Re: [Talk-gb-london] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database (CID) conflation

[David via Talk-gb-london]

Interesting.
I would have thought that the overall quality of cycle route mapping on OSM
for London is actually rather high,
inspite of TfL - it's certainly orders of magnitude better than TfL's own
maps, which seem relentless riddled with strange errors.

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:11 PM Robert Skedgell  wrote:

> TfL have recently posted this on Facebook:
>
> "Google has improved its cycle routes in Google Maps 
> New updates now consider traffic conditions and the availability of
> Cycleways to prioritise cycling on safer, quieter roads.
> These changes are being rolled out to all users by the end of the year."
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/transportforlondon/posts/pfbid02Po1PXVgVgE4Fbm7zkPUPp4fnq9kkgJfnsNAKbRzMYtTqVviZAevFn34JYAXrXJzVl
>
> I think that's an indirect admission by TfL that the work done on
> OpenStreetMap by TfL's paid "mappers" was an embarrassing failure. Some
> of the conflation done by the contractors was quite poor, but most of it
> was of much lower quality and should have been reverted.
>
> On 10/08/2023 16:57, Robert Skedgell wrote:
> > As the project was quietly abandoned in January 2023, is it time for a
> > post mortem of this incomplete project?
> >
> > On 15/11/2022 12:01, Whittaker, Ed via Talk-gb-london wrote:
> >> Hello
> >>
> >> Following very helpful feedback earlier in the year, we are now
> >> looking to recommence efforts to complete the migration of the TfL CID
> >> to OSM
> >>
> >> We will keep an eye on this board, but suggest (and welcome!) feedback
> >> to the main post on the talk-gb board
> >> (
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2022-November/029610.html
> )
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Ed (Sweco), Aidan (GHD) and Lu (GHD
> >>
> >>
> >> Reg. No.: 2888385 | Reg. Office: Leeds (Registered in England and Wales)
> >> Reg. Office Address: Sweco UK Limited, Grove House, Mansion Gate
> >> Drive, Leeds, LS7 4DN
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-gb-london mailing list
> > Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>
>
> _______
> Talk-gb-london mailing list
> Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>
___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

Re: [Talk-gb-london] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database (CID) conflation

[David via Talk-gb-london]

I would be interested to hear such a post mortem,
although I do not think it is unfair to say that TfL have never finished
any project in their lives :)
be it cycling infrastructure (London Cycle Network, London Greenways, Cycle
Superhighways, Greenways, ... currently they're on Cycleways) -
each project is quietly forgotten about in in some press-released rebrand
of the Next Big Initiative,
with yet another set of Pantone shades carefully worked out by their
graphic designers :)
The old infrastructure is slowly cannibalised as part of the new roll out
(but never entirely gotten rid of).

The same is probably true for everything else TfL does, from tree planting
programmes to bus stop upgrades to roads and etc etc.



On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 5:01 PM Robert Skedgell  wrote:

> As the project was quietly abandoned in January 2023, is it time for a
> post mortem of this incomplete project?
>
> On 15/11/2022 12:01, Whittaker, Ed via Talk-gb-london wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > Following very helpful feedback earlier in the year, we are now looking
> to recommence efforts to complete the migration of the TfL CID to OSM
> >
> > We will keep an eye on this board, but suggest (and welcome!) feedback
> to the main post on the talk-gb board (
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2022-November/029610.html
> )
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ed (Sweco), Aidan (GHD) and Lu (GHD
> >
> >
> > Reg. No.: 2888385 | Reg. Office: Leeds (Registered in England and Wales)
> > Reg. Office Address: Sweco UK Limited, Grove House, Mansion Gate Drive,
> Leeds, LS7 4DN
>
>
> ___
> Talk-gb-london mailing list
> Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>
___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Tube exits

[David Davis via Talk-gb-london]

Re those misbehaving map renderers -
Probably worth contacting them and pointing out that they're not following
the tagging scheme set out on OSM wiki. They're probably then raise bugs
and correct it in due course.

On Sat, 8 Apr 2023, 00:41 Bjoern Hassler,  wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> thanks!
>
> I appreciate that the tagging scheme excludes 'Exit 1', and suggests to
> not include the station. I've extracted exits via overpass and most exits
> don't follow the scheme. :) Most exits are simply the station name, and/or
> have the exit number written into the name. Some have what it says on the
> sign ("Exit 1. ..."), and a few do follow the scheme and just have what's
> on the sign minus the "Exit 1".
>
> While I appreciate the nature of OSM relations that give more info, ...
> and am aware that we're not tagging for the renderer but Organic Maps
> (and Maps.Me) renders the station name, and I can search for "Bank Exit 1"
> and find it (because that's in the name). I can search for Argyll Street,
> and will find "Exit 8" (but cannot see which station it is.) In principle,
> that seems very usable for people who would need to rely on using certain
> exits (e.g., for access).
>
> So... I do appreciate the scheme and that the scheme hasn't been changed
> in a while... but, given the observations above: *Do you/others think
> there's scope for bringing the labeling scheme in line with what apps can
> find while at the same time bringing the osm name in line with signage?*
>
> I appreciate the view that it's the fault of the app not rendering
> adequately - but tagging is far from perfect, e.g. 'ref' is a bit random -
> so why would apps go out of their way to use imperfect tagging? Quite
> possibly apps are just doing to use free text searches. I'd be quite happy
> to put some time into regularising the exit names. However, I'd want the
> end result to work reasonably well in apps, so it's actually of practical
> use to somebody. At the same time, I could also do this outside OSM, i.e.,
> make a set of bookmarks for OrganiseMaps that people can overlay. However,
> it would be nicer to store the data in OSM, so others can find it. *What
> do you think?*
>
> I realise that it doesn't help much that the four entrances which are
>> members of that relation were incorrectly tagged 5 years ago with
>> name="Aldgate East" (understandable) and ref=* values of A,B,C and F
>> (which seem very odd).
>
>
> I can maybe offer some observations/heuristics here. I don't know what the
> 'ref' values are, but the values for 'ref' are labels that can be found on
> the axiometric projections, see
> https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/3d-maps-of-every-underground-station-ab-14630/.
> They are also referenced in some of the open data TfL makes available,
> e.g., in the unique exit id.
>
> (1) An agency did some mapping about 4-5 years ago on behalf of TfL.
> https://mentz.net/ E.g.,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/475381373/history, #9. I raised some
> issues with the tagging at the time, but it wasn't really possible to get
> hold of the people doing the mapping. The ref=A,B,C were introduced at the
> time.
>
> (2) As far as I can see, those labels are purely of internal use for TfL
> (if of any use at all). I agree that they could be replaced... but see (1).
> So maybe there needs to be a different tag that can hold the ref=A,B,C and
> ref can then be used for the entrance number. (TfL does have the unique ids
> for station exits, which can be looked up in their open data on the basis
> of the ref=A,B,C. They could be added and make the ref=A,B,C redundant.)
>
> Maybe it's all a bit too random too fix, but I'd be happy to put some
> energy into fixing this on OSM, because I have experienced accurate exit
> information being useful (and I value open data). But, at the same time, it
> could be done outside OSM as well. Opinions welcome.
>
> This is clearly useless for routing, but luckily
>> for me CityMapper gets its station information from somewhere else.
>>
>
> I had a look at CityMapper, but I couldn't see station exits used.
>
> Björn
> _______
> Talk-gb-london mailing list
> Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>
___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Elmley/Hockley Brook

[FORD, Alexander (THE SHREWSBURY AND TELFORD HOSPITAL NHS TRUST) via Talk-gb-westmidlands]

Hi
I am a experienced Google Mapper with two million views of my edits of our 
local Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals.  However I now need to concentrate on 
making changes to OSM.

Is their any guides to starting out in OSM or local workshops to assist those 
starting out?

Thank you in advance for any advice given

Alex
Sustainable Travel Planner for the NHS.



From: Kra Ko via Talk-gb-westmidlands 
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 8:18 PM
To: talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org 

Subject: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Elmley/Hockley Brook

[You don't often get email from talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org. Learn 
why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]

This message originated from outside of NHSmail. Please do not click links or 
open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi,

It is about the place where the Hockley Brook takes the name of Elmley Brook.

On osm I have created this relation : 
https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Frelation%2F15648926=05%7C01%7Calexander.ford1%40nhs.net%7C7ee5cd63940b492f1acf08db2fc177e2%7C37c354b285b047f5b22207b48d774ee3%7C0%7C0%7C638156280209957976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=rsHya75V0SzFJJDl5XOMI1eTkmjfYEp3cPf%2Fltz490M%3D=0

On a map I found this : 
https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.nls.uk%2Fgeo%2Fexplore%2F%23zoom%3D15.0%26lat%3D52.36130%26lon%3D-2.15646%26layers%3D117746212%26b%3D9=05%7C01%7Calexander.ford1%40nhs.net%7C7ee5cd63940b492f1acf08db2fc177e2%7C37c354b285b047f5b22207b48d774ee3%7C0%7C0%7C638156280209957976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=rWOIYnmJQx421%2FWBhNsewLoe7myYit88zl%2FVWOmzL%2FE%3D=0

with one name at the bottom left and the other name at the top right (I mean on 
my screen, I hope it will work for you).

So I was thinking the node of the changing name was at the confluence with this 
stream : 
https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.openstreetmap.org%2Frelation%2F15652436=05%7C01%7Calexander.ford1%40nhs.net%7C7ee5cd63940b492f1acf08db2fc177e2%7C37c354b285b047f5b22207b48d774ee3%7C0%7C0%7C638156280209957976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=bOKiShIVwFON3Vs5MoAs23gg7Qa74JU%2FiV%2Bapys5UkA%3D=0

Can someone confirm that ?

And do you know the name of this stream r15652436 (perhaps Elmley Brook ?)

Best regards

___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftalk-gb-westmidlands=05%7C01%7Calexander.ford1%40nhs.net%7C7ee5cd63940b492f1acf08db2fc177e2%7C37c354b285b047f5b22207b48d774ee3%7C0%7C0%7C638156280209957976%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=b0u4xrTeiGS9Ux7B6yi%2FcMJy7w%2BoywS%2Fj4%2Br3g89JtI%3D=0


**
 **

This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended 
recipient please:
i) inform the sender that you have received the message in error before 
deleting it; and
ii) do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any 
action in relation to its content (to do so is strictly prohibited and may be 
unlawful).
Thank you for your co-operation.

NHSmail is the secure email, collaboration and directory service available for 
all NHS staff in England. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and 
other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.

For more information and to find out how you can switch visit Joining NHSmail - 
NHSmail Support<https://support.nhs.net/article-categories/joining-nhsmail/>

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

[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Elmley/Hockley Brook

[Kra Ko via Talk-gb-westmidlands]

Hi,

It is about the place where the Hockley Brook takes the name of Elmley Brook.

On osm I have created this relation : 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15648926

On a map I found this : 
https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=15.0=52.36130=-2.15646=117746212=9

with one name at the bottom left and the other name at the top right (I mean on 
my screen, I hope it will work for you).

So I was thinking the node of the changing name was at the confluence with this 
stream : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15652436

Can someone confirm that ?

And do you know the name of this stream r15652436 (perhaps Elmley Brook ?)

Best regards

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

[Talk-gb-london] Camden's street trees dataset

[Leo Cassarani via Talk-gb-london]

Hi

I’m relatively new to editing OSM but have recently been working on adding 
details to my local map in the borough of Camden. So far, I’ve mostly focused 
on adding buildings to roads that lack them, but I’ve been thinking of turning 
my attention to mapping Camden’s street trees. As it happens, the council 
publishes a pretty good dataset 
(https://opendata.camden.gov.uk/Environment/Trees-In-Camden/csqp-kdss 
<https://opendata.camden.gov.uk/Environment/Trees-In-Camden/csqp-kdss>) of all 
street trees in the borough, with precise coordinates, the species of the tree, 
approximate height, etc.

The dataset is released under the OGL, so in theory I suspect it could be 
automatically imported into OSM in its entirety. Nevertheless, I was planning 
to approach this manually on a street-by-street basis and would only want to 
add a tree if I could confirm that it was still there and the rest of the 
information was broadly accurate. Ideally I would like to use the coordinates 
in the dataset, unless they turn out to be demonstrably wrong; and in terms of 
tagging, I’m planning to include species, leaf_type, leaf_cycle, and height 
wherever possible.

In summary, my questions are: is it going to be okay for me to rely on this 
dataset and use it to populate the proposed tags for these street trees? And 
what sorts of steps do I need to take in order to provide the required 
attribution as per the OGL? If anyone is familiar with or has used this dataset 
before I would appreciate any pointers or advice.

Leo___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

Re: [Talk-gb-london] [Talk-GB] Separate sidewalks added by #waymap-project-SB in West London

[David Davis via Talk-gb-london]

I think that problem is more with routing engines than with mapping
sidewalks.
I have known since about 1975 that I can cross a road pretty much anywhere
so long as I find a safe place to cross and use the Green Cross Code ;)
Routing engines seem ignorant of this basic pedestrian ability.
It should not be beyond the wit of man to give them some sort of 'cross
with care' suggestion on minor roads, rather than to require an explicitly
crossing point to be mapped.

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:06 AM Steven Hirschorn <
steven.hirsch...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I raised this once before on this list and didn't feel the response was
> very positive so left all the sidewalk mapping - in my case it came onto my
> radar in Acton.
> It seems pointless mapping pavements on little residential streets because
> the default expectation is a pavement on either side.
> Like you say, it can negatively impact routing if the sidewalks aren't
> joined to the roads at regular intervals, so it's easy to get wrong.
> There's a justification for mapping sidewalks in some circumstances. The
> thread is here:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2021-October/027947.html
>
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023, 08:56 Robert Skedgell,  wrote:
>
>> We have had a large number of separate sidewalks added around Shepherds
>> Bush, mostly by user alisonlung (possibly based in the USA) with some
>> contributions by ABullock with the hashtag #waymap-project-SB
>>
>> I have several problems with this:
>> - there seems to be no documentation or explanation of this organised
>> editing project (or I'm looking in the wrong place)
>> - alisonlung has consistently ignored changeset comments from other users
>> - the sidewalks were frequently decorative: they may look pretty on OSM
>> Carto, but often provide no or negative benefit for pedestrian routing
>> - some sidewalks were added with layer=-1, strongly suggesting that the
>> mapper(s) had no idea what the tag means
>> - some cycleways around Shepherds Bush Green were changed to footways
>> without adding bicycle=yes, which I consider to be vandalism
>>
>> I have tried to fix some of these, but the volume and the amount of
>> fiddly realignment required seems disproportionate.
>>
>> I propose to do the following:
>> - retain and repair sidewalks on main roads
>> (trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary) where there are defined crossing
>> points, or where there is a clear benefit to pedestrian routing
>> - delete most sidewalks added by these users on residential streets,
>> leaving crossings as nodes on the highway
>>
>> --
>> Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)
>>
>> _______
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> talk...@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> _______
> Talk-gb-london mailing list
> Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>
___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Separate sidewalks added by #waymap-project-SB in West London

[David Davis via Talk-gb-london]

I am generally in favour of explicit drawing of pavements and pedestrian
crossing points where possible,
but it does sound from your description that this user's enthusiasm has
somewhat over-reached their skillz ;)

If possible though, an effort should be made to explain and educate them as
to what technicalities they are getting wrong,
so they can direct their considerable energies more productively :)

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 8:57 AM Robert Skedgell  wrote:

> We have had a large number of separate sidewalks added around Shepherds
> Bush, mostly by user alisonlung (possibly based in the USA) with some
> contributions by ABullock with the hashtag #waymap-project-SB
>
> I have several problems with this:
> - there seems to be no documentation or explanation of this organised
> editing project (or I'm looking in the wrong place)
> - alisonlung has consistently ignored changeset comments from other users
> - the sidewalks were frequently decorative: they may look pretty on OSM
> Carto, but often provide no or negative benefit for pedestrian routing
> - some sidewalks were added with layer=-1, strongly suggesting that the
> mapper(s) had no idea what the tag means
> - some cycleways around Shepherds Bush Green were changed to footways
> without adding bicycle=yes, which I consider to be vandalism
>
> I have tried to fix some of these, but the volume and the amount of
> fiddly realignment required seems disproportionate.
>
> I propose to do the following:
> - retain and repair sidewalks on main roads
> (trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary) where there are defined crossing
> points, or where there is a clear benefit to pedestrian routing
> - delete most sidewalks added by these users on residential streets,
> leaving crossings as nodes on the highway
>
> --
> Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)
>
> ___
> Talk-gb-london mailing list
> Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>
___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

[Talk-gb-london] TfL Cycle Infrastructure Database (CID) conflation

[Whittaker, Ed via Talk-gb-london]

Hello

Following very helpful feedback earlier in the year, we are now looking to 
recommence efforts to complete the migration of the TfL CID to OSM

We will keep an eye on this board, but suggest (and welcome!) feedback to the 
main post on the talk-gb board 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2022-November/029610.html)

Thanks,

Ed (Sweco), Aidan (GHD) and Lu (GHD


Reg. No.: 2888385 | Reg. Office: Leeds (Registered in England and Wales) 
Reg. Office Address: Sweco UK Limited, Grove House, Mansion Gate Drive, Leeds, 
LS7 4DN 


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

Re: [Talk-gb-london] [Talk-GB] Is TfL data allowed on OSM?

