the same project, if you want capture this information I would suggest something like: millennium_green=yes or how about: funding_source=Millennium Green -- Brian Yeah you're entirely right that the land cover can be different. They have to include "significant natural area". The one closest to me is a mix of grassy areas and woodland. Oddly it misses one part of grassy area. There is a local nature reserve that includes all the grassed area but not the wood!! It would make sense to me to tag the whole area as leisure=park and then to tag the Millennium Green and Local Nature Reserve as 2 separate closed ways. I think we could expand this to include: 1. Millennium Greens 2. Doorstep Greens 3. CROW Act 2000 Open Access Land Perhaps the landuse tag can be used. The main issue here is that the area is both a village green and a millennium green (although I'm not quite sure why there would be both on the exact same plot of land). If this is the case it could be tagged as landuse=millennium_green;village_green. I guess the other problem is what to do if you have another landuse within the closed area (can you have one landuse area on top of another?) On second thoughts, there is a boundary proposal that could work well: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reserve#Examples Looks like the boundary tag is already used: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dnational_park http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area Looking at the page on boundary=protected_area, perhaps class 7 is the right one for Millennium Greens? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens & CROW Open Area land
There is the boundary=reserve proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reserve#Examples But can you really call Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens and CROW Open Access Areas "reserves"? Not so sure. Having said that I do like the idea of a boundary=something, designation= system (although perhaps boundary is redundant, bringing me back to the idea of mapping a closed way as just designation= Rob On , Ed Loach wrote: > Looking at the page on boundary=protected_area, perhaps class 7 is the right one for Millennium Greens? From http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Bac kground " There are no protected areas for the United Kingdom in the WDPA" So I'd say "probably not" Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Millennium Greens, Doorstep Greens & CROW Open Area land
Hi All, I think the whole area classifies as a park (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Green). Further I don't follow the argument of creating new tag keys. Without some form of discussion we risk ending up with many different ways of doing the same thing (not good for data consumers). I'm not intending to twist an existing tag (some of which are highly debated anyway - eg landuse and landcover), just trying to identify which if any are of use for these cases. Okay which is preferred out of: * designation = millennium_green (or doorstep_green, crow_open_access, etc) * boundary = millenium_green My vote goes on the first as it matches how designation is already used in practice, and boundary seems a little redundant on a closed way (as does area=yes on things other than highways or waterways etc.) Rob On , Brian Quinion wrote: >> are clearly gardens, some parks, some nature reserves. Please do not >> retag these features to some perceived standard. I would also avoid >> overloading the designation key - better to have an explicit key than >> to reuse and existing key. >> >> About the only thing these area have in common is that they were all >> funded as part of the same project, if you want capture this >> information I would suggest something like: >> >> millennium_green=yes >> >> or how about: >> >> funding_source=Millennium Green >> >> -- >> Brian > > Yeah you're entirely right that the land cover can be different. They have > to include "significant natural area". The one closest to me is a mix of > grassy areas and woodland. Oddly it misses one part of grassy area. There is > a local nature reserve that includes all the grassed area but not the wood!! > It would make sense to me to tag the whole area as leisure=park and then to > tag the Millennium Green and Local Nature Reserve as 2 separate closed ways. The whole area isn'ta park so don't tag it as such. It is an area covered by a funding program / financial trust. > Perhaps the landuse tag can be used. The main issue here is that the area is Please do not reuse existing tags (designation, landuse, whatever) to mean something new. Create a new tag that is explicit. Reusing an existing tag causes huge problems for data users. It isn'ta type of landuse - which describes the physical usage of the land. > On second thoughts, there is a boundary proposal that could work well: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reserve#Examples > > Looks like the boundary tag is already used: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dnational_park > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area > > Looking at the page on boundary=protected_area, perhaps class 7 is the right > one for Millennium Greens? As Ed has said this probably isn't appropriate although it would seem closer. How about boundary=millennium_green ? Please - use a new tag. Don't try to twist an existing tag. Adding a new tag is not a bad thing - create it and document what you have done to the wiki. -- Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] REMINDER: UK/GB OpenStreetMap group
All, A bit more bilk mail from me (sorry). As a reminder the first UK/GB OpenStreetMap group will shortly be starting (at 8pm tonight). Joining details are as follows: 0800 22 90 900 Or 0330 336 2206 Passcode: 33224 Gregory has offered to help with the minutes, however I'm sure he would appreciate some help when needed. Minutes are at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18kAZs4yNWT1k6ehROXAqrSaG969OGBwGV3KZ2j2oXDw/edit#heading=h.d78ial8sht33 Regards, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OSM group - Legal structures
Hi all, Thanks for offering to help out as part of the initial working group for the OpenStreetMap UK group. (Also sent to: talk-gb) Following our conference call there are a number of actions. This email covers one (structures) and will be followed by emails on Objectives and Constitution/Articles of Association from Brian and SK53 respectively. So... Structures. This requires quite a bit of reading but it is important we get it right so it would be great if you could take a look. I've started to collate some information but require your feedback/comments. Feel free to edit directly or send comments to me/talk-gb and I will incorporate them. In google docs as experience shows that as soon as you move away from WYSIWYG editing with no log in required you loose people! Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WFqGxqLreqWzj6L2j6mBnwOOhc3RHKqOT0LmvQQbtuY/edit?usp=sharing The two that look most interesting to me are two new ones - CIC and CIO. We are hoping to hold another conference call in late January so if you have time to read before then this will help us during the call (we aim to make a decision during the call). Best regards, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OSM UK group - reminder of current actions
Hi all, cc: talk-gb Not wanting to distract you from the UK quarterly project to map schools, however there are a few bits related to the setting up of UK OpenStreetMap group that we are still after comments for. To make this easy I have collated everything you need at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Group Please try to take a look before the next meeting - Wednesday Jan 27 at 8pm via the same telephone conference details as before (will share again closer to the time). Best regards, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Minutes and Actions: OSM UK group concall
Hi all, Circulation: "Announce", "Initial working group" and "talk-gb" We had our second OSM UK group concall today. Thanks to all who were able to join or share comments beforehand. Everything you need to is on the wiki [1] including the latest minutes and actions [2] Best regards, Rob [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Group [2] https://hackpad.com/2016-01-27-OSM-GB-Meeting-PslKhYBDqBW ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] UK Tagging Guideline - wiki page proposals
Hi all, It has been mentioned in the past (and I expect many others have thought it), that the current UK Tagging Guidelines wiki page [1] is to confusing for newcomers and data consumers alike. I have had a go at addressing this by creating a new version of this page [2]. As discussed on the Talk section of this new page [3], I have tried to work in many of your (the UK mappers) suggestions. I have used the wiki cleanup objectives as a guide and have incorporated the following key changes: (i) Copyright - The first section replaces the current "Obtaining the data" section and promotes the existing "Copyright" section to a more prominent position. Info most relevant to helping new UK mappers is highlighted (ii) Classic UK vs Alternative Global - The wiki guidelines (above) state that we should "Provide a place for people to discuss new tagging proposals". I have therefore kept both schemes. So as to not excessively confuse newcomers I have split the page so that it reads as (a) tag the fact that the way is there, (b) tag its legal status if applicable. (iii) Public Rights of Way - As discussed on the talk-gb mailing list a public right of way may run along a track, road, etc.. I have therefore removed as much as the UK Classic vs Global Alternative debate out of this section into (a) - "tag features presence". Following Achadwick suggestion on Talk:United Kingdom Tagging Guidelines that the right of way should be signified using the designation key (see table below). I have heavily refocused the page to emphasise this. This greatly simplifies things for newcomers & data consumers. In a way it also reduces the UK Classic vs Global Alternative debate. (iv) Scotland - Now has a separate section ready to be filled in. Please take your time to have a look, and feedback comments to this mailing list. Be friendly; I am still relatively new and this is my first real go at editing a wiki :-) Regards, RobJN [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines_Consultation [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines_Consultation ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Tagging Guideline - wiki page proposals
Thanks Richard, Andy, Couple of points to feedback: * Good point on the cycle paths along roads. I left this section mostly unchanged from the original wiki page, but think we can easily add in the details you raised. * I might be 'brave' but am not brave enough to remove the UK Classic vs Global. As this page is also for newcomers then I feel we need to address highway=path as they will likely already have seen it on the OSM wiki and will be confused as to when to use it (like I was). Unless someone can show global use of the alternative tagging scheme, I am happy to call it just "Alternative" and drop the "global". Planned Timeline (5 weeks total): * Consultation on proposed page - 2 weeks * Collecting feedback - 1 Week * Implementing feedback - 1 week * Second review - 1 week (unless objections) * New UK Tagging Guidelines page goes live Please continue to send in feedback and I will collate it. I see that Rights of Way have come up again on the talk-gb list and like Roberts links (http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/) so will add some of these to the wiki page. Regards, Rob On , Andy wrote: Just a couple of quick notes: * The cycle path section is a bit misleading as it stands. The tagging you have shown is for standalone paths (ie mapped separately from a road); the majority of cycle paths in the UK are on the side of a road and thus should be tagged something like "highway=, cycleway=track, segregated=yes/no". I've copied the relevant section onto my user page and altered it: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Spark * I would prefer to see the 'UK Classic vs Global' stuff taken out - these are the *UK* guidelines and hence the best/commonest practice in the UK should be given. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Natural England release data under Open Government License
Hi All, I spotted this by chance and doesn't look like it has been notified on this mailing list yet: Natural England (formally the Countryside Agency) has released GI data under the Open Gov License (OGL) on April 1st 2012. The notification can be viewed on their website: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/data/gidatasetsfeature.aspx I haven't yet looked at the specifics of the data but there appears to be quite a lot of different categories available including: * National Trails * Open Access Areas (CROW Act) * Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty * Ancient Woodlands * Lots of landcover types I guess there are a few steps/questions: Q1. Is any of this data useful for OSM? Q2. Is the data in good form? Q3. If yes to 1 & 2, how best should we go about adding it to OSM (auto import or providing a tool to visualise the data)? Q4. What pages may need updating on the wiki? A4. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potential_Datasources#Natural_England http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Long_Distance_Paths http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Areas_of_Outstanding_Natural_Beauty_%28UK%29 Cheers, RobJN ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Definitive Statements (Was: Hampshire.../Rights of Way...)