[Whittaker, Ed via Talk-gb-london]

Hello Robert,

thanks for summarising - this is a useful structure to clarify the points 
raised.

Responding to your first point, which is key - We recognise the slow response 
particularly to the questions raised last week - unfortunate that it coincided 
with multiple absences.
RE: issues raised in git - we're currently liaising with a third party who is 
well-positioned to address these - its definitely still the right place to make 
suggestions, and these will be addressed. I assure you we're taking onboard the 
feedback, understanding implications and prioritising accordingly.

We will pause further edits for the time-being to give time to clarify the 
actions internally, address outstanding issues and only proceed once everyone 
is happy with the way ahead.

Thanks again for your helpful feedback.

Kind regards,
Ed, Ayush, Aidan

Ed Whittaker
Senior Transport Planner
Sweco UK Limited | Solihull 
Telephone 0121 711 6600
ed.whitta...@sweco.co.uk
www.sweco.co.uk

LinkedIn | Instagram
Reg. No.: 2888385 | Reg. Office: Leeds (Registered in England and Wales) 
Reg. Office Address: Sweco UK Limited, Grove House, Mansion Gate Drive, Leeds, 
LS7 4DN 
For more information on how Sweco processes your personal data, please read 
here.


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

[Talk-gb-london] Update on TfL CID conflation plans

[Whittaker, Ed via Talk-gb-london]

Hello,

To keep you updated, a few cosmetic changes have been made to:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database

I'd particularly like to draw your attention to the very careful and limited 
plan to use the openstreetmap API. As noted: 
- This approach only applies to adjusting tags where they are determined as 
incomplete or incorrect. No geometry changes involved.
- Changes will be manually validated
- The script has been tested in the dev server

We're really keen to get thoughts and feedback to the approach. We will be 
presenting the plan at the geomob session tomorrow (a bit late notice - but it 
would be wonderful if you're able to make it to discuss)
https://thegeomob.com/post/june-15th-2022-geomoblon-details
Thanks,

Ed Whittaker
Senior Transport Planner
Sweco UK Limited | Solihull 
Telephone 0121 711 6600
ed.whitta...@sweco.co.uk
www.sweco.co.uk

LinkedIn | Instagram
Reg. No.: 2888385 | Reg. Office: Leeds (Registered in England and Wales) 
Reg. Office Address: Sweco UK Limited, Grove House, Mansion Gate Drive, Leeds, 
LS7 4DN 
For more information on how Sweco processes your personal data, please read 
here.


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

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Conflating TfL CID cycle data to OSM

[David Davis via Talk-gb-london]

I'm a bit surprised to read that it proposes to discard signage.
Obviously, yes, *every* traffic sign would be way over the top, but are
route signs not useful?
If these have a 'guidepost' and a 'destination' tag, it's possible to make
destination relations that can be use by route planning apps. (Not that I
have a clue how to actually do the latter, but.. ;)
I've tagged quite a few of these in recent months.

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 4:29 PM Robert Skedgell  wrote:

> On 13/05/2022 16:10, Whittaker, Ed via Talk-gb-london wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Pleased to let you know that we have been commissioned by TfL to
> continue the good work of cyclestreets in completing the migration of the
> CID to OSM. In the first instance, we've updated the associated wiki to
> give more detail about this renewed effort:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database
> >
> > This is just a small introduction - we'll be in touch with updates on
> the conflation approach. We're very grateful to receive your questions and
> comments!
> >
> > Lu (GHD), Ed (Sweco) and Aidan (GHD)
> >
> >
> > Ed Whittaker
>
> Hi,
>
> It's great to see something finally being done with the TfLCID data on a
> larger scale.
>
> I've been manually matching and adding some TfLCID assets within Newham
> as I edit other highway features. So far I've been using the key
> ref:GB:tflcid for TfL's asset ref., but I'm happy to change those if you
> were planning to use another key.
>
> --
> Robert Skedgell (rskedgell)
>
>
> ___
> Talk-gb-london mailing list
> Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>
_______
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

[Talk-gb-london] Conflating TfL CID cycle data to OSM

[Whittaker, Ed via Talk-gb-london]

Hello everyone,
 
Pleased to let you know that we have been commissioned by TfL to continue the 
good work of cyclestreets in completing the migration of the CID to OSM. In the 
first instance, we've updated the associated wiki to give more detail about 
this renewed effort:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database
 
This is just a small introduction - we'll be in touch with updates on the 
conflation approach. We're very grateful to receive your questions and comments!
 
Lu (GHD), Ed (Sweco) and Aidan (GHD)


Ed Whittaker


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

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Pavement (Sidewalks)

[David Davis via Talk-gb-london]

I'm not very familiar with Reading, but generally if I am adding detail to
any area of mapping, I will draw in pavements and pedestrian crossings as
seperate 'ways'.
Quite often that's because there's a particular signposted walking/hiking
route that I'm tagging, and it's a bit daft to tag these as going down the
middle of a road (particularly busy main road junctions, where there's
usualy a particular set of crossing walkers need to use).
It's also comes up when mapping cycle routes, which can often involve
'shared pavements'.
But more generally, I don't think maps should just be for car drivers :)

On Mon, 2 May 2022, 21:01 Matthew Norton,  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I’m reasonably new to editing OSM so please forgive any massive
> misunderstandings/blunders I am making.
>
>
>
> That being said my question is: what pavement (sidewalk) mapping style
> should be used around the Berkshire (Reading) area? I understand there are
> some conflicting ideas between how it should be done (a tag on the main
> road vs a completely separate mapped way) and the wiki states that one
> should ask their local community as to the way to go about aiding the map
> (which seems acceptable to me).
>
>
>
> So this is me asking. The current style in use around me is the tags on
> the main road, but I feel like a separate way would map the actual
> locations of the pavements better, which would aid a small project I’m
> hoping to do.
>
>
>
> Any advice on whether I could start this remodelling would be fab.
>
>
>
> Cheers!
>
> Clive.
> ___
> Talk-gb-london mailing list
> Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>
_______
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Anyone up for the task of mapping the new Lambeth electoral ward boundaries?

[David Davis via Talk-gb-london]

OK, I did a little more reading but it turns out that the actual order (
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/37/note/made ) simply says 'the
new ward boundaries are those shown on the map in the Commission's office
... and here's a link to an electronic version of the same map' which
is the one I already used as my reference to make the OSM edits.
(It's just as OS StreetView map not especially detailed)

And it says 'Where a boundary is shown on the map as running along a road,
railway line, footway, watercourse or similar geographical feature, it is
to be treated as running along the centre line of the feature.'

... which is how I tagged it.
The railway line in question was dual track, so I drew a boundary line in
the middle between the two tracks.
Where the road in question was drawn as a dual carriageway on OSM, I drew a
boundary line in between the two ways.



On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, 21:49 Colin Smale,  wrote:

> If the position of the boundary is imported from a source that ultimately
> has a very high precision, for example Ordnance Survey or a Council's GIS
> system through a shapefile or similar, then the location as recorded in OSM
> will likely be more accurate than what would be obtained from tracing from
> aerial photos. In other words, if a boundary and a road/railway/etc
> *almost* coincide, more consideration should be given to moving the road to
> match the imported boundary than the other way around.
>
> Having said that, the exact line of a boundary tends to get frozen at the
> moment the Order is made, even if the road/railway/etc is subsequently
> realigned. I strongly recommend that boundaries and other features do *not*
> get combined or even share nodes, unless it can be demonstrated that the
> link between them is dynamic, i.e. a change to one necessarily means a
> change to the other.
>
> On 02/17/2022 3:41 PM David Davis via Talk-gb-london <
> talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yeah Tom,
> this is conclusion I reached too:
> if a ward boundary is legally defined as being a particular geographical
> feature (e.g. centre line of a road) then it is better to have that way on
> OSM tagged with a relation (even if its position is a metre or two off
> perfect) rather than have another line imported and tagged as the boundary.
> And probably even worse: if the road *is* in precisely the right position,
> neither is it helpful to have another imported line superimposed right on
> top of it, as it makes it very fiddly to try and edit them subsequently.
> So, slightly timeconsuming as it is, I think it's probably best to set
> them up manually.
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 1:55 PM Tom Chance  wrote:
>
> I've previously found it valuable to have the ward boundaries in OSM, and
> am responsible for all the Southwark (not Lambeth) ward boundaries, plus a
> few Lambeth, Croydon and Bromley. Sometimes the misalignment of open data
> and OSM data can lead to mistakes. It's not a big deal if they aren't in,
> but I don't see any reason to say they *shouldn't* be.
>
> If you're going to update them (great!) I think they work better as
> relations using - where relevant - existing objects like roads where they
> go down the middle of a road. Otherwise, again, things can get misaligned
> and otherwise go wrong. So a straight import isn't as good an option as the
> rather more painstaking manual approach.
>
> Tom
>
> m: 07866 447 075
> w: http://tomchance.org
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 11:46, Russ Garrett  wrote:
>
> My controversial opinion is that these shouldn't be in OSM.
>
> The definitive boundaries are freely available as open data in OS
> Boundary Line (although they won't usually appear there until after
> the boundaries take effect). The current UK-wide coverage of ward
> boundaries in OSM is pretty minimal, although it looks like most of
> the old Lambeth wards are in OSM:
>
>
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/?q=W291dDpqc29uXVt0aW1lxIHEgzI1XTsKKAogIG53clsiYsSBbmRhcnkiPSJwb2xpxItjYWwixInEqMSqxKxpxK5sX2RpdmlzacSHxKYid8SjZMSxKHt7YsSfeH19KcSUxY8KxI8gxJ9kecSUPsSUxZNza2VsIHF0Ow=BJp6-ioHTL
>
> As someone who uses this boundary data relatively frequently, there's
> no reason why I should use OSM when the data is incomplete, and
> boundaries in OSM may have been altered (accidentally or otherwise).
> They're not surveyable, the data is freely available elsewhere - I
> don't see why it's worth spending our time making sure it's replicated
> in OSM.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russ
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 11:27, David Davis via Talk-gb-london
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > a complete revamp of the electoral wards in Lambeth borough comes into
> effect in May 2022, with 25 new wards.
> > (See
> https://love.lambeth.gov.

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Anyone up for the task of mapping the new Lambeth electoral ward boundaries?

[David Davis via Talk-gb-london]

Just to be clear though Colin, in that particular instance when I said the
position of the railway line looked rather dodgy, that was when comparing a
high degree of congruence between Cadastral Parcels and the satellite
imagery (roads and buildings) and the adjacent railway lines cutting
through them being out by so much that the railway line as currently shown
in OSM would have been going through people's houses! (The houses weren't
currently drawn in on OSM, just marked as a 'residential area'.
I didn't import OS open data of the ward boundary, as it was sufficient to
refer to the Boundary Commission and Lambeth's Council's published maps
(the latter of which uses OSM!).
About 90% of the ward boundary in questoon is just defined as 'down the
middle of the road' or 'along the railway line'  a few bits were 'along
the fence between two back gardens' (which the Casastral Parcels helps a
lot to sanity check)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, 21:49 Colin Smale,  wrote:

> If the position of the boundary is imported from a source that ultimately
> has a very high precision, for example Ordnance Survey or a Council's GIS
> system through a shapefile or similar, then the location as recorded in OSM
> will likely be more accurate than what would be obtained from tracing from
> aerial photos. In other words, if a boundary and a road/railway/etc
> *almost* coincide, more consideration should be given to moving the road to
> match the imported boundary than the other way around.
>
> Having said that, the exact line of a boundary tends to get frozen at the
> moment the Order is made, even if the road/railway/etc is subsequently
> realigned. I strongly recommend that boundaries and other features do *not*
> get combined or even share nodes, unless it can be demonstrated that the
> link between them is dynamic, i.e. a change to one necessarily means a
> change to the other.
>
> On 02/17/2022 3:41 PM David Davis via Talk-gb-london <
> talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yeah Tom,
> this is conclusion I reached too:
> if a ward boundary is legally defined as being a particular geographical
> feature (e.g. centre line of a road) then it is better to have that way on
> OSM tagged with a relation (even if its position is a metre or two off
> perfect) rather than have another line imported and tagged as the boundary.
> And probably even worse: if the road *is* in precisely the right position,
> neither is it helpful to have another imported line superimposed right on
> top of it, as it makes it very fiddly to try and edit them subsequently.
> So, slightly timeconsuming as it is, I think it's probably best to set
> them up manually.
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 1:55 PM Tom Chance  wrote:
>
> I've previously found it valuable to have the ward boundaries in OSM, and
> am responsible for all the Southwark (not Lambeth) ward boundaries, plus a
> few Lambeth, Croydon and Bromley. Sometimes the misalignment of open data
> and OSM data can lead to mistakes. It's not a big deal if they aren't in,
> but I don't see any reason to say they *shouldn't* be.
>
> If you're going to update them (great!) I think they work better as
> relations using - where relevant - existing objects like roads where they
> go down the middle of a road. Otherwise, again, things can get misaligned
> and otherwise go wrong. So a straight import isn't as good an option as the
> rather more painstaking manual approach.
>
> Tom
>
> m: 07866 447 075
> w: http://tomchance.org
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 11:46, Russ Garrett  wrote:
>
> My controversial opinion is that these shouldn't be in OSM.
>
> The definitive boundaries are freely available as open data in OS
> Boundary Line (although they won't usually appear there until after
> the boundaries take effect). The current UK-wide coverage of ward
> boundaries in OSM is pretty minimal, although it looks like most of
> the old Lambeth wards are in OSM:
>
>
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/?q=W291dDpqc29uXVt0aW1lxIHEgzI1XTsKKAogIG53clsiYsSBbmRhcnkiPSJwb2xpxItjYWwixInEqMSqxKxpxK5sX2RpdmlzacSHxKYid8SjZMSxKHt7YsSfeH19KcSUxY8KxI8gxJ9kecSUPsSUxZNza2VsIHF0Ow=BJp6-ioHTL
>
> As someone who uses this boundary data relatively frequently, there's
> no reason why I should use OSM when the data is incomplete, and
> boundaries in OSM may have been altered (accidentally or otherwise).
> They're not surveyable, the data is freely available elsewhere - I
> don't see why it's worth spending our time making sure it's replicated
> in OSM.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russ
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 11:27, David Davis via Talk-gb-london
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > a complete revamp of the electoral wards in Lambeth borough comes into
> effect in May 2022, with 25 new wards.
> > (See
&

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Anyone up for the task of mapping the new Lambeth electoral ward boundaries?

[David Davis via Talk-gb-london]

well, I did the first one! (Brixton Acre Lane)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13817756#map=15/51.4573/-0.1225
(Did I do it right...?)

It didn't actually take very long.
For the most part, I was able to simply tag roads with the relation.
For a few more outré bits where the ward boundary follows property
boundaries, that "Cadastral Parcels" layer was invaluable at working out
where the boundary line should go
(I didn't know about Cadastral Parcels before, it's so helpful!)
The trickiest bit was where the boundary appears to have been defined as
along a railway line -
the existing positions of the tracks themselves was not very accurate, and
I wasn't sure which track was meant to be the boundary, so I just drew in a
new boundary line rather than apply the relation to the tracks
(also, it would have been tricky to get the relation continuous if tagging
the actual track, because the train track crosses the road on a bridge
rather than intersecting at a level crossing, so the two ways don't
actually join)

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 2:41 PM David Davis 
wrote:

>
> Yeah Tom,
> this is conclusion I reached too:
> if a ward boundary is legally defined as being a particular geographical
> feature (e.g. centre line of a road) then it is better to have that way on
> OSM tagged with a relation (even if its position is a metre or two off
> perfect) rather than have another line imported and tagged as the boundary.
> And probably even worse: if the road *is* in precisely the right position,
> neither is it helpful to have another imported line superimposed right on
> top of it, as it makes it very fiddly to try and edit them subsequently.
> So, slightly timeconsuming as it is, I think it's probably best to set
> them up manually.
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 1:55 PM Tom Chance  wrote:
>
>> I've previously found it valuable to have the ward boundaries in OSM, and
>> am responsible for all the Southwark (not Lambeth) ward boundaries, plus a
>> few Lambeth, Croydon and Bromley. Sometimes the misalignment of open data
>> and OSM data can lead to mistakes. It's not a big deal if they aren't in,
>> but I don't see any reason to say they *shouldn't* be.
>>
>> If you're going to update them (great!) I think they work better as
>> relations using - where relevant - existing objects like roads where they
>> go down the middle of a road. Otherwise, again, things can get misaligned
>> and otherwise go wrong. So a straight import isn't as good an option as the
>> rather more painstaking manual approach.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> m: 07866 447 075
>> w: http://tomchance.org
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 11:46, Russ Garrett  wrote:
>>
>>> My controversial opinion is that these shouldn't be in OSM.
>>>
>>> The definitive boundaries are freely available as open data in OS
>>> Boundary Line (although they won't usually appear there until after
>>> the boundaries take effect). The current UK-wide coverage of ward
>>> boundaries in OSM is pretty minimal, although it looks like most of
>>> the old Lambeth wards are in OSM:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/?q=W291dDpqc29uXVt0aW1lxIHEgzI1XTsKKAogIG53clsiYsSBbmRhcnkiPSJwb2xpxItjYWwixInEqMSqxKxpxK5sX2RpdmlzacSHxKYid8SjZMSxKHt7YsSfeH19KcSUxY8KxI8gxJ9kecSUPsSUxZNza2VsIHF0Ow=BJp6-ioHTL
>>>
>>> As someone who uses this boundary data relatively frequently, there's
>>> no reason why I should use OSM when the data is incomplete, and
>>> boundaries in OSM may have been altered (accidentally or otherwise).
>>> They're not surveyable, the data is freely available elsewhere - I
>>> don't see why it's worth spending our time making sure it's replicated
>>> in OSM.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 11:27, David Davis via Talk-gb-london
>>>  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hello,
>>> > a complete revamp of the electoral wards in Lambeth borough comes into
>>> effect in May 2022, with 25 new wards.
>>> > (See
>>> https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/a-new-political-map-for-the-2022-lambeth-borough-council-elections/
>>> for info).
>>> >
>>> > I'm guessing the boundaries are available as open data,
>>> > and some bright spark on this list will know how to import it into OSM
>>> in a hugely more efficient way that me trying to manually draw and tag the
>>> new boundaries...?
>>> > (Amusingly, on the map on Lambeth Council's page about it, someone
>>> literally has just drawn the boundaries by hand on top of a screengrab from
>>> OSM!)
>>> >
>>

Re: [Talk-gb-london] Anyone up for the task of mapping the new Lambeth electoral ward boundaries?

[David Davis via Talk-gb-london]

Yeah Tom,
this is conclusion I reached too:
if a ward boundary is legally defined as being a particular geographical
feature (e.g. centre line of a road) then it is better to have that way on
OSM tagged with a relation (even if its position is a metre or two off
perfect) rather than have another line imported and tagged as the boundary.
And probably even worse: if the road *is* in precisely the right position,
neither is it helpful to have another imported line superimposed right on
top of it, as it makes it very fiddly to try and edit them subsequently.
So, slightly timeconsuming as it is, I think it's probably best to set them
up manually.

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 1:55 PM Tom Chance  wrote:

> I've previously found it valuable to have the ward boundaries in OSM, and
> am responsible for all the Southwark (not Lambeth) ward boundaries, plus a
> few Lambeth, Croydon and Bromley. Sometimes the misalignment of open data
> and OSM data can lead to mistakes. It's not a big deal if they aren't in,
> but I don't see any reason to say they *shouldn't* be.
>
> If you're going to update them (great!) I think they work better as
> relations using - where relevant - existing objects like roads where they
> go down the middle of a road. Otherwise, again, things can get misaligned
> and otherwise go wrong. So a straight import isn't as good an option as the
> rather more painstaking manual approach.
>
> Tom
>
> m: 07866 447 075
> w: http://tomchance.org
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 11:46, Russ Garrett  wrote:
>
>> My controversial opinion is that these shouldn't be in OSM.
>>
>> The definitive boundaries are freely available as open data in OS
>> Boundary Line (although they won't usually appear there until after
>> the boundaries take effect). The current UK-wide coverage of ward
>> boundaries in OSM is pretty minimal, although it looks like most of
>> the old Lambeth wards are in OSM:
>>
>>
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/?q=W291dDpqc29uXVt0aW1lxIHEgzI1XTsKKAogIG53clsiYsSBbmRhcnkiPSJwb2xpxItjYWwixInEqMSqxKxpxK5sX2RpdmlzacSHxKYid8SjZMSxKHt7YsSfeH19KcSUxY8KxI8gxJ9kecSUPsSUxZNza2VsIHF0Ow=BJp6-ioHTL
>>
>> As someone who uses this boundary data relatively frequently, there's
>> no reason why I should use OSM when the data is incomplete, and
>> boundaries in OSM may have been altered (accidentally or otherwise).
>> They're not surveyable, the data is freely available elsewhere - I
>> don't see why it's worth spending our time making sure it's replicated
>> in OSM.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Russ
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 11:27, David Davis via Talk-gb-london
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> > a complete revamp of the electoral wards in Lambeth borough comes into
>> effect in May 2022, with 25 new wards.
>> > (See
>> https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/a-new-political-map-for-the-2022-lambeth-borough-council-elections/
>> for info).
>> >
>> > I'm guessing the boundaries are available as open data,
>> > and some bright spark on this list will know how to import it into OSM
>> in a hugely more efficient way that me trying to manually draw and tag the
>> new boundaries...?
>> > (Amusingly, on the map on Lambeth Council's page about it, someone
>> literally has just drawn the boundaries by hand on top of a screengrab from
>> OSM!)
>> >
>> > Anyone interested this task?
>> >
>> > (A few of the existing Lambeth wards were tagged on OSM already, but
>> the majority actually weren't. But every existing ward boundary is changing
>> in any case...)
>> > _______
>> > Talk-gb-london mailing list
>> > Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Russ Garrett
>> r...@garrett.co.uk
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-gb-london mailing list
>> Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
>>
>
___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

[Talk-gb-london] Anyone up for the task of mapping the new Lambeth electoral ward boundaries?

[David Davis via Talk-gb-london]

Hello,
a complete revamp of the electoral wards in Lambeth borough comes into
effect in May 2022, with 25 new wards.
(See
https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/a-new-political-map-for-the-2022-lambeth-borough-council-elections/
for info).

I'm guessing the boundaries are available as open data,
and some bright spark on this list will know how to import it into OSM in a
hugely more efficient way that me trying to manually draw and tag the new
boundaries...?
(Amusingly, on the map on Lambeth Council's page about it, someone
literally has just drawn the boundaries by hand on top of a screengrab from
OSM!)

Anyone interested this task?

(A few of the existing Lambeth wards were tagged on OSM already, but the
majority actually weren't. But every existing ward boundary is changing in
any case...)
___
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] The Two Towers (at Bentley)

[Ian Caldwell via Talk-gb-westmidlands]

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aadvertising
Maybe add a new value of "tower" or use the existing "column".

Ian


On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 14:46, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> How should we tag these two towers, that seem to exist primarily or
> only for advertising purposes, at Boundary Mill, Bentley, Walsall?
>
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367659835
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Advertising_pillar,_Boundary_Mill,_Walsall_-_2021-11-12_-_Andy_Mabbett_-_01.jpg
>
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367659836
>
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Advertising_pillar,_Boundary_Mill,_Walsall_-_2021-11-12_-_Andy_Mabbett_-_02.jpg
>
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
> Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
>
___
Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list
Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands

Re: [Talk-GB] Anglican churches

[Mike Baggaley via Talk-GB]

>It's not documented anywhere at the moment, but the different coloured
>markers on the "nameless" maps at e.g.
>https://osm.mathmos.net/nameless/amenity/place_of_worship simply
>denote the type of OSM object: node, way or relation.
>
>Robert.

Hi Robert, the nameless places of worship report looks good, but for me equally 
as important is places of worship with no religion. Any chance of that being 
added?

Cheers,
Mike


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric forecourt

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

I would map it as amenity=charging_station area.

Dec 20, 2020, 12:05 by rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com:

> Hi all,
>
> I saw on Fully Charged (YouTube channel) that there is now a electric vehicle 
> charging forecourt. Unlike others, this is not a couple of charging points 
> added to an existing petrol station or slapped down in a carpark. This is a 
> full on electric version of a petrol station (without petrol as an option).
>
> https://www.gridserve.com/braintree-overview/
>
> Feels like a good time to review how we map them. Do we have the right tags 
> available?
>
> The wiki has a lot but it seems a bit jumbled. For example, I believe this 
> site has CCS socket chargers at various kW sizes. Our current tagging scheme 
> doesn't look like it allows for that. Is this an issue?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station
>
> Best regards
> Rob
>_______
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

m the address is probably correct
> postally-speaking, but local residents would object as Smalltown is seen
> as completely separate to other places under the same Postal Town.
>
> Currently tagging as -
> addr:housenumber=99
> addr:street=Postal Street
> addr:city=Smalltown, Largertown
>
> But I am pretty sure this is wrong.
>
> There is a page at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping which
> mentions "suggested tags" but there is no evidence that this is in use.
> If correct I would be tagging as -
>
> addr:housenumber=99
> addr:street=Postal Street
> addr:town=Smalltown
> addr:city=Largertown
>
> Hoping someone can advise me as to the correct way to tag for the UK...
>
> Dave Abbott  (OSM user DaveyPorcy)
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
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] Anglican churches

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) via Talk-GB]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 20:07, Donald Noble  wrote:
> Forgive me if I've missed it somewhere, but what do the different colours 
> represent on the nameless places of worship page?

It's not documented anywhere at the moment, but the different coloured
markers on the "nameless" maps at e.g.
https://osm.mathmos.net/nameless/amenity/place_of_worship simply
denote the type of OSM object: node, way or relation.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

The housenumber and street would be tagged on the "building:part=house"

Is this housrnumber belonging to the terrace or is it belonging to the street? 
If it belongs to the terrace, I think even with this tagging software wouldnt 
recognise this.

In that case, this is the tagging O use (its not that good however):

addr:housenumber=2
addr:place=Orchard Gardens
addr2:street=Green Lane

I use addr2:street (this is accepted tagging, by the way) to indicate that the 
street is a seperate address.

This isnt ideal, of course
-- 
 


20 Dec 2020, 18:52 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

>
> On 2020-12-20 19:44, ipswichmap...@tutanota.com wrote:
>
>
>> What you do is give the outline way "buildong=terrace" and 
>> "name=" and all the houses with "building:part=house". The 
>> software can then tell that all those houses are part of the terrace called 
>> 
>>  
>>
>  
> So in the case like I referred to earlier, "2, Orchard Cottages, Green Lane" 
> would be tagged with addr:housenumber=2, and addr:street=Green Lane? And then 
> enclosed within "building=terrace, name=Orchard Cottages". Is the tag 
> building:part=house enough to indicate that the address is "2, Orchard 
> Cottages, Green Lane" and not "2, Green Lane"?
>  
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

What you do is give the outline way "buildong=terrace" and 
"name=" and all the houses with "building:part=house". The 
software can then tell that all those houses are part of the terrace called 

-- 
  

20 Dec 2020, 17:30 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

>
> On 2020-12-20 18:21, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote:
>
>
>> Tag the houses with addr:place maybe?
>>  
>>
> IMHO a house is not a place
>  
>
>> Or, better method is to use the alternative terrace taggong scheme where 
>> each house is tagged as building:part=house within a larger 
>> building=terrace.  (Terracer plugin lets you do this if you check "keep 
>> outline way")
>>  
>>
>  
> That allows the building to be split into parts, but does it tell us how to 
> put a distinct address on each part?
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] UK street addressing

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Tag the houses with addr:place maybe?