Hi, I like the idea of having a wiki page with the list of authorities and links to their Definitive Statement. Perhaps we could also have a column to indicate whether they have agreed to release the data under a suitable license (eg OGL). Maybe we could mass mail a request out (combining a FoI request with a OGL license request) - thoughts? I have pulled the list of so called "surveying authorities" together for England. My research found that definitive maps and statements have to be compiled for all of England (and Wales) except the 12 inner London boroughs, where the borough council can choose whether or not to adopt the procedures and produce a map. The responsibility lies with the non-metropolitan councils, and unitary authorities (effectively includes metropolitan districts). I have therefore taken this list from the ONS website (Tab seperated so should copy fine into spreadsheet) ONS code Old ONS cose Name Entity County Region E1002 11 Buckinghamshire county Buckinghamshire South East England E1003 12 Cambridgeshire county Cambridgeshire East of England E1006 16 Cumbria county Cumbria North West England E1007 17 Derbyshire county Derbyshire East Midlands E1008 18 Devon county Devon South West England E1009 19 Dorset county Dorset South West England E1011 21 East Sussex county East Sussex South East England E1012 22 Essex county Essex East of England E1013 23 Gloucestershire county Gloucestershire South West England E1014 24 Hampshire county Hampshire South East England E1015 26 Hertfordshire county Hertfordshire East of England E1016 29 Kent county Kent South East England E1017 30 Lancashire county Lancashire North West England E1018 31 Leicestershire county Leicestershire East Midlands E1019 32 Lincolnshire county Lincolnshire East of England E1020 33 Norfolk county Norfolk East of England E1021 34 Northamptonshire county Northamptonshire East Midlands E1023 36 North Yorkshire county North Yorkshire Yorkshire and the Humber E1024 37 Nottinghamshire county Nottinghamshire East Midlands E1025 38 Oxfordshire county Oxfordshire South East England E1027 40 Somerset county Somerset South West England E1028 41 Staffordshire county Staffordshire West Midlands E1029 42 Suffolk county Suffolk East of England E1030 43 Surrey county Surrey South East England E1031 44 Warwickshire county Warwickshire West Midlands E1032 45 West Sussex county West Sussex South East England E1034 47 Worcestershire county Worcestershire West Midlands E0902 00AB Barking and Dagenham unitary London London E0903 00AC Barnet unitary London London E0904 00AD Bexley unitary London London E0905 00AE Brent unitary London London E0906 00AF Bromley unitary London London E0908 00AH Croydon unitary London London E0909 00AJ Ealing unitary London London E0910 00AK Enfield unitary London London E0914 00AP Haringey unitary London London E0915 00AQ Harrow unitary London London E0916 00AR Havering unitary London London E0917 00AS Hillingdon unitary London London E0918 00AT Hounslow unitary London London E0921 00AX Kingston upon Thames unitary London London E0924 00BA Merton unitary London London E0925 00BB Newham unitary London London E0926 00BC Redbridge unitary London London E0927 00BD Richmond upon Thames unitary London London E0929 00BF Sutton unitary London London E0931 00BH Waltham Forest unitary London London E0801 00BL Bolton unitary Greater Manchester North West England E0802 00BM Bury unitary Greater Manchester North West England E0803 00BN Manchester unitary Greater Manchester North West England E0804 00BP Oldham unitary Greater Manchester North West England E0805 00BQ Rochdale unitary Greater Manchester North West England E0806 00BR Salford unitary Greater Manchester North West England E0807 00BS Stockport unitary Greater Manchester North West England E0808 00BT Tameside unitary Greater Manchester North West England E0809 00BU Trafford unitary Greater Manchester North West England E0810 00BW Wigan unitary Greater Manchester North West England E0811 00BX Knowsley unitary Merseyside North West England E0812 00BY Liverpool unitary Merseyside North West England E0813 00BZ St Helens unitary Merseyside North West England E0814 00CA Sefton unitary Merseyside North West England E0815 00CB Wirral unitary Merseyside North West England E0816 00CC Barnsley unitary South Yorkshire Yorkshire and the Humber E0817 00CE Doncaster unitary South Yorkshire Yorkshire and the Humber E0818 00CF Rotherham unitary South Yorkshire Yorkshire and the Humber E0819 00CG Sheffield unitary South Yorkshire Yorkshire and the Humber E0820 00CH Gateshead unitary Tyne and Wear North East England E0821 00CJ Newcastle upon Tyne unitary Tyne and Wear North East England E082
[Talk-GB] Have you contacted a UK local authority in regards to Rights of Way?