Or, better method is to use the alternative terrace taggong scheme where each 
house is tagged as building:part=house within a larger building=terrace.  
(Terracer plugin lets you do this if you check "keep outline way")

IpswichMapper-- 
 


20 Dec 2020, 15:50 by aamac...@gmail.com:

> I'm also unclear how to tag numbered houses in named terraces. 
>
> addr:housename doesn't seem appropriate if they are shared along an entire 
> row and addr:street already has a value.
>
> I've also run into this for blocks of flats. "Block B" doesn't seem like a 
> housename either? The addr:block tags seems to be for named city blocks.
>
> Do we have some sort of local grouping tag?
>
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 10:32, ndrw <> nd...@redhazel.co.uk> > wrote:
>
>> On 20/12/2020 12:45, Dave Abbott wrote:
>>  > There is a page at 
>>  > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping>>  
>>  > which mentions "suggested tags" but there is no evidence that this is 
>>  > in use. If correct I would be tagging as -
>>  >
>>  > addr:housenumber=99
>>  > addr:street=Postal Street
>>  > addr:town=Smalltown
>>  > addr:city=Largertown
>>  >
>>  This is correct, although there is no consensus wrt to the tag used for 
>>  Smalltown. I'm using one of addr:villlage|suburb|town myself. There was 
>>  a proposal to switch to addr:locality only, which I argued against in 
>>  the past, but it would indeed match RM addressing better and often 
>>  classification of the locality is unclear.
>>  
>>  This is not the only problem with RM<->OSM address tagging. RM defines 
>>  following address structure:
>>  
>>  Dependent thoroughfare
>>          addr:place (?)
>>  Thoroughfare
>>          addr:street
>>  Double dependent locality
>>          addr:hamlet|district (?)
>>  Dependent locality
>>          addr:town|village|suburb|locality (?)
>>  Post Town
>>          addr:city
>>  Postcode
>>          addr:postcode
>>  
>>  
>>  This often becomes an issue when mapping business parks, 
>>  hospital/university campuses etc.
>>  
>>  ndrw6
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  ___
>>  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 street addressing

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Postal Town may be "mandatory", but it is not really needed.
When presenting a parcel at my local post office recently, to be sent by the 
"signed for" service, they wanted to have the senders address on the reverse, 
so that it could be used as a return address, in the event of non-delivery.
All I had to (hurriedly) write was the Housenumber and Postcode (no 
PostalStreet, no PostalDistrict, no PostalTown)
Regards,Peter


On Sunday, 20 December 2020, 15:00:31 GMT, Colin Smale 
 wrote:  
 
 
On 2020-12-20 15:41, Chris Hill wrote:

Addresses in OSM are not the same as Royal Mail's addresses. RM addresses are 
all about their processes for delivering post to delivery points. The postal 
town (Largertown in your example) is a convenience for RM that we have all been 
persuaded is useful, but RM have ceased to use postal towns for many years! 
Are you not thinking of Postal Counties? They were indeed deprecated many years 
ago (1996), but the Post Town is AFAIK a mandatory component of a postal 
address, and Wikipedia agrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_town 
___
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 street addressing

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

It's not just administrative boundaries. If you mark points with 
"place=suburb", "place=town" etc. that will also be used.

In this case it is clearly difficult to tell which tags to use, so I would just 
not use them and let nominatim figure out. Unless someone else a clearer 
solution, that is.

IpswichMapper

-- 
 

20 Dec 2020, 13:29 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

>
> On 2020-12-20 14:13, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote:
>
>
>> Marking city, town etc is not necessary in UK because Geocoders like 
>> nominatim can figure those out using afministrative boundaries.
>>  
>>
> Postal addresses have no relation to administrative boundaries. They are 
> simply "what you need to put on an envelope so Royal Mail can put it through 
> the right letter box".
>  
> Boundaries of "post town" areas are not in OSM, nor can they be considered 
> "administrative". Post Towns, Dependent Localities and Double-Dependent 
> Localities are not mapped (nor mappable) to Districts etc or Civil Parishes.
>  
>  
>
>>  
>> What is important is the housenumber and street:
>> "addr:housenumber=99
>> addr:street= Postal Street"
>>  
>> And postcode:
>> "addr:postcode=XY9 7GY"
>>  
>> Note, all postcodes are available freely:
>>  
>> https://raggedred.net/codepoint/
>>  
>> IpswichMapper
>> --
>>  
>>  
>> 20 Dec 2020, 12:45 by dave.abb...@pandaemonia.org:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>  
>>> I am trying to make sure I tag addresses correctly. I am currently trying 
>>> to understand how to map in my area.
>>>  
>>> The postal addresses are like:
>>>  
>>> 99 Postal Street
>>> Smalltown
>>> Largertown
>>> West Yorks XY9 7GY
>>>  
>>> Smalltown is geographically separate to Largertown, which however is the 
>>> Postal Town. Omitting Smalltown from the address is probably correct 
>>> postally-speaking, but local residents would object as Smalltown is seen as 
>>> completely separate to other places under the same Postal Town.
>>>  
>>> Currently tagging as -
>>> addr:housenumber=99
>>> addr:street=Postal Street
>>> addr:city=Smalltown, Largertown
>>>  
>>> But I am pretty sure this is wrong.
>>>  
>>> There is a page at 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping which 
>>> mentions "suggested tags" but there is no evidence that this is in use. If 
>>> correct I would be tagging as -
>>>  
>>> addr:housenumber=99
>>> addr:street=Postal Street
>>> addr:town=Smalltown
>>> addr:city=Largertown
>>>  
>>> Hoping someone can advise me as to the correct way to tag for the UK...
>>>  
>>> Dave Abbott (OSM user DaveyPorcy)
>>>
>>  
>>
>> ___
>>  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 street addressing

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Marking city, town etc is not necessary in UK because Geocoders like nominatim 
can figure those out using afministrative boundaries.

What is important is the housenumber and street:
"addr:housenumber=99
addr:street= Postal Street"

And postcode:
"addr:postcode=XY9 7GY"

Note, all postcodes are available freely:

https://raggedred.net/codepoint/

IpswichMapper-- 
 

20 Dec 2020, 12:45 by dave.abb...@pandaemonia.org:

> Hi,
>
> I am trying to make sure I tag addresses correctly. I am currently trying to 
> understand how to map in my area.
>
> The postal addresses are like:
>
> 99 Postal Street
> Smalltown
> Largertown
> West Yorks XY9 7GY
>
> Smalltown is geographically separate to Largertown, which however is the 
> Postal Town. Omitting Smalltown from the address is probably correct 
> postally-speaking, but local residents would object as Smalltown is seen as 
> completely separate to other places under the same Postal Town.
>
> Currently tagging as -
> addr:housenumber=99
> addr:street=Postal Street
> addr:city=Smalltown, Largertown
>
> But I am pretty sure this is wrong.
>
> There is a page at 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/UK_Address_Mapping which 
> mentions "suggested tags" but there is no evidence that this is in use. If 
> correct I would be tagging as -
>
> addr:housenumber=99
> addr:street=Postal Street
> addr:town=Smalltown
> addr:city=Largertown
>
> Hoping someone can advise me as to the correct way to tag for the UK...
>
> Dave Abbott  (OSM user DaveyPorcy)
>

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

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths downtime

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello everyone,

I have updated mapthepaths.org.uk's DNS record to point to a different server. 
When this is done I will need to obtain a new HTTPS certificate. It's possible 
that interruptions may occur over the next 24 hours or so but once updated it 
will be up without further interuption.

Thanks,
Nick


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

[ael via Talk-GB]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:15:47PM +, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 20:57, ael via Talk-GB  
> wrote:
> 
> > I would regard this as vandalism if it is removing surveyed real stiles
> > to suit an ideal world where they are not permitted on bridleways.
> 
> I favour the definitions used on the English Wikipedia, which make it
> clear that vandalism is deliberate harm, and that any well-intentioned
> edit, even if incorrect, is not vandalism, because:

I am probably oversensitive because I have had cases where I have
surveyed repeatedly with gps & photography and noted that in source
tags, only to have armchair mappers "correct" the mapping. Although
I suspect that in most cases they have just ignored the existing
mapping.

In this case, I only skimmed the changeset and failed to notice who had
made the change. I regularly map not far from this area, and know that
bridleways are often obstructed here (and elsewhere).

I must say that in situations where I suspect a problem like that, I do
usually contact the original mapper to discuss the situation rather
than take unilateral action.

ael


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 20:58 ael via Talk-GB, 
wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 08:30:01PM +, Neil Matthews wrote:
> > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from bridleways
> --
> > pretty sure I've seen this done in other edits -- agree that they're a
> > potential anomaly but should they really be a mechanical edit (even if by
> > hand)? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95739504
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> I would regard this as vandalism if it is removing surveyed real stiles
> to suit an ideal world where they are not permitted on bridleways.
>
> Perhaps I have misunderstood?
>

My understanding is that the stiles in question were mapped as a tag on a
bridleway / footway junction, and have been moved to a node on the footway.
This is highly likely to be to be correct, since a (foot) stile is a
construction at the point where a path crosses a fence and so topologically
cannot occur at a junction.

I would generally feel OK doing this without a ground survey if it was
reasonably clear that there is a fence paralleling the bridleway, and that
the footpath is crossing. This might be visible on aerial photography where
the bridleway runs in the gap between two fields, for example.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

[ael via Talk-GB]

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 08:30:01PM +, Neil Matthews wrote:
> Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from bridleways --
> pretty sure I've seen this done in other edits -- agree that they're a
> potential anomaly but should they really be a mechanical edit (even if by
> hand)? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95739504
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

I would regard this as vandalism if it is removing surveyed real stiles
to suit an ideal world where they are not permitted on bridleways.

Perhaps I have misunderstood?

ael

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a single Royal Mail mailbox with two references

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

The Wiki says,
"Sometimes several post boxes are standing together and can most often be 
tagged with one single node. If the boxes have different reference numbers this 
is tagged as ref=12242;23214. You can also use two separate nodes in such 
cases, which may be more appropriate if the boxes are two separate physical 
entities. It would also be necessary to use two nodes if the two boxes had 
different collection times or item restrictions and you wanted to tag these 
differences."
So, if their type and collection times are the same, I think you can choose to 
tag 2 separate nodes, or one node with 2 refs, separated by a semi-colon.
Regards,Peter


On Monday, 14 December 2020, 13:51:24 GMT, Mat Attlee 
 wrote:  
 
 What's the most appropriate way to map a single physical Royal Mail mailbox 
with two signs and references? I recently stumbled upon such a mailbox and 
created a POI for each sign / reference:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8214997322https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8215022917
However given the collection times are the same and it is just one physical 
mailbox would it be better to have a single POI with two 
references?_______
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] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello Adam,

OK - that's great, thanks!

Does the AWS hosting include full shell access? We'll need that to install the 
relevant software.

Let me know if/when the server space is available.

In the meantime I will create a Hetzner server to start experimenting, this 
will be around EUR4/month which I am prepared to meet in the short term, I will 
also give accounts to trusted members of the community on request to work on 
the project should they wish.

Nick





From: OSMUK 
Sent: 13 December 2020 18:36
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Cc: Nick Whitelegg 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

Hey Nick,

This sounds like a great project and so I’m sure OSMUK can help with server 
space. We have just migrated hosting to AWS due to our previous host shutting 
down, so one option is to provide some space on there.

Best,

Adam

--
Adam Hoyle
[m] 07973 428 333
On 11 Dec 2020, 15:02 +, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB , wrote:

Hello Andy,

Thanks for this.

My own feeling regarding what server we need is "start small, to get it going" 
and then as soon as OSMUK can commit to funding (*if* they can, of course) 
and/or several people share the cost, then scale up. Hetzner's model is very 
flexible in this regard, for instance I started with an 8GB RAM VM before I 
found it wasn't quite adequate for my needs and upgraded the same VM to the 
16GB version (and added some disc space, I think, too). For now I am willing to 
spend a small amount (below EUR/GBP 5) for a month or two to get things going 
if there's sufficient interest.

I'd broadly agree to an extent about going the Mapnik route although I would 
prefer another person with more experience in the niceties of current Mapnik 
stylesheet development to do large-scale tweaks;  I would be happy to do small​ 
tweaks on such things as, for example, making designations appear in a similar 
style to Landranger which might be an idea for familiarity purposes. On the 
other hand, vector rendering would have some advantages for the aims of this 
project - an interactive map of the countryside in which POIs and paths can be 
clicked to add/retrieve information. I believe Tangram can do this quite 
easily; I have dabbled in Tangram and it's quite easy to setup a simple 
stylesheet though haven't tried it with anything complex. Tangram also has some 
nice things like being able to be rendered in both isometric and (via A-Frame 
components, https://aframe.io) even in 3D. I have to admit having a personal 
like for the vector approach,   it shifts more processing onto the client, good 
in a world where standard client hardware, desktop and mobile, is pretty 
powerful while powerful server hardware is expensive.

I wouldn't personally be so fussed about things like minutely updates until it 
becomes a 'production' map, while in development mode I think the best approach 
is to keep it simple and cheap to run. In terms of my own projects I do quite 
rigorous filtering of the OSM data before populating the DB, to reject things 
mostly of interest to urban areas which only use up space and resources in a 
walking-oriented map. Another way of keeping initial costs down would be to 
concentrate on one or a few counties, ideally well-mapped ones with many ROWs, 
hills, water features etc.

So I'd be quite happy - if​ there's interest - to setup a cheaper Hetzner 
server for now. If we want to go the mapnik route I'd be happy to do a basic 
setup there as well, as in, get mod_tile working and use your style unmodified. 
My main personal contribution to the project would be to work on the server- 
and client-side scripting necessary to develop an interactive POI map. We'd 
also of course need people with strong web design and UX skills - alas, mine 
are not so great!

As for other points - things like https cert renewal seem easy with Let's 
Encrypt; have been using that succesfully for a while now.

Nick



Nick Whitelegg
Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
Southampton Solent University  | RM424 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
0YN
T: 023 8201 3075 | E: 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> | W: 
solent.ac.uk<http://www.solent.ac.uk/>

Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>

From: Andy Townsend 
Sent: 11 December 2020 13:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server



On 11/12/2020 09:59, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:

In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, like 
most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage would be light 
and limited to those in the OSM community. I use Hetzner for my hosting 
(OpenTrailView, Hikar, MapThePaths) - I pay around EUR 19/month but that is for 
a larger system that has to deal with the whole of Euro

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 13, 2020, 20:52 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> Dec 13, 2020, 19:50 by ch...@c-hodges.co.uk:
>
>> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does go 
>> down the steps?
>>
> Add them to bike route relation.
>

Obviously it applies only if there is some signed bicycle route there.

If it is just part of cycleway system, without signed bicycle route then
relation should not be created and there is actually a gap in cycleway
system.
___________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 13, 2020, 19:50 by ch...@c-hodges.co.uk:

> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does go 
> down the steps?
>
Add them to bike route relation.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:14 David Woolley, 
wrote:

> On 13/12/2020 19:05, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will allow
> > people who can't dismount to go around by the road.
>
> Only if it is illegal to try to cycle up and down the steps.  Otherwise
> it is the duty of the renderer (router) to infer that this will be
> necessary because of the steps.
>

The sign visible on Mapillary says (white on blue) "Steps ahead cyclists
dismount". That seems pretty clear to me.
___________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:02 Adam Snape,  wrote:

> highway=steps
> ramp:bicycle=yes
>

Right. The cycle route isn't mapped at all, from what I can tell?

Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will allow
people who can't dismount to go around by the road.



> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 18:53 Chris Hodges,  wrote:
>
>> NCR45 in Stroud goes down a rather steep flight of steps to cross
>> Dudbridge Road. I can confirm that is what the signs say, having been
>> there yesterday.  Also the Sustrans/OS map shows it taking the line of
>> the steps https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/51.73875,-2.23631,18
>>
>> There is a narrow ramp, so you can wheel a (conventional) bike up/down.
>> It's about as accessible as it sounds, but the north end of the path
>> isn't much better.
>>
>> On OSM the steps are shown (with a note about the bike route)
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.73895/-2.23568 but the
>> cycle path appears to break
>>
>> Mapillary shows the sign at the bottom:
>>
>> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.738716181265865=-2.236989543797598=17=map=true=7X9gKmoDzGaATOILuDGRuA=0.14213485370109913=0.4081370298673949=3
>>
>>
>> It's not unique - I know another example where the Bristol-Bath railway
>> path accesses the pub car park in Saltford
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/51.40521/-2.45026, and I've
>> seen similar on canal towpaths - in the latter case in particular it can
>> be crucial for route-planning even manually, as the next access can be a
>> long way away.
>>
>> So how should this be tagged to indicate that the bike route really does
>> go down the steps?
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> _______
>> 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] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

[OSMUK via Talk-GB]

Hey Nick,

This sounds like a great project and so I’m sure OSMUK can help with server 
space. We have just migrated hosting to AWS due to our previous host shutting 
down, so one option is to provide some space on there.

Best,

Adam

--
Adam Hoyle
[m] 07973 428 333
On 11 Dec 2020, 15:02 +, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB , wrote:
>
> Hello Andy,
>
> Thanks for this.
>
> My own feeling regarding what server we need is "start small, to get it 
> going" and then as soon as OSMUK can commit to funding (*if* they can, of 
> course) and/or several people share the cost, then scale up. Hetzner's model 
> is very flexible in this regard, for instance I started with an 8GB RAM VM 
> before I found it wasn't quite adequate for my needs and upgraded the same VM 
> to the 16GB version (and added some disc space, I think, too). For now I am 
> willing to spend a small amount (below EUR/GBP 5) for a month or two to get 
> things going if there's sufficient interest.
>
> I'd broadly agree to an extent about going the Mapnik route although I would 
> prefer another person with more experience in the niceties of current Mapnik 
> stylesheet development to do large-scale tweaks;  I would be happy to do 
> small​ tweaks on such things as, for example, making designations appear in a 
> similar style to Landranger which might be an idea for familiarity purposes. 
> On the other hand, vector rendering would have some advantages for the aims 
> of this project - an interactive map of the countryside in which POIs and 
> paths can be clicked to add/retrieve information. I believe Tangram can do 
> this quite easily; I have dabbled in Tangram and it's quite easy to setup a 
> simple stylesheet though haven't tried it with anything complex. Tangram also 
> has some nice things like being able to be rendered in both isometric and 
> (via A-Frame components, https://aframe.io) even in 3D. I have to admit 
> having a personal like for the vector approach,   it shifts more processing 
> onto the client, good in a world where standard client hardware, desktop and 
> mobile, is pretty powerful while powerful server hardware is expensive.
>
> I wouldn't personally be so fussed about things like minutely updates until 
> it becomes a 'production' map, while in development mode I think the best 
> approach is to keep it simple and cheap to run. In terms of my own projects I 
> do quite rigorous filtering of the OSM data before populating the DB, to 
> reject things mostly of interest to urban areas which only use up space and 
> resources in a walking-oriented map. Another way of keeping initial costs 
> down would be to concentrate on one or a few counties, ideally well-mapped 
> ones with many ROWs, hills, water features etc.
>
> So I'd be quite happy - if​ there's interest - to setup a cheaper Hetzner 
> server for now. If we want to go the mapnik route I'd be happy to do a basic 
> setup there as well, as in, get mod_tile working and use your style 
> unmodified. My main personal contribution to the project would be to work on 
> the server- and client-side scripting necessary to develop an interactive POI 
> map. We'd also of course need people with strong web design and UX skills - 
> alas, mine are not so great!
>
> As for other points - things like https cert renewal seem easy with Let's 
> Encrypt; have been using that succesfully for a while now.
>
> Nick
>
>
> Nick Whitelegg
> Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
> Southampton Solent University  | RM424 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
> 0YN
> T: 023 8201 3075 | E: nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk | W: solent.ac.uk
>
> Disclaimer
> From: Andy Townsend 
> Sent: 11 December 2020 13:40
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server
>
>
> On 11/12/2020 09:59, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:
> >
> > In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, like 
> > most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage would be 
> > light and limited to those in the OSM community. I use Hetzner for my 
> > hosting (OpenTrailView, Hikar, MapThePaths) - I pay around EUR 19/month but 
> > that is for a larger system that has to deal with the whole of Europe 
> > rather than just the UK.
> >
> >  https://www.hetzner.com/cloud?country=gb
> >
> > The second-lowest spec of these, the CPX11 is giving you 2GB RAM and 40GB 
> > disc space for EUR 4.19 a month. OK we'd need more than that long term, but 
> > I suspect that would get us going in the early stages.
>
> That'll depending on what you want the server to do, I think.  For an OSM 
> Carto Map style with

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello Martin/Nick,

Perhaps the combination of highway, surface and designation will cover many of 
these use-cases?

e.g. a service road that looks like a track but is a service road, and has 
bridleway rights, could be tagged as:

highway=service; surface=unpaved; designation=public_bridleway

For rendering, if one rendered tracks or unpaved service roads as dashed black 
lines, and designations as coloured lines, you could render the designation 
layer as a coloured transparent line above the track/service road layer. This 
is what I do in my own projects.

Nick



From: Martin Wynne 
Sent: 13 December 2020 14:01
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On 13/12/2020 13:45, Nick wrote:

> what do people think of Overlapping ways i.e. one is a road and
> a duplicate is a bridleway? Not elegant and something I would not
> normally suggest but...

Hi Nick,

When I've tried that in the past I've been jumped on for breaking a
fundamental rule of OSM that one feature should have only one entry in
the database.

Martin.

_______
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] driveway-becomes-track

[ael via Talk-GB]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 09:11:32PM +, Martin Wynne wrote:
> On 12/12/2020 17:37, Andy Townsend wrote:
> 
> 
> What I'm wondering is how the typical recreational country walker would find
> that map, or get it on their mobile phone app in place of the awful Google
> maps? It's a lot of work to create if no-one ever uses it?

Just to mention that I use navit on my satnavs, and that has a good
"POI" feature which would show benches in the vicinity. I understand
that there is a Android version, so presumably it works on those
types of smartphone.

https://github.com/navit-gps & https://www.navit-project.org/ etc.

ael


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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[ael via Talk-GB]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 10:44:24AM +, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
> IMHO, if it leads on to another road, track, etc. it is not a "driveway", but 
> could be a track, a bridleway, a service road, or something else.

FWIIW, I would very definitely tag that as a service road. Driveway
seems quite inappropriate.

ael


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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Note that someone who wants to show their map style at OSM website can
be included, though they must sponsor hosting

See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Featured_tile_layers/Guidelines_for_new_tile_layers

As far as I know, the main blocker seems to be 
"Capable of meeting traffic demands. The proposed tile layer server/server farm
must be capable of accepting the traffic volume from the OpenStreetMap website."

ÖPNVKarte is map style that joined recently.

Dec 13, 2020, 12:08 by n...@foresters.org:

>
> Seems to me that apart from the tagging, the issue highlighted  here is 
> with how the general public cab easily use OSM? Going to  the OSM map, 
> the layers on offer are Standard, Cycle Map (which  does show the 
> driveway connected) etc. but if a user wants a more  specific use this is 
> not easy to find. To my mind this is where  more options from the 
> worldwide map fail to deliver and is a  bigger issue that can be resolved 
> by understanding the 'customer'  journey better? 
>
> On 13/12/2020 10:28, Nick Allen wrote:
>  
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tend to think of tagging more in terms of 'who will usethis?' I 
>> know my local area extremely well, so I map it as bestI can using 
>> tags that will make sense to anyone visiting thearea. When I'm away 
>> from home I use OSM extensively to findthings, and hope that the 
>> local mappers are using a universalscheme so that it will work for 
>> me.
>>
>> I've travelled on roads in Portugal, Spain an parts of Africawhich 
>> dont have a surface such as tarmac (tarmacadam / asphalt)or 
>> concrete, but instead have been built with a top coatingsimilar to 
>> clay, which is compressed and then smoothed using agrader. 
>> Particularly in Portugal, at the time I drove on them,these 
>> 'unsurfaced' roads were so good that they were better thanthe (at 
>> that time) M25 which was full of pot-holes and difficultto drive 
>> safely on.
>>
>> Although >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways>>  is the obvious 
>> choice to look at, I actually find that >> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa>>  explains it better.
>>
>> Regards & Happy Mapping / Surveying
>>
>> Nick
>> (Tallguy)
>>
>> On Sun, 2020-12-13 at 10:08 +, Edward Bainton wrote:
>>
>>> >  >>> https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>>>  >
>>>  >>> > It seems daft to methat the mud gets rendered but not 
>>> the hardcore. If
>>>  >>> > I change the "driveway"to "track" that would be the 
>>> dreaded tagging for
>>>  >>> > the renderer would itnot? Generally in this part of the 
>>> world "track"
>>>  >>> > means mud, rather thana roadway suitable for all 
>>> vehicles.
>>>  
>>>
>>> I don't know what part  of the world you're in, but by my 
>>> Fenland lights, I'd  probably call that a track, not a driveway 
>>> - certainly  once it passes the farm buildings (since I see a 
>>> driveway  as implying car-worthy access to a building). 
>>>
>>> Would that solve it?  Driveway as far as the farm and then 
>>> track?
>>>
>>> I'm going to risk  blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the 
>>> renderer is  what we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem 
>>> imo is  "fudging it for the renderer", or "outright lying for 
>>> the  renderer". In this case, I'd say track is a valid choice - 
>>>  I think even for the whole length, if by "driveway" we 
>>>  infer something, short, tidy, and suburban.
>>>
>>> But I'm still a spring  chicken round here, relatively 
>>> speaking, and I await  correction by my olders.
>>>
>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB <>>> 
>>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>>> >Getting  back to this case, this is the farm drive. 
>>>> >Beyond the
>>>>  >>>> >cattle-grid  the public bridleway continues left 
>>>> through the farm
>>>>  >>>> >buildings,   

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

I run into from time to time and was unsure how to tag this.

On the other hand highway=track is supposed to be used on
roads used to access fields/forests (often unpaved and of low
quality, but there are also high quality asphalt
tracktype=grade1 surface=asphalt ones).

So with road that is both access road to single house and
forest neither highway=track nor highway=service service=driveway
really matches.

Dec 13, 2020, 11:44 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> IMHO, if it leads on to another road, track, etc. it is not a "driveway", but 
> could be a track, a bridleway, a service road, or something else.
>
> The Wiki says that a driveway is (with my bold for emphasis), 
>
> " ... a minor service road leading to a residential or business property. It 
> typically branches from a bigger road and leads toward an entrance to a 
> specific destination (building, etc.). It may end at or pass the entrance, 
> but either way, it gets close to its destination. > It is rare for a driveway 
> to be the way to access another roadway (but see Pipestems below)."
>
> (pipestems allow a driveway to be shared between several properties)
>
> So if, in this case, it leads on to another way (e.g. a bridleway, or a 
> track), it is not a driveway.  Does this solve the problem?
>
> Regards,
> Peter
>
> Peter Neale
> t: 01908 309666 
> m: 07968 341930 
> skype: nealepb
>
>
> On Sunday, 13 December 2020, 10:25:46 GMT, Edward Bainton 
>  wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, I joined this thread late and I see the initial query was, How to 
> ensure tracks don't just pop up nowhere'. So driveway first then track 
> doesn't solve the problem.
>
> That makes me say track all the way, as someone else has said. The different 
> surfaces can be caught in the attributes.
>
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 10:08, Edward Bainton <> bainton@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>> >  >> https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>> >
>> > It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If
>> > I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for
>> > the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track"
>> > means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.
>>
>> I don't know what part of the world you're in, but by my Fenland lights, I'd 
>> probably call that a track, not a driveway - certainly once it passes the 
>> farm buildings (since I see a driveway as implying car-worthy access to a 
>> building). 
>>
>> Would that solve it? Driveway as far as the farm and then track?
>>
>> I'm going to risk blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the renderer is 
>> what we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem imo is "fudging it for 
>> the renderer", or "outright lying for the renderer". In this case, I'd say 
>> track is a valid choice - I think even for the whole length, if by 
>> "driveway" we infer something, short, tidy, and suburban.
>>
>> But I'm still a spring chicken round here, relatively speaking, and I await 
>> correction by my olders.
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB <>> 
>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote:
>>
>>> >Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
>>>  >>> >cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
>>>  >>> >buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:
>>>  
>>>  >>>  >>>  >>>> https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm) sounded 
>>> familiar.
>>>
>>> A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a  long 
>>> distance walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary 
>>> footpaths (planned using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme 
>>> Valley. It was very nice >>> but>>> ​ the footpaths were in an appaling 
>>> state of disrepair, I remember on several occasions that day having to 
>>> scramble through dense shrub cover and attempt to negotiate barbed-wire 
>>> fences. I seem to recall Noverton Farm as being the site of some 
>>> particularly badly-maintained footpaths.
>>>
>>> As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted to 
>>> illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not permit it, 
>>> which is how I started Freemap and then later got involved with OSM. I 
>>&

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hi everyone,

I notice I'm being CCed in quite a bit here.

Just to make it clear, there are at least two "Nick"s on the thread. I just 
made the comment about Noverton Farm - it's another Nick who has made most of 
the contributions.

It's an interesting thread but just want to make sure that I am not being 
attributed to posts I didn't make.

Thanks,
Nick



From: Peter Neale 
Sent: 13 December 2020 10:44
To: Nick Whitelegg ; Edward Bainton 

Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

IMHO, if it leads on to another road, track, etc. it is not a "driveway", but 
could be a track, a bridleway, a service road, or something else.

The Wiki says that a driveway is (with my bold for emphasis),

" ... a minor service road leading to a residential or business property. It 
typically branches from a bigger road and leads toward an entrance to a 
specific destination (building, etc.). It may end at or pass the entrance, but 
either way, it gets close to its destination. It is rare for a driveway to be 
the way to access another roadway (but see Pipestems below)."

(pipestems allow a driveway to be shared between several properties)

So if, in this case, it leads on to another way (e.g. a bridleway, or a track), 
it is not a driveway.  Does this solve the problem?

Regards,
Peter

Peter Neale
t: 01908 309666
m: 07968 341930
skype: nealepb


On Sunday, 13 December 2020, 10:25:46 GMT, Edward Bainton 
 wrote:


Sorry, I joined this thread late and I see the initial query was, How to ensure 
tracks don't just pop up nowhere'. So driveway first then track doesn't solve 
the problem.

That makes me say track all the way, as someone else has said. The different 
surfaces can be caught in the attributes.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 10:08, Edward Bainton 
mailto:bainton@gmail.com>> wrote:
>  https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>
> It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If
> I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for
> the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track"
> means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.

I don't know what part of the world you're in, but by my Fenland lights, I'd 
probably call that a track, not a driveway - certainly once it passes the farm 
buildings (since I see a driveway as implying car-worthy access to a building).

Would that solve it? Driveway as far as the farm and then track?

I'm going to risk blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the renderer is what 
we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem imo is "fudging it for the 
renderer", or "outright lying for the renderer". In this case, I'd say track is 
a valid choice - I think even for the whole length, if by "driveway" we infer 
something, short, tidy, and suburban.