The second of a few emails from me today (apologies)! As part of the Public Rights of Way work I have added a table of all the English "surveying authorities" responsible for maintaining the Definitive Map and Statement, to the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils Please use this table to add details on council map services (free or otherwise - there are clear copyright warnings on this wiki page), and also email here if you have previously contacted a council in regards to releasing the Def Statement under the OGL licence. I will then work through all remaining councils over the coming months. Cheers, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] UK rights of way & tagging guidelines page.
The third (and hopefully final) email from me today! 1) Thanks for the feedback on the tagging guidelines page. Lots of good things and ideas (especially expanding to include more than just England), for me to work on for the next iteration of this wiki page. 2) In regards to the idea for a Rights of Way wikiproject page: - I have added a list of councils to the wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils) for England and there are some links to Def statements/maps - (c) warning: non free! - I am not sure at the moment how a specific rights of way wiki page would help (unlike other wiki projects how would we be able to check whether the map is 100% complete unless we can get Def statements from local councils - Open to suggestions on how to do this (would have to deal with the 3 pages - UK Local Councils, Tagging Guidelines, and the new wikiproject page). I suggest starting with a recommended a list of headings first before creating a new wiki page. Cheers, Rob ps Help in regards to Scotland, NI and Wales would be much appreciated. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Cycling, the law and traffic signs
Hi, On the UK tagging guidelines consultation page [1] both Andrew C and Richard M pointed out that the blue sign with a bicycle on it [2] does _not_ imply foot=no. As I had copied this tag over from the original guidelines page I would like to seek advice before removing the foot=no component. The highway code section on 'signs giving orders' [3] clearly states that this sign means "route to be used by pedal cycles only". Furthermore, a quick google reveals the following advise: "A Cycle Track ... means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on pedal cycles (other than pedal cycles which are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1972) with or without a right of way on foot [Section 329(1) Highways Act 1980]. The words in brackets were inserted by section 1 of the Cycle Tracks Act 1984. Cycle tracks may be created through conversion of a footway or footpath or newly constructed." -- Source: Bikehub [4] Note the wording "a right of way on pedal cycles (...) with or without a right of way on foot". As I am not a regular cyclist I must admit that I don't pay much attention to these signs. So my question is do Local Authorities use the cycle and foot signs (segregated or otherwise) and reserve the cycle sign for cases where traffic regulation prevents foot access (in which case foot=no would be correct), or is use mixed? Cheers, Rob [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines_Consultation [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:UK_traffic_sign_955.svg [3] http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/travelandtransport/highwaycode/signsandmarkings/index.htm [4] http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] routing on the road network
As noted there are some tools available to help find potential errors that effect routing. Have a look on the QA page [1], specifically at keepright, OSM Inspector and MapDust. As for editing OSM and proposing new tags, OpenStreetMap works a bit like wikipedia - we have a very flat structure and work together as a community to tackle issues such as whether new tags are needed or not. Discussions can get a little bit lengthy, but I believe we end up with a better solution in the end. Regards, Rob [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_Assurance On , Tim Pigden wrote: Error reporting would definitely be a challenge.Are there existing facilities to add "suspect" type tags to enable OSM itself to be the primary reporting medium? I haven't looked into the details of editing OSM data but adding new tags seems to require a collective decision. (BTW don't get too excited anyone, this is definitely a long-term project). Tim On 16 May 2012 11:41, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Tim, I expect that you would find a good appetitie to fix any problems if we can see that this will be highly valued (ie used in a great tool), and the bug reports are simple to understand. I'll leave comments about the quality to others, suffice to say that in the Midlands the roads and junctions are mapped well, however turn restrictions are the missing component. Regards, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Tim Pigden Optrak Distribution Software Limited +44 (0)1992 517100 http://www.linkedin.com/in/timpigden http://optrak.com Optrak Distribution Software Ltd is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Company Registration No. 2327613 Registered Offices: Orland House, Mead Lane, Hertford, SG13 7AT England This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Optrak Distribution Software Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Cycle lanes and Cycle Tracks - how to map