But I'm still a spring chicken round here, relatively speaking, and I await 
correction by my olders.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
>cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
>buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:

  >https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg


Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm) sounded 
familiar.

A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a  long distance 
walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary footpaths (planned 
using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme Valley. It was very nice 
but​ the footpaths were in an appaling state of disrepair, I remember on 
several occasions that day having to scramble through dense shrub cover and 
attempt to negotiate barbed-wire fences. I seem to recall Noverton Farm as 
being the site of some particularly badly-maintained footpaths.

As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted to 
illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not permit it, which 
is how I started Freemap and then later got involved with OSM. I still haven't 
illustrated this walk incidentally, but...

Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..

Nick



From: Martin Wynne mailto:mar...@templot.com>>
Sent: 12 December 2020 14:30
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote:

>
> Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it.
> Perhaps that someone is you?

Hi Andy,

Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus,
Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

IMHO, if it leads on to another road, track, etc. it is not a "driveway", but 
could be a track, a bridleway, a service road, or something else.
The Wiki says that a driveway is (with my bold for emphasis), 
" ... a minor service road leading to a residential or business property. It 
typically branches from a bigger road and leads toward an entrance to a 
specific destination (building, etc.). It may end at or pass the entrance, but 
either way, it gets close to its destination. It is rare for a driveway to be 
the way to access another roadway (but see Pipestems below)."
(pipestems allow a driveway to be shared between several properties)
So if, in this case, it leads on to another way (e.g. a bridleway, or a track), 
it is not a driveway.  Does this solve the problem?
Regards,Peter
 Peter Neale 
t: 01908 309666 
m: 07968 341930 
skype: nealepb 

On Sunday, 13 December 2020, 10:25:46 GMT, Edward Bainton 
 wrote:  
 
 Sorry, I joined this thread late and I see the initial query was, How to 
ensure tracks don't just pop up nowhere'. So driveway first then track doesn't 
solve the problem.
That makes me say track all the way, as someone else has said. The different 
surfaces can be caught in the attributes.
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 10:08, Edward Bainton  wrote:

>  https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>
> It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If
> I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for
> the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track"
> means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.

I don't know what part of the world you're in, but by my Fenland lights, I'd 
probably call that a track, not a driveway - certainly once it passes the farm 
buildings (since I see a driveway as implying car-worthy access to a building). 
Would that solve it? Driveway as far as the farm and then track?
I'm going to risk blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the renderer is what 
we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem imo is "fudging it for the 
renderer", or "outright lying for the renderer". In this case, I'd say track is 
a valid choice - I think even for the whole length, if by "driveway" we infer 
something, short, tidy, and suburban.
But I'm still a spring chicken round here, relatively speaking, and I await 
correction by my olders.
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB 
 wrote:

>Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
>cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
>buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:

  >https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg


Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm) sounded 
familiar.
A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a  long distance 
walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary footpaths (planned 
using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme Valley. It was very 
nicebut​ the footpaths were in an appaling state of disrepair, I remember on 
several occasions that day having to scramble through dense shrub cover and 
attempt to negotiate barbed-wire fences. I seem to recall Noverton Farm as 
being the site of some particularly badly-maintained footpaths.
As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted to 
illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not permit it, which 
is how I started Freemap and then later got involved with OSM. I still haven't 
illustrated this walk incidentally, but...
Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..
Nick



From: Martin Wynne 
Sent: 12 December 2020 14:30
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy 
Townsend wrote:

> 
> Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it. 
> Perhaps that someone is you?

Hi Andy,

Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus, 
Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory space 
and bandwidth. I have been thinking of making better use of it, possibly 
by hosting something from OSM.


 >  I'd suggest setting up a copy of the
 > standard map rendering as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/
 > (just for Worcestershire would be fine) and start tinkering with the
 > logic that decides what sort of service road is what, such as
 > 
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b10aef3866bacf387581b8fea4eec265010b0d14/project.mml#L475



Thanks. I have been looking at https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ but
I have a lot to learn. I can do Windows programming, but on stuff for 
the web I'm only a dabbler. I looked at Mapnik and saw interfaces only 
for Python and C. If that had been Pascal, I would have dived in by now.

I 

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 10:23 Edward Bainton,  wrote:

> Sorry, I joined this thread late and I see the initial query was, How to
> ensure tracks don't just pop up nowhere'. So driveway first then track
> doesn't solve the problem.
>
> That makes me say track all the way, as someone else has said. The
> different surfaces can be caught in the attributes.
>

If I understand correctly, the way is at once a service road, a track, a
bridleway and a driveway, and the problem is that tagging it
service=driveway makes data consumers categorise it as a driveway, which is
considered to be less important than a track or bridleway.

So why not tag it highway=service service=track driveway=yes? That should
allow data consumers to reach the correct category while preserving
information.


On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 10:08, Edward Bainton  wrote:
>
>> >  https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>> >
>> > It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If
>> > I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for
>> > the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track"
>> > means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.
>>
>> I don't know what part of the world you're in, but by my Fenland lights,
>> I'd probably call that a track, not a driveway - certainly once it passes
>> the farm buildings (since I see a driveway as implying car-worthy access to
>> a building).
>>
>> Would that solve it? Driveway as far as the farm and then track?
>>
>> I'm going to risk blasphemy and suggest that tagging for the renderer is
>> what we all do, all day (or why map?). The problem imo is "fudging it for
>> the renderer", or "outright lying for the renderer". In this case, I'd say
>> track is a valid choice - I think even for the whole length, if by
>> "driveway" we infer something, short, tidy, and suburban.
>>
>> But I'm still a spring chicken round here, relatively speaking, and I
>> await correction by my olders.
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 09:09, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB <
>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> >Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
>>> >cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
>>> >buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:
>>>
>>>   >https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm)
>>> sounded familiar.
>>>
>>> A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a  long
>>> distance walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary
>>> footpaths (planned using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme
>>> Valley. It was very nice *but*​ the footpaths were in an appaling state
>>> of disrepair, I remember on several occasions that day having to scramble
>>> through dense shrub cover and attempt to negotiate barbed-wire fences. I
>>> seem to recall Noverton Farm as being the site of some particularly
>>> badly-maintained footpaths.
>>>
>>> As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted to
>>> illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not permit it,
>>> which is how I started Freemap and then later got involved with OSM. I
>>> still haven't illustrated this walk incidentally, but...
>>>
>>> Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* Martin Wynne 
>>> *Sent:* 12 December 2020 14:30
>>> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it.
>>> > Perhaps that someone is you?
>>>
>>> Hi Andy,
>>>
>>> Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus,
>>> Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory space
>>> and bandwidth. I have been thinking of making better use of it, possibly
>>> by hosting something from OSM.
>>>
>>>
>>>  >  I'd suggest setting up a copy of the
>>>  > standard map rendering as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/
>>>  > (just for Worcestershire would be fine) and start t

[Talk-GB] MapThePaths downtime next weekend Dec 19/20

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello everyone,

A warning that the MapThePaths site (www.mapthepaths.org.uk) and also perhaps 
Freemap will be unavailable next weekend, Dec 19/20, and possibly into the 
early part of next week.

The reason is that I am updating the OSM data on the server next weekend.

I have decided to create a smaller Hetzner server for my UK-specific OSM 
projects, notably MapThePaths, and leave the current server to focus on the 
Europe-wide (and potentially worldwide, but my funds don't stretch to this) 
Hikar and OpenTrailView projects.

This new server may, dependent on time and interest, also be used for 
experimenting with creating an OSM UK walkers' map. I will be willing to give 
shell accounts to trusted members of the OSM UK community (people I know 
personally or mailing list regulars). More on that later.

Nick



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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

>Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
>cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
>buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:

  >https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg


Apologies for going off topic, but I knew that name (Noverton Farm) sounded 
familiar.

A quick check of where it is would explain why. In 1998 I did a  long distance 
walk from Sussex to the Peak District, following ordinary footpaths (planned 
using OS maps) and went through this area, the Teme Valley. It was very nice 
but​ the footpaths were in an appaling state of disrepair, I remember on 
several occasions that day having to scramble through dense shrub cover and 
attempt to negotiate barbed-wire fences. I seem to recall Noverton Farm as 
being the site of some particularly badly-maintained footpaths.

As an aside this walk is what indirectly got me into OSM. I wanted to 
illustrate the walk on the internet but OS licensing did not permit it, which 
is how I started Freemap and then later got involved with OSM. I still haven't 
illustrated this walk incidentally, but...

Would be interested to find out if the area has improved since..

Nick



From: Martin Wynne 
Sent: 12 December 2020 14:30
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

On 12/12/2020 13:15, Andy Townsend wrote:

>
> Ultimately, if "something needs doing", "someone" will need to do it.
> Perhaps that someone is you?

Hi Andy,

Yes that someone could be me. I have a server (located in Columbus,
Ohio) on which I am using only a fraction of the available memory space
and bandwidth. I have been thinking of making better use of it, possibly
by hosting something from OSM.


 >  I'd suggest setting up a copy of the
 > standard map rendering as per https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/
 > (just for Worcestershire would be fine) and start tinkering with the
 > logic that decides what sort of service road is what, such as
 >
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/b10aef3866bacf387581b8fea4eec265010b0d14/project.mml#L475



Thanks. I have been looking at https://switch2osm.org/serving-tiles/ but
I have a lot to learn. I can do Windows programming, but on stuff for
the web I'm only a dabbler. I looked at Mapnik and saw interfaces only
for Python and C. If that had been Pascal, I would have dived in by now.

I will have another look and see where I might start. The idea of
creating my own map does appeal to me.

Getting back to this case, this is the farm drive. Beyond the
cattle-grid the public bridleway continues left through the farm
buildings, and the surface deteriorates to the usual farm mud:

  https://85a.uk/noverton_farm_1280x800.jpg

It seems daft to me that the mud gets rendered but not the hardcore. If
I change the "driveway" to "track" that would be the dreaded tagging for
the renderer would it not? Generally in this part of the world "track"
means mud, rather than a roadway suitable for all vehicles.

This is where the farm drive leaves the road - this is definitely more
than a "track" - note the double gates:

  https://goo.gl/maps/XEs4XKs5UUHNBt8E8

cheers,

Martin.

___
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] driveway-becomes-track

[ael via Talk-GB]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:54:54PM +, ael via Talk-GB wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 09:11:32PM +, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > On 12/12/2020 17:37, Andy Townsend wrote:
> > 
> > something about myself, is to map and provide rendering for the area:highway
> > tag:
> > 
> >  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway
> > 
> > Country walkers often need to include a stretch of public road in a planned
> > walk, and it is very difficult to discover whether a road will be safe to
> > walk along.
> 
> 
> What might work in practice is to invent a tag along the lines
> of walker_friendly = yes|no|maybe although some may complain that it
> is subjective. I am not seriously suggesting that "walker_friendly"
> is a good choice for a name, but something along those lines is
> the only thing that I think the majority of mappers could reasonably
> use widely.

Following up on myself, I see a problem when faced with a narrow lane
which is barely used by traffic. Normally very safe for walkers. But
occasionally unsafe when an vehicle decides to use it at high speed.
If someone had actually tagged the area, that might be inferred. But
that is extremely unlikely.

ael


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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[ael via Talk-GB]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 09:11:32PM +, Martin Wynne wrote:
> On 12/12/2020 17:37, Andy Townsend wrote:
> 
> something about myself, is to map and provide rendering for the area:highway
> tag:
> 
>  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway
> 
> Country walkers often need to include a stretch of public road in a planned
> walk, and it is very difficult to discover whether a road will be safe to
> walk along.

The trouble with this is that someone has to map those areas. I map
a fair few country lanes, but I can seldom estimate their width, let
alone an accurate area. I do try to record any pavements or paths
("sidewalk = left|right|both", yuk): that is precisely with walkers in
mind. I very much appreciate your point, but how is the mapping
on-the-ground to be done? Even when there is properly aligned high
resolution imagery, that is not going to work under tree cover which is very
common, of course.


What might work in practice is to invent a tag along the lines
of walker_friendly = yes|no|maybe although some may complain that it
is subjective. I am not seriously suggesting that "walker_friendly"
is a good choice for a name, but something along those lines is
the only thing that I think the majority of mappers could reasonably
use widely.

ael


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

Re: [Talk-GB] driveway-becomes-track

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Yes, however the reasoning for this is that sometimes someone has drawn every 
single driveway on a street in a city/town. 
Rendering this at low zoom levels would clutter the map. By contrast, tracks 
are often much more sparsely populated, so they don't clutter the map.

I don't know what the solution to this would be, however.
IpswichMapper-- 


12 Dec 2020, 12:34 by mar...@templot.com:

> A common situation is that a service road/driveway continues as a track 
> beyond the initial residential destination. This is common on farms.
>
> On the standard map at zoom level 15, driveways are not shown. But tracks and 
> footpaths are. This seems counter-intuitive in that driveways are usually 
> wider and more substantially surfaced than farm tracks.
>
> The result is that a track, and sometimes a footpath, appears to start in the 
> middle of nowhere.
>
> An example of that is at:
>
>  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.2816/-2.4320
>
> What is the process for getting something done about this?
>
> thanks,
>
> Martin.
>
> _______
> 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] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello Seán,

Thanks for that, sounds a great idea! Would be a great addition to any UK 
countryside map once you have opened your API.

Nick


From: Seán Lynch 
Sent: 11 December 2020 21:03
To: Nick Whitelegg 
Cc: Andy Townsend ; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 

Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

Hi all,

As people enjoy their walk, we would love if you could consider uploading any 
plastic / litter data into OpenLitterMap<http://openlittermap.com>

Right now the only way to add data is using our platform, but we will open our 
API hopefully next year and allow uploads from other developers.


github.com/openlittermap<http://github.com/openlittermap>

TeamLitterUK is currently in 1st place globally for uploading the most data

Litter mapping has a remarkably low barrier to entry, allowing for potentially 
many more people to get involved with data collection and mapping

Cheers,

Seán

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 15:05, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Hello Andy,

Thanks for this.

My own feeling regarding what server we need is "start small, to get it going" 
and then as soon as OSMUK can commit to funding (*if* they can, of course) 
and/or several people share the cost, then scale up. Hetzner's model is very 
flexible in this regard, for instance I started with an 8GB RAM VM before I 
found it wasn't quite adequate for my needs and upgraded the same VM to the 
16GB version (and added some disc space, I think, too). For now I am willing to 
spend a small amount (below EUR/GBP 5) for a month or two to get things going 
if there's sufficient interest.

I'd broadly agree to an extent about going the Mapnik route although I would 
prefer another person with more experience in the niceties of current Mapnik 
stylesheet development to do large-scale tweaks;  I would be happy to do small​ 
tweaks on such things as, for example, making designations appear in a similar 
style to Landranger which might be an idea for familiarity purposes. On the 
other hand, vector rendering would have some advantages for the aims of this 
project - an interactive map of the countryside in which POIs and paths can be 
clicked to add/retrieve information. I believe Tangram can do this quite 
easily; I have dabbled in Tangram and it's quite easy to setup a simple 
stylesheet though haven't tried it with anything complex. Tangram also has some 
nice things like being able to be rendered in both isometric and (via A-Frame 
components, https://aframe.io) even in 3D. I have to admit having a personal 
like for the vector approach,   it shifts more processing onto the client, good 
in a world where standard client hardware, desktop and mobile, is pretty 
powerful while powerful server hardware is expensive.