Hi All, I would like to improve the guidance given on the UK Tagging Guidelines page in regards to how to map cycle paths. As a non-cyclist I would like some advise. So far my research has found: 1. Definitions: * "Cycle Lane" - lane marked out by painted lines _within_ the carriageway. May be "mandatory" or "advisory". * "Cycle Track" - a route other than within a carriageway - eg on a footway (legal term for pavement, rather than OSM highway=footway) adjacent to a carriageway, adjacent to the carriageway but separate from the footway (pavement), or on a route completely separate from a highway (eg a path through a park). 2. OSM tags: In OSM we have highway=cycleway and we can also add cycleway=lane / cycleway=track / etc to any ways marked as highway=*. 3. Mapping practices: Clearly a "cycle lane" should be tagged by adding cycleway=lane to the way represented by highway=*. Furthermore any "cycle tracks" that are on a route completely separate from a highway can be tagged as highway=cycleway (or highway=path, but lets shelve the Classic vs Alternative discussion for the moment). This leaves "cycle tracks" that run alongside a highway but are not within the carriageway. How should they be tagged? Options are: i) As a separate highway=cycleway (or path) with links back to the neighbouring roads whenever there is a 'connection' (eg a dropped kerb). ii) Using cycleway=track on the highway=*. iii) Both. Advantages of (i) over (ii): * When the cycle track is not within the carriageway you essentially have to decide whether to use it or not. Unlike lanes on a road you cannot simply switch back and forth easily due to kerbs. * Can better represent the route of the cycle track (eg navigating over side roads). * Will render easily without having to add complex rules to your rendering system. * Perhaps easier to explain to a newcomer. * Harder to be accidentally extended further than the cycle track actually goes. Advantages of (ii) over (i): * We do not tend to map individual pavements so why do it when there is a cycle track on them * May appear less 'cluttered' * Less work as there is no need to draw a separate way. * Fewer ways and connecting nodes may make it easier to maintain and less prone to damage. * Easier for routing software (for option i some rules will need to be added to tell the routing engine to prefer cycle tracks over adjacent roads / a bicycle access tag would have to be added to the road to deter use). So, over to you - thoughts? Statistics about current use in the UK? Cheers, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Cycle lanes and Cycle Tracks - how to map
Haha, I only mean well :-) The issue came about from trying to improve the guidance provided on the UK tagging guidelines. Currently I have copied over the guidance that already existed (to the consultation page), however this was very limited and has already had cries that foot=no is not correct. Now I can easily improve this section to draw a distinction about cycleway=lane when the cycle path is _within_ the carriageway (with some images). However there are 2 methods for cycle tracks alongside a road but not within the carriageway. Question to talk-gb is do we in the UK have a preference? If not then we need to discuss this on the wiki page and stress that "just map it" regardless of non-consensus. Note: One thought on left / right is that mappers have to realise that a road has a direction (as it is drawn as an "arrow"). From my conversations with new mappers this (and the similar Forward/Backward) is not understood as we tend to think in terms of northbound / southbound / east / west. Cheers, Rob ps For transparency I am currently thinking that the highway=* & cycleway=track combination is a good start but we should be aiming to map the cycle track as separate from the highway using a highway=cycleway (or path) way. On , Richard Mann wrote: Gosh, you are a glutton for punishment. cycleway=track is used extensively in some countries highway=cycleway is use extensively in some countries cycleway=track was only rendered on OCM relatively recently cycleway:left|right=track|lane isn't rendered on OCM the Danes had a big argument about which to use and settled on cycleway=track, despite it not being rendered on OCM cycleway=track gives you more control over the rendering highway=cycleway is easier to route, though unpacking cycleway=track isn't difficult sub-tagging of cycleways is difficult (eg their membership of a route relation) if you use cycleway=track In essence it comes down to the problem that recombining two parallel ways in order to render them neatly is next-to-impossible. Whereas putting the tags on a single way loses some micro-geography. I'd go for cycleway=track, but I'm not prepared to go round deleting highway=cycleway, and thus having lots of stuff disappear in OCM. So until OCM can render cycleway:left|right properly, we're probably stuck with both. Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] FW: 1:25,000 Provisional series completion (NLS)
Yep, you and me would have no problem doing that, but beginners may struggle. Hence the suggestion to have the default changed to point to NLS servers. That way it would be as simple as using the drop down menus in Potlatch2 and JOSM. Regards, Rob On , Andy Robinson wrote: Rob, Not necessary to update anything, it's just a matter of adding the new ref to make the NLS resource available to your favourite editor. CheersAndy From: Rob Nickerson [mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com] Sent: 19 May 2012 14:55 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Cc: c.fl...@nls.uk Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] FW: 1:25,000 Provisional series completion (NLS) Thanks for updating everyone at OpenStreetMap who is registered on the talk-gb mailing list about the fantastic progress that NLS has made with the OS 1:25k maps. I was pleasantly surprised to discover NLS last month (after using the incomplete tiles at http://ooc.openstreetmap.org ). If NLS are happy to go ahead with this, can I suggest that we file a bug for both the Potlatch and JOSM editors to get the ooc.openstreetmap tms tiles replaced with the newly completed NLS geo.nls.uk tms tileserver. This would of course up the number of http requests NLS receives. Regards, Rob ps There should be much more exposure to this on the wiki. Would you like me to edit the relevant pages? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Working with ESRI Shapefiles
Hi All, As we have had a couple of releases of shapefile data in the recent months, I have added some details to the relevant wiki pages to help those who are interested in looking at these files. I find QGIS a great tool for examining the data (and free): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shapefiles http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Shapefile And Chillly's guide (written a while back for the OS data, but still relevant): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Shapefiles ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Midlands social tommorow - Coventry
Andy, Thanks for the reminder email. Shame you can't make it - hope you get well soon. I'll be there from 8ish and hopefully a few others will be able to make it too. Rob Ps I was hoping to ask you a bit more about the Government Open Data event you posted to talk-gb-westmidlands. How useful do you think it will be to OSM and which day is best to go on (or both)? On , Andy Robinson wrote: Folks, I have a chest infection and won't make the meetup tonight. Cheers Andy > -Original Message- > From: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com] > Sent: 06 June 2012 09:48 > To: talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org; Talk- > g...@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Midlands social tommorow - Coventry > > Just a reminder that the next Midlands OSM social is tomorrow (Thur 7th) in > Coventry. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mappa-Mercia#Social_Meet_Up > > Cheers > Andy ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list talk-gb-westmidla...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands ___ 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)
Hi Nick, I agree that we don't want to take Hants data at face value and load this into OSM where a path is already mapped. I have added my answers below: Q1. Hampshire marked footpath and OSM footpath run very close to each other (deviating by only a few meters max). No obvious marking on Bing Aerial Q2. As with Q1, but Bing Aerial shows clear path (neither OSM or Hampshire line up with this path perfectly). A1. Use OSM path and tag with designation A2. As A1 (optionally align path to Bing, GPS survey would help here). - - - Q3. OSM path crosses diagonally over a field (roughly following the path visible on Bing). Hampshire's data indicates a kink in the route so that in the middle of the field the gap reaches about 20-30 meters. Q4. OSM path crosses over 2 fields (following Bing path and cutting through a gap in hedgerow). Path is a straight line at an angle 'x' from the road. Hampshire's data shows the path runs straight, but at angle 'y'. Max deviation 50m. What about a smaller deviation of only 15m? Q5. As 4 above but the Hampshire path appears to cross the hedgerow where there is no visible gap on Bings imagery. A3-5. Research using other sources (ground survey, NLS scanned OS maps, etc). If no path found where Hants suggests there should be one, tag the OSM path instead (add a note). If there is a path where Hants puts it, then this should be mapped -> This could result in 2 paths being mapped, but would be correct if there are 2 paths on the ground. - - - Q6. Hampshire have a path marked that is not in OSM. Bing shows there is something there. Q7. As 6 but no marking on Bing. No obvious obstructions Q8. As 7 but there is an potential obstruction (eg woodland with no clear path - although this would be hard to see on Bing) Q9. As 8 but there is an obvious obstruction (eg building). A6-9. Trace the path from bing for Q6 (add a fixme tag). Q7-9 really could do with a ground survey. - - - To test these rules I had a go at mapping BOAT "Martin. 15". Neither OSM or Hants data lined up well with the Bing aerial (even with a simple offset). In this example there is a clear modern track. Two sections of the modern track appear to deviate from the historic route (I looked on the NLS maps to get a better idea of the historic route and cross referenced this with Bing aerial). The right hand section is still clearly visible on Bing, suggesting it is still used. The left hand section follows what looks to be a tree lined route. This suggests that I have identified the correct 'historic' route, but the trees make it hard to tell if the route is still passable. I mapped the whole of the 'modern' track as highway=track. The 2 other sections, I mapped as highway=path and added a fixme comment to suggest resurvey. I then added the designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic tag to the route that follows the 'historic' path. I was reasonable happy doing this because if the left hand section route is impassable there is a clear alternative. Let me know your thoughts on this. Visualisation of edit history: http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=11915562#lon=-1.93345046;lat=50.9691551;zoom=15;layer=Mpnk - - - Do you think it is worth adding a wiki page (eg "Missing Rights of Way/Hampshire CC") where we can keep track of any 'big' issues with the intention to pass this data back to Hants? This could include a list of Ways in OSM that we feel may be a Missing RoW and a list of OSM ways that deviate substantially from the route Hants have in their database. Kind Regards, RobJN ps I'm not going to do many of the RoWs in Hampshire as I can't get down there to survey them. However, I am keen that we get a good 'best practice' in place so that we can use this to help persuade other councils to release their data (eg Work with us to improve your data), and to prevent differing approaches across the country. On , Nick Whitelegg wrote: What I wouldn't personally like is a mess where the Hampshire ROW line *and* the line on the ground are *both* in OSM. This would make the data messy and confusing to work with. In cases like this maybe the ROW has, to all intents and purposes, shifted and the Hampshire data is out-of-date. Personally I would prefer that the Hants ROW data is *only* used to add *new, unmapped paths* to OSM and not to adjust existing paths - unless the existing path was mapped with some degree of uncertainty. Nick -Rob Nickerson wrote: -To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: Rob Nickerson Date: 15/06/2012 06:18PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] How to work with Government Open Data (eg Boundaries, Rights of Way) Yeah, I think it might me a slow process but if there is a clear problem then may still be worth writing in to start the ball rolling. By keeping RoW and paths separate what do you mean? Add a way with a designation=public_footpath (for example) without the highway tag?