I wouldn't personally be so fussed about things like minutely updates until it 
becomes a 'production' map, while in development mode I think the best approach 
is to keep it simple and cheap to run. In terms of my own projects I do quite 
rigorous filtering of the OSM data before populating the DB, to reject things 
mostly of interest to urban areas which only use up space and resources in a 
walking-oriented map. Another way of keeping initial costs down would be to 
concentrate on one or a few counties, ideally well-mapped ones with many ROWs, 
hills, water features etc.

So I'd be quite happy - if​ there's interest - to setup a cheaper Hetzner 
server for now. If we want to go the mapnik route I'd be happy to do a basic 
setup there as well, as in, get mod_tile working and use your style unmodified. 
My main personal contribution to the project would be to work on the server- 
and client-side scripting necessary to develop an interactive POI map. We'd 
also of course need people with strong web design and UX skills - alas, mine 
are not so great!

As for other points - things like https cert renewal seem easy with Let's 
Encrypt; have been using that succesfully for a while now.

Nick



Nick Whitelegg
Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
Southampton Solent University  | RM424 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
0YN
T: 023 8201 3075 | E: 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> | W: 
solent.ac.uk<http://www.solent.ac.uk/>

Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>

From: Andy Townsend mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 11 December 2020 13:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server



On 11/12/2020 09:59, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:

In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, like 
most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage would be light 
and limited to 

Re: [Talk-GB] Newbie damage alert in West Midlands and London

[Steve Brook via Talk-GB]

This user has just deleted Broadcasting House. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95699320 
Can someone block him and revert all his work.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TL5100/history
Most if not all of it is vandalism. 

-Original Message-
From: Russ Garrett [mailto:r...@garrett.co.uk] 
Sent: 09 December 2020 19:53
To: Colin Smale
Cc: Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Newbie damage alert in West Midlands

Ah I ran into his work this afternoon by pure chance and reverted one
of these changesets (95506246) and left a comment - no reply as yet.
It looked like vandalism to me.


Russ

On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 at 19:51, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
> A new user, TL5100, is causing a bit of damage in the Midlands, deleting 
> loads of things for no obvious reason. A couple of their changesets have 
> comments to this effect already. Could someone have a word?
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TL5100/history#map=11/52.0822/-2.4818
>
>
> _______
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



-- 
Russ Garrett
r...@garrett.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

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hello Andy,

Thanks for this.

My own feeling regarding what server we need is "start small, to get it going" 
and then as soon as OSMUK can commit to funding (*if* they can, of course) 
and/or several people share the cost, then scale up. Hetzner's model is very 
flexible in this regard, for instance I started with an 8GB RAM VM before I 
found it wasn't quite adequate for my needs and upgraded the same VM to the 
16GB version (and added some disc space, I think, too). For now I am willing to 
spend a small amount (below EUR/GBP 5) for a month or two to get things going 
if there's sufficient interest.

I'd broadly agree to an extent about going the Mapnik route although I would 
prefer another person with more experience in the niceties of current Mapnik 
stylesheet development to do large-scale tweaks;  I would be happy to do small​ 
tweaks on such things as, for example, making designations appear in a similar 
style to Landranger which might be an idea for familiarity purposes. On the 
other hand, vector rendering would have some advantages for the aims of this 
project - an interactive map of the countryside in which POIs and paths can be 
clicked to add/retrieve information. I believe Tangram can do this quite 
easily; I have dabbled in Tangram and it's quite easy to setup a simple 
stylesheet though haven't tried it with anything complex. Tangram also has some 
nice things like being able to be rendered in both isometric and (via A-Frame 
components, https://aframe.io) even in 3D. I have to admit having a personal 
like for the vector approach,   it shifts more processing onto the client, good 
in a world where standard client hardware, desktop and mobile, is pretty 
powerful while powerful server hardware is expensive.

I wouldn't personally be so fussed about things like minutely updates until it 
becomes a 'production' map, while in development mode I think the best approach 
is to keep it simple and cheap to run. In terms of my own projects I do quite 
rigorous filtering of the OSM data before populating the DB, to reject things 
mostly of interest to urban areas which only use up space and resources in a 
walking-oriented map. Another way of keeping initial costs down would be to 
concentrate on one or a few counties, ideally well-mapped ones with many ROWs, 
hills, water features etc.

So I'd be quite happy - if​ there's interest - to setup a cheaper Hetzner 
server for now. If we want to go the mapnik route I'd be happy to do a basic 
setup there as well, as in, get mod_tile working and use your style unmodified. 
My main personal contribution to the project would be to work on the server- 
and client-side scripting necessary to develop an interactive POI map. We'd 
also of course need people with strong web design and UX skills - alas, mine 
are not so great!

As for other points - things like https cert renewal seem easy with Let's 
Encrypt; have been using that succesfully for a while now.

Nick



Nick Whitelegg
Senior Lecturer in Computing (Internet)  | School of Media Arts and Technology
Southampton Solent University  | RM424 | East Park Terrace | Southampton SO14 
0YN
T: 023 8201 3075 | E: 
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk<mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> | W: 
solent.ac.uk<http://www.solent.ac.uk/>

Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>

From: Andy Townsend 
Sent: 11 December 2020 13:40
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server



On 11/12/2020 09:59, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:

In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, like 
most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage would be light 
and limited to those in the OSM community. I use Hetzner for my hosting 
(OpenTrailView, Hikar, MapThePaths) - I pay around EUR 19/month but that is for 
a larger system that has to deal with the whole of Europe rather than just the 
UK.

 https://www.hetzner.com/cloud?country=gb

The second-lowest spec of these, the CPX11 is giving you 2GB RAM and 40GB disc 
space for EUR 4.19 a month. OK we'd need more than that long term, but I 
suspect that would get us going in the early stages.


That'll depending on what you want the server to do, I think.  For an OSM Carto 
Map style with automatic updates and reasonable performance you'll probably 
need > 6Gb memory for the whole of the UK these days.  Maybe a CX31 at €11 per 
month (i.e. about the price of a couple of pints and a "substantial" pork pie 
for those in tier 2)?  https://map.atownsend.org.uk is a CX41 I believe, and 
renders Mapnik / Carto CSS map tiles that cover UK and Ireland.  It could 
probably include another "medium sized OSM country" in the same map style as 
well without too many problems.


On the question of "could we show feature X" (e.g. "cycleways with foot=yes" 
different to "cycl

[Talk-GB] Is "GB revert request log" wiki page something that should be recommended?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

It is about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log that 
appears
to be abandoned.

I was looking through 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Abuse and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
to improve them, and encountered

"It may be appropriate to set up a log of reversions. Within 
England/Wales/Scotland
please put requests on the GB revert request log 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log>."

Is it still true, or is it something that should be deleted?

Last edit is in 2012 so it seems clearly abandoned
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=GB_revert_request_log=history
and I removed this from Vandalism page
in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism=2071209=2071207
edit.

Please let me know if it was a mistake and this recommendation should be 
restored.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

>Hi


Hello Tony,


>I like the idea.

>Can it be extended to be a UK based map which is has greater prominence to 
>aspects such as the >recent discussion about cyclists and paths?


Potentially, yes - I don't see why not.

I have to admit I personally haven't had much experience in recent years with 
creating mapnik stylesheets (I've been working with client-side renderers such 
as Kothic and have played with Tangram), hence my suggestion earlier of 
starting with Andy Townsend's style.


>Does anyone have an idea of how it could be made to happen - could we (OSM UK) 
>fund and >maintain it with commitment for say 2 years? Using volunteers or 
>donated equipment or personal >funding commitments? Do we know the size of 
>server required to support a given load? Can we >manage the required 
>operations and security?

In the early stages I think we could run it on cheap hosting hardware, like 
most projects in the OSM ecosystem. I suspect for a while usage would be light 
and limited to those in the OSM community. I use Hetzner for my hosting 
(OpenTrailView, Hikar, MapThePaths) - I pay around EUR 19/month but that is for 
a larger system that has to deal with the whole of Europe rather than just the 
UK.

 https://www.hetzner.com/cloud?country=gb

The second-lowest spec of these, the CPX11 is giving you 2GB RAM and 40GB disc 
space for EUR 4.19 a month. OK we'd need more than that long term, but I 
suspect that would get us going in the early stages.

I'm quite happy to create the server and pay the initial costs, but it would be 
good if funds could be found from OSMUK longer term if possible.

I'm also happy to do some dev work (client and server side). I can tweak the 
cartography and add contours (I have experience doing this) but I'll leave it 
up to others to do serious cartography work, and of course web design.

Or, we could even use client-side rendering, Tangram is pretty powerful, have 
had a play with it.

Would be a great project for the community to work on.

Nick



From: Tony Shield 
Sent: 10 December 2020 17:36
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server


Hi

I like the idea.

Can it be extended to be a UK based map which is has greater prominence to 
aspects such as the recent discussion about cyclists and paths?


Does anyone have an idea of how it could be made to happen - could we (OSM UK) 
fund and maintain it with commitment for say 2 years? Using volunteers or 
donated equipment or personal funding commitments? Do we know the size of 
server required to support a given load? Can we manage the required operations 
and security?


Tony Shield - TonyS999




On 04/12/2020 15:40, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:
Hi,

Just floating an idea for a possible OSMUK site, namely an OSMUK 
'semi-official'  web application for walkers and hikers.

This could provide similar functionality to sites such as the Ramblers' 
Pathwatch 
(https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/pathwatch-report-path-features-and-problems.aspx)
 allowing users to report path problems as well as nice views, historical sites 
and so on. It could also provide info such as train or bus times (by clicking 
on a rail station), beers served (for a pub), routing via public transport to a 
given countryside location, and so on.

Reported path problems could be then made available via an API, which could be 
used by councils - and, given we have the council ROW data available to us via 
rowmaps.com  - the right of way reference could be sourced from this if it's 
not in OSM already.

For rendering, we could perhaps use Andy Townsend's SomeoneElse-style, maybe 
tweaked a little, as it appears to be the most actively maintained of all the 
England and Wales renderings. This could be setup on our own server, I seem to 
remember experimenting with this a couple of years ago when the OSMUK idea was 
first floated, on a server which had been loaned to the community (I need to 
re-check my emails, and indeed check if this server is still open for us to 
use!)

I've done similar things to this in the past on a small scale, e.g. Freemap 
(free-map.org.uk) once had the facility to add path problems, but now we have 
the OSMUK organisation in existence, maybe a semi-official OSMUK walkers' map 
with added functionality would have greater traction and it's something that 
could be launched as a project on GitHub?

Thanks,
Nick



Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>



___________
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

Re: [Talk-GB] FWD: Re: House number ranges that are only odd or even

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 10, 2020, 21:51 by sk53@gmail.com:

> However, I would regard > the Dutch 
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.34367/4.77750=N>>  & Polish 
> communities approach of adding individual
> nodes for each address in the building irrespective of the actual address 
> position outline
> as incorrect mapping in the UK. In both cases, and probably > also in Denmark 
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/55.68777/12.58382=N>> , this is 
> most
> likely because addresses have been imported from a national database and this 
> allows
> incremental updates from the same source. The problem with this is that it 
> prevents classic
> OSM iterative refinement, such as accurate mapping for indoor usage, for 
> instance to enable
> guidance for blind people. 
>
At least in Poland separate nodes for addresses are preferred as this:

- more accurate and allows to specify where given address actually is
- for example after mapping entrances, you can be guided to a correct one
- I am confused why it prevents 
"OSM iterative refinement, such as accurate mapping for indoor usage"
(maybe in UK addresses are assigned differently than in Poland)
- maybe it is related to fact that I am unaware of "address position outline"
existing in Poland - address is de facto assigned to building/plot/entrance
and in rare cases to complex objects such as a hospital or group of entrances
- it is common to have on street corner address from two streets in one building
(see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.07413=19.93361#map=19/50.07413/19.93361
and three nearby buildings), mapping this as an interpolation would not work
(and least I think so)
- and yes, is easier to map and import

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:52 PM Martin Wynne  wrote:

>
> Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned?
>
>
I don’t know the legal basis, but according to OSM there are plenty of
cycleways or roads from which pedestrians are banned in London:



https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/113w


As one example, where the Embankment superhighway passes the Tideway works
just up from the Hungerford bridge, pedestrians are very clearly told to
use the opposite sidewalk. Google SV:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5063194,-0.1223057,3a,26.8y,207.48h,85.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqF_1bNzLwyaHTn2LSmJFvQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Although the signs have a red background, so that may be a temporary order
(temporary as in several years’ duration).
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

That's weird.
Save for some tactile paving what's the difference between North & South?

DaveF

On 10/12/2020 14:08, Tony Shield wrote:
/Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually 
banned?

/

Unfortunately yes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295

Quite clear signage - Mapillary - 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.66933432657343=-2.6290113968031967=17=_ir_HmYAIa4H0rnj1JrO8A=photo

//

When I walk there I take my chances on the illegal walking along a 
cycleway rather than the 50 mph dual carriageway where it is legal to 
walk.



Tony Shield - TonyS999

.

On 10/12/2020 12:47, Martin Wynne wrote:
My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a 
greater number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2)


Many public bridleways have many more walkers and cyclists using it 
than actual horse-riders. But are still mapped as bridleways.


Map it as a cycleway, unless it is a public bridleway, in which case 
map it as bridleway. You are mapping the status, not the actual usage.


My feeling is that a highway should be mapped at the highest level of 
permitted usage. The assumption is that pedestrians can go almost 
anywhere anyway. Motorways excepted.


Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually 
banned?


cheers,

Martin.