[Talk-GB] Invitation: New UK open data - towards more addresses @ Sat 4 Jul 2020 19:00 - 20:00 (BST) (talk-gb@openstreetmap.org)
BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//Google Inc//Google Calendar 70.9054//EN VERSION:2.0 CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:REQUEST BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART:20200704T18Z DTEND:20200704T19Z DTSTAMP:20200701T230344Z ORGANIZER;CN=rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com:mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com UID:5cddejfqeb9rufklcp03jfj...@google.com ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=ACCEPTED;RSVP=TRUE ;CN=rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:rob.j.nickerson@gmail.c om ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP= TRUE;CN=bo...@osmuk.org;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:bo...@osmuk.org ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP= TRUE;CN=talk-gb@openstreetmap.org;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:talk-gb@openstreetm ap.org X-MICROSOFT-CDO-OWNERAPPTID:-1215526598 CREATED:20200701T230343Z DESCRIPTION:Hi all\,The release of new UK open data nicely aligns with the State of the Map online event. If you are free\, please joi n so we can discuss ideas related to the new data\, but also how we can inc rease the number of UK addresses mapped.< br>We will use our normal platform which you can join by web br owser\, app and even phone. Web browser: Go to https://8x8.vc/osmuk/jo in">https://8x8.vc/osmuk/join8x8 Video Meetings App: Use meeting name osmuk/joinAndroid https://play.google .com/store/apps/details?id=com.eght.meetings&hl=en">Play Store Apple https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/8x8-video-meetings/id147342206 0">App StoreDial-in: using the room PIN: 247 948 16#United Kingdom+44 330 808 1706< /li>United States of America+1 408-228-4039+1 408-228- 4062+1 408-228-4073+1 408-601-4494+1 512-766-149 1+1 888-633-0347 (Toll Free)See here for more options< /li>PIN: 247 948 16# In all cases you should not need to create an account. If using the app look for the "Join/Start meeti ng as a guest" text at the bottom and click this then enter room name osmuk /join. For web browsers just use the link above which I have tested on Fire fox and Chrome. Look out for the browser messages about sharing microphone and video.\n\n-::~:~::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~::-\nPlease do not edit this section o f the description.\n\nThis event has a video call.\nJoin: https://meet.goog le.com/ync-vgzk-osv\n\nView your event at https://www.google.com/calendar/e vent?action=VIEW&eid=NWNkZGVqZnFlYjlydWZrbGNwMDNqZmo0MDAgdGFsay1nYkBvcGVuc3 RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw&tok=MjUjcm9iLmoubmlja2Vyc29uQGdtYWlsLmNvbWYzYmViZGY5OTkxND Y4YmJjMzkyMTVhOWQ0M2JhZDRkMjViOTI1ZTM&ctz=Europe%2FLondon&hl=en_GB&es=1.\n- ::~:~::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: ~:~::~:~::- LAST-MODIFIED:20200701T230343Z LOCATION: SEQUENCE:0 STATUS:CONFIRMED SUMMARY:New UK open data - towards more addresses TRANSP:OPAQUE END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR invite.ics Description: application/ics ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Updated invitation: New UK open data - towards more addresses @ Sat 4 Jul 2020 19:00 - 20:00 (BST) (talk-gb@openstreetmap.org)
BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//Google Inc//Google Calendar 70.9054//EN VERSION:2.0 CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:REQUEST BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART:20200704T18Z DTEND:20200704T19Z DTSTAMP:20200701T230918Z ORGANIZER;CN=rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com:mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com UID:5cddejfqeb9rufklcp03jfj...@google.com ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=ACCEPTED;RSVP=TRUE ;CN=rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:rob.j.nickerson@gmail.c om ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP= TRUE;CN=bo...@osmuk.org;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:bo...@osmuk.org ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP= TRUE;CN=talk-gb@openstreetmap.org;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:talk-gb@openstreetm ap.org ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=ACCEPTED;RSVP=TRUE ;CN=Gareth L;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:o...@live.co.uk X-MICROSOFT-CDO-OWNERAPPTID:-1215526598 CREATED:20200701T230343Z DESCRIPTION:Hi all\,The release of new UK open data nicely aligns w ith the State of the Map online event. If you are free\, please join so we can discuss ideas related to the new data\, but also how we can increase th e number of UK addresses mapped.We will use our normal platform which you can join by web browser\, app and even phone.Web browser: Go to https://8x8.vc/osmuk/join"; id=" ow767" __is_owner="true">https://8x8.vc/osmuk/join8x8 Vi deo Meetings App: Use meeting name osmuk/joinAndroid https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.eght.meetings&hl=en";>Pl ay StoreApple https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/8x8-video -meetings/id1473422060">App StoreDial-in: using the room PIN: 247 948 16#United Kingdom+44 33 0 808 1706United States of America+1 408-228-403 9+1 408-228-4062+1 408-228-4073+1 408-601-4494+1 512-766-1491+1 888-633-0347 (Toll Free)See https://8x8.vc/osmuk/static/dialInInfo.html?room=join";>here< /a> for more optionsPIN: 247 948 16# In all cases you should not need to create an account. If using the app look for the "Join/Start meeting as a guest" text at the bottom and click this then enter room name osmuk/join. For web browsers just use the link above which I have tested on Firefox and Chrome. Look out for the browser messages abou t sharing microphone and video.\n\n-::~:~::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~::-\nPlease do no t edit this section of the description.\n\nView your event at https://www.g oogle.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NWNkZGVqZnFlYjlydWZrbGNwMDNqZmo0MD AgdGFsay1nYkBvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw&tok=MjUjcm9iLmoubmlja2Vyc29uQGdtYWlsLm NvbWYzYmViZGY5OTkxNDY4YmJjMzkyMTVhOWQ0M2JhZDRkMjViOTI1ZTM&ctz=Europe%2FLond on&hl=en_GB&es=0.\n-::~:~::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: ~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~::- LAST-MODIFIED:20200701T230917Z LOCATION:Video call SEQUENCE:0 STATUS:CONFIRMED SUMMARY:New UK open data - towards more addresses TRANSP:OPAQUE END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR invite.ics Description: application/ics ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Invitation: OSM UK annual general meeting + HOTOSM presentation @ Sat 17 Oct 2020 13:00 - 15:00 (BST) (talk-gb@openstreetmap.org)
BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//Google Inc//Google Calendar 70.9054//EN VERSION:2.0 CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:REQUEST BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART:20201017T12Z DTEND:20201017T14Z DTSTAMP:20201010T101315Z ORGANIZER;CN=rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com:mailto:rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com UID:32m0vq2g8ek8vf3pgqh66m5...@google.com ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=INDIVIDUAL;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP= TRUE;CN=talk-gb@openstreetmap.org;X-NUM-GUESTS=0:mailto:talk-gb@openstreetm ap.org X-MICROSOFT-CDO-OWNERAPPTID:-952782793 CREATED:20201010T101314Z DESCRIPTION:Hi\,As previously mentioned\, the annual general meet ing of OpenStreetMap United Kingdom C.I.C. will take place on Saturday t he 17th of October 2020 at 1pm UK time. Details and voting f orms have been sent to registered members and we will shortly resend this w ith copies of the annual accounts and annual statement of activity included .After the formalities of the AGM there will be a presentation b y Rebecca Firth from HOTOSM. Rebecca will share with us HOTOSM’s plan s after their TED Audacious funding win. There will also be time for discus sion and Q&\;A. Whilst it is impossible to know exactly how long the AGM will take\, we won't be moving on to Rebecca's presentation until at least 1:30pm. Feel free to join at that point if you are not participatin g in the AGM (you can join earlier if you like subject to our members appro ving attendance of non-members\; a vote which has passed unanimously every year so far).The meeting is being held online this year a nd can be joined via https://8x8.vc/osmuk/join"; id="ow622" __is_ow ner="true">https://8x8.vc/osmuk/join or by using either 8x8 Video Meeti ngs app (available on the android Play Store and on the iOS App Store) and entering room “osmuk/join”\, or by telephone (dial 0330 808 1706 and enter the room PIN: 247 948 16#).Best regards\,Rob\n\n-::~: ~::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: :~:~::-\nPlease do not edit this section of the description.\n\nView your e vent at https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=MzJtMHZxMmc4Z Ws4dmYzcGdxaDY2bTVpa2sgdGFsay1nYkBvcGVuc3RyZWV0bWFwLm9yZw&tok=MjUjcm9iLmoub mlja2Vyc29uQGdtYWlsLmNvbTFmM2E4OWNkM2QyMTlkZWVkYjZhNGI0N2JiMDI2NDM3M2E1ZDE5 MmY&ctz=Europe%2FLondon&hl=en_GB&es=1.\n-::~:~::~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~ :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~::~:~::- LAST-MODIFIED:20201010T101314Z LOCATION:https://8x8.vc/osmuk/join SEQUENCE:0 STATUS:CONFIRMED SUMMARY:OSM UK annual general meeting + HOTOSM presentation TRANSP:OPAQUE BEGIN:VALARM ACTION:EMAIL DESCRIPTION:This is an event reminder SUMMARY:Alarm notification ATTENDEE:mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org TRIGGER:-P1D END:VALARM BEGIN:VALARM ACTION:DISPLAY DESCRIPTION:This is an event reminder TRIGGER:-P0DT0H10M0S END:VALARM END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR invite.ics Description: application/ics ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