___
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] Tagging of shared use paths

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Just to add by the way, in a country like netherlands "cycleways" are paved 
paths dedicated to cycles. You can't walk on there because there are also 
sidewalks to walk on. E.g.:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pAL4yr927e4/maxresdefault.jpg

--  


10 Dec 2020, 14:08 by tonyo...@gmail.com:

>
> Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians areactually 
> banned? 
>
>
> Unfortunately yes - > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295
>
>
> Quite clear signage - Mapillary - > 
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.66933432657343=-2.6290113968031967=17=_ir_HmYAIa4H0rnj1JrO8A=photo>
>   
>
> When I walk there I take my chances on  the illegal walking along a 
> cycleway rather than the 50 mph dual  carriageway where it is legal to 
> walk.
>
>
> Tony Shield - TonyS999
>
> .
>
> On 10/12/2020 12:47, Martin Wynne  wrote:
>
>>> My reasons for changing it, is that it isshared use path with a 
>>> greater number of people of foot thanbicycle (about 5:2) 
>>>
>>
>> Many public bridleways have many more walkers and cyclists using  it 
>> than actual horse-riders. But are still mapped as bridleways.
>>  
>>  Map it as a cycleway, unless it is a public bridleway, in which  case 
>> map it as bridleway. You are mapping the status, not the  actual usage. 
>>  
>>  My feeling is that a highway should be mapped at the highest level  of 
>> permitted usage. The assumption is that pedestrians can go  almost 
>> anywhere anyway. Motorways excepted. 
>>  
>>  Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually  
>> banned? 
>>  
>>  cheers, 
>>  
>>  Martin. 
>>  
>>  _______ 
>>  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] Tagging of shared use paths

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Didn't know this tagging scheme existed actually. Every single path that allows 
both cycling and walking is tagged as "highway=cycleway", "foot=yes" and 
"segregated=no" in my area (as well as "footway=sidewalk" sometimes)

-- 
 


10 Dec 2020, 12:24 by epicthom...@gmail.com:

> I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural 
> shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as 
> highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path, 
> bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply to 
> it).
> My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater 
> number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2), the path is designed for 
> both types of user & not the whole route has a blacktop surface (therefore 
> not suitable for road bikes, these bits do have their surface tagged though 
> so that shouldn't be an issue for routers).
> His argument for keeping it as highway=cycleway is because his render is not 
> configured to show highway=path & bicycle=designated the same as 
> highway=cycleway. Other reasons are because it is part of the NCN Route 88, 
> as such it is "cared" for sustrans. Also it is a  well used cycle route. Both 
> of which are very much true, and are tagged with the appropriate relations to 
> reflect this.
>
> I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that I ask 
> the community here to see what the consensus is.
> I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the sole 
> reason being because it renders differently.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759
>
>
> Thank you,
> -- 
> T> homas > J
>

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

[Talk-GB] FWD: Re: House number ranges that are only odd or even

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

Date: 10 Dec 2020, 18:34
From: ipswichmap...@tutanota.com
To: mattatt...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] House number ranges that are only odd or even


> This issue also came to my mind. addr:interpolation on a building doesn't 
> seem appropriate. JOSM, for example, renders it as a dotted line around the 
> edge of the building (as if that is the addr:interpolation way).  Clearly 
> then, addr:interpolation isn't meant for buildings.
>
> Currently, I do 1;3;5;7;9 (here is an example of this: > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222193468/history>  [old versions of this 
> building have that tagging scheme])
>
> Probably, a proposal needs to be created to either create a new tag or change 
> addr:interpolation so that its meaning is different on closed and open ways.
>
> I think the latter solution is better, as people probably already tag 
> buildings with an addr:interpolation.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
>
> -- 
>
>
> 10 Dec 2020, 15:37 by mattatt...@gmail.com:
>
>> Is there a way when specifying a range for addr:housenumber to indicate it's 
>> only for even or odd numbers?
>>
>> When walking around my local area I have come across some blocks that will 
>> have a sign indicating for example house numbers 1 to 21 odd only. Similarly 
>> when there is just one building drawn for a whole street of terrace houses 
>> the number range will only be or odd even depending on the side of the road.
>>
>
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

I believe you're incorrect.

Cycleways can be shared use with pedestrians, & almost always are in the UK.

Cycleway/footway/path tags are not based on usage figures. Cycleway 
allows for two modes of transport, footway allows one.  Likewise 
'bridleway' allows for three modes - horse/bicycle/foot.


The path tag was an invention after contributors got confused by the 
above. It should be removed from the database.


Your 'surface' comment is irrelevant to your problem.

Tagging *incorrectly* to suit the renderer/router should not occur, but 
given it's a part of a NCN route, this is clearly a correct tag.


DaveF

On 10/12/2020 12:24, Thomas Jarvis wrote:

I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural
shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as
highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path,
bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply
to it).
My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater
number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2), the path is designed for
both types of user & not the whole route has a blacktop surface (therefore
not suitable for road bikes, these bits do have their surface tagged though
so that shouldn't be an issue for routers).
His argument for keeping it as highway=cycleway is because his render is
not configured to show highway=path & bicycle=designated the same as
highway=cycleway. Other reasons are because it is part of the NCN Route 88,
as such it is "cared" for sustrans. Also it is a  well used cycle route.
Both of which are very much true, and are tagged with the
appropriate relations to reflect this.

I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that I ask
the community here to see what the consensus is.
I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the sole
reason being because it renders differently.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759


Thank you,

_______
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-westmidlands] Hereford area deletions by TL5100

[Steve Brook via Talk-gb-westmidlands]

New user TL5100 | OpenStreetMap <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/TL5100>
has deleted a lot of stuff in Hereford, Ledbury and Worcester area. Can
someone check their work and revert if necessary

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:04 PM Simon Still  wrote:

>
> I’d actually say *more* of an issue with OSM is paths that are marked that
> ARE NOT a legal right of way.  Around Peaslake in the Surrey Hills there
> are various ‘mountain bike trails’ shown on OSM that are not rights of way
> and which the landowners say should not be ridden.
>
>
If there is a path on the ground, it should be in OSM. Set access=no,
certainly, but the path itself should be in the database.
_______
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field **Do tag for the USER**

[ael via Talk-GB]

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:47:08PM +, David Woolley wrote:
> On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote:
> > I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous 
> > to cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
> > access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all 
> > traffic in this case):https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676
> 
> In that example, "Cross Bay Walk - DO NOT ATTEMPT" violates "name is only
> the name".  It may or may not be possible to justify "Cross Bay Walk", but
> the "DO NOT ATTEMPT" is not going to be a valid part of the name.
 
Given the recent thread, it is odd that it has "warning=hazard"
rather than hazard=yes or something more specific.

> Unless there is a sign saying "unsuitable for pedestrinnoans, horses, and
> vehicles", or similar, I would say "access=discouraged" violates "do not tag
> for the renderer".  The wiki specifically says that an official sign is
> required before using "access=discouraged".

This seems to be taking things far too far. We *should* tag for the
user! Equating subjective with "there isn't a sign" is also pushing
things too far.

We are trying to make OSM the best map we can. Tagging dangerous or
non-existant paths in a way that ordinary users/routers cannot
distinguish is just plain wrong and irresponsible.

I am all in favour of tagging PROWs even where there is nothing on the
ground, but in a way distinct from "proper" paths/ways.

Agreed: do not tag for the renderer, but do tag for the user.

ael


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

This reminds me a bit of this location, also in Wiltshire:

https://www.mapthepaths.org.uk/?lat=51.06209564615185=-2.0421791551466137=3=0

Note the orange diagonal line. That is the line of a bridleway according to the 
Wiltshire ROW data as sourced on rowmaps.com (so not necessarily the definitive 
map). Contrast that to the brown line a bit to its north and west which is the 
bridleway as mapped on OSM, using bridleway signs apparent on the ground plus a 
bit of assumption. The brown line is a well-defined and easily-navigable (on 
horse and bike as well as foot) track, but there are no actual bridleway signs 
on the bit which diverges from the orange  line so it 'may not' be an actual 
bridleway - even though ground evidence suggests it 'probably' is. I first 
mapped this in 2010 from a ground survey,, but lacking any legal source for it 
not being a bridleway, it's remained an OSM bridleway ever since even though 
part of it technically isn't.

The orange line is a random line across a field with no evidence on the ground 
whatsoever. No signs, no gates, no stiles, no nothing - and therefore not 
mappable.

Wiltshire seems to be like this quite often, incidentally: its signposting can 
be a bit inconsistent and I've noticed quite a few divergences between 
web-based council data and ground evidence. We need the definitive data to be 
legally used in OSM in these cases; though maybe the council should really be 
trying to actually divert the path to the on-the-ground route that people 
actually use!

Nick



From: nathan case 
Sent: 08 December 2020 15:11
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

That's a fair viewpoint and I'm open to changing my method.

But what would you suggest in the situation where a PROW runs through a 
building(s)? Map through it as a fully-fledged footway? Doesn't matter what 
your abilities are, you won't be able to go through there - well unless you can 
pass through walls...  At what point does a completely inaccessible, or even 
re-rerouted path (just not in the PROW data), become disused?

I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous to 
cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with 
access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all traffic 
in this case): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676

-Original Message-
From: Dave F via Talk-GB 
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:10 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote:
> but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the 
> PROW route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new 
> buildings, or rivers).

IMO, this is bad mapping.
Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph taken 
thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.

Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.

Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it doesn't 
mean it's been declared disused.

DaveF

_______
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] Bridleway across field

[Mark Lee via Talk-GB]

That's very interesting Jerry, thanks. I thought the byway's reference was
a bit odd actually as in it's the same as the byway that it intersects. In
my experience, usually the paths I've looked at are a single line ie. a
single beginning and end so maybe it has been "tacked on" to an existing
path rather than given a new reference.

Mark


On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 14:22 SK53,  wrote:

> Yes, these are not infrequent. We may have discussed some specific
> examples before, but one which comes to mind is one crossing
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/29348659#map=17/52.98971/-1.48033>
> the River Derwent at Duffield. This is marked on the definitive map and the
> name of a track "Save Penny Lane" suggests the purpose of the ford. Dave
> Venables went & did a couple of surveys to find if anything existed but
> drew a blank. Not long afterwards I had the good fortune to meet someone
> concerned with the Millenium Meadow to the S of the site of the crossing
> and apparently the ford was washed out long ago (if memory serves me right
> late 1800s).
>
> It's always worth looking at other sources of information. For instance,
> the first OS 7th series with overprinted PRoW data appeared in the late
> 1960s, and these maps are now out of copyright so maybe usable (as Robert
> says it may be a little more complex as the PRoW data copyrights may rest
> with the Highway Authority & I dont know if local government copyright
> follows the same rules as for central government). Even some 1st edition
> Landranger issued in 1974 may be usable as most were photo-enlarged
> versions of the 7th series. Looking at existing allowable sources (NLS maps
> within editors) I find it interesting that there is no sign of a path or
> track here on OS 7th series, NLS 1:10,560 and 1st edition 1:25k. It is
> marked on the GSGS 1:25k which will have been compiled from older 6 inch
> mapping. This suggests that the bridleway ceased to be used before around
> 1940. One possibility is that it has been added to the definitive map
> fairly recently as part of a lost paths initiative.
>
> Personally I do not generally map PRoWs which have no on-the-ground traces
> (particularly after my experience
> <http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/07/footpaths-in-carmarthenshire-whats-point.html>
> in Carmathenshire in 2011), although I do allow a wide latitude of sources
> to identify traces of PRoWs (overgrown stiles, rotting footpath signs,
> etc.) when it might be useful to do so. Keeping such things invisible from
> the regular user of OSM has advantages in that a non-existent path
> blighting a walk is less likely. Of course if you report it as obstructed
> to the HA and get a suitable reply then you have substantial personal
> knowledge about the PRoW.
>
> Jerry
>
> PS. As an aside does anyone know if there is an article in the Charles
> Close Society journal about how PRoW data were added to the 7th series?
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 12:15, ael via Talk-GB 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
>> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
>> > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to
>> have
>> > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I
>> can't
>> > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
>>
>>  I have come across some of these where it is no longer possible to
>>  walk or ride. Especially when they cross rivers where there was
>>  presumably once a ford. In at least one case that I surveyed, there
>>  were large trees blocking access on the river bank, and absolutely
>>  no sign of a ford in the river itself. Crossing there looked potentially
>>  dangerous. These had been added by armchair mappers from a definitive
>>  map.
>>
>>  OSM should not direct users onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways.
>>  As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river
>>  and added a note.
>>
>>  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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote:

but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the PROW 
route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new buildings, 
or rivers).


IMO, this is bad mapping.
Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph 
taken thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.


Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.


Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it 
doesn't mean it's been declared disused.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 08/12/2020 12:42, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:

Ah sorry, I shall remove it then Robert. I have drawn it freehand based on
what I'd seen on their site as a right of way. Presumably then, if there's
no established path, I can never add it to OSM because the definitive map
is my only source for this information. Even if I walk it and use my GPS
recording, the source of the path is ultimately the definitive map? How
does that work?



https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg

There you go, free of any supposed copyright infringement.

FYI Wiltshire Council's Rights of Way Explorer is not the 'definitive 
map'. It usually a misnomer. Paths are described with words in a  
definitive statement. Their map is a representation of that data. Many 
authorities add a caveat clarifying that it's not the authoritative 
document.


DaveF
R.jpg
https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Mark Lee via Talk-GB]

Thanks. I'll go back and have a closer look. It was part of a long ride so
I didn't do much checking at the time.

Mark

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 12:30 Dave F via Talk-GB, 
wrote:

>
>
> On 08/12/2020 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to
> have
> > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I
> can't
> > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
> > track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
> > just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no
> physical
> > evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've
> seen
> > in other cases on OSM.
>
> Welcome to OSM.
>
> If I come across a non obvious path I attempt to look around for a worn
> way, especially through boundaries. Aerial imagery suggests the edge of
> the field is used. Please check on the ground first to confirm it's
> still used.
> http://osmz.ru/imagery/#20/51.12946/-1.79511/bing
>
> I would mark the way as the definitive map alignment & add a note
> describing the direction that's actually used.
>
> It may be words in a book, but definitive statements are physical evidence.
>
> As the access tag is to describe legal use, I'd remove it in this case.
>
> Both bicycle & walking on a bridleway are designated.
>
> The surface tag is a useful addition for paths.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
>
>
> Dave F
>
>
> _______
> 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] Bridleway across field

[Mark Lee via Talk-GB]

Ah sorry, I shall remove it then Robert. I have drawn it freehand based on
what I'd seen on their site as a right of way. Presumably then, if there's
no established path, I can never add it to OSM because the definitive map
is my only source for this information. Even if I walk it and use my GPS
recording, the source of the path is ultimately the definitive map? How
does that work?

Mark

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 12:19 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists), <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB
>  wrote:
> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> Wiltshire Definitive Map.
>
> I see that you've put source="Wiltshire Definitive Map" in the
> tagging. Do you have permission to use information from the Definitive
> Map in OpenStreetMap? Generally these maps have lines drawn on top of
> Copyrighted Ordnance Survey base-maps, which means they're off-limits
> for use in OSM.
>
> Digitised Public Rights of Way data (without the base-map background)
> is another matter though, and it is possible to get permission to use
> these. But we need an explicit statement / licence from each Council.
> Generally this will be permission to use the data under the Open
> Government Licence, and we would then need to document this with the
> specified attribution statement at
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Public_Rights_of_Way_Data_from_local_councils
> . Wiltshire is not currently listed there, although there is an FOI
> request in progress to get the data and permission to use it:
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data_9
> .
>
> I maintain a table of which authorities we have PRoW data for and what
> licence it can be used under at
> https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/open-data/ . Any updates and corrections
> to this would be most welcome.
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> _______
> 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] Bridleway across field

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 08/12/2020 12:08, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB
 wrote:

Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the 
Wiltshire Definitive Map.

Generally these maps have lines drawn on top of
Copyrighted Ordnance Survey base-maps, which means they're off-limits
for use in OSM.



Do you have evidence of this being the case? Has someone from OS (or 
anyone outside OSM) stated that?



Dave F



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Mark Lee via Talk-GB]

I'm with you Phil but the locked gate is on a track parallel (50 yards
perhaps) to where the bridleway should be. They're both shown on the
definitive map so that's probably a legally blocked access. I would have
thought that the farmer would have preferred me using it though than for me
to exercise my legal right to traipse through their crops as per Martin's
suggestion.

I'd read back through previous discussions on here where the OSM path does
not follow the definitive map and was surprised to read that what you find
on the ground, in person, is what should be documented as opposed to what's
actually legal. I know of a few instances where the established path runs
around field boundaries or nearby tracks and OSM is at odds to the
definitive map.

I'll aim to head back out there and have a more concerted look when I can.

Mark




On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 10:37 Philip Barnes,  wrote:

> Firstly, before worrying about mapping is to report the illegal
> obsruction,  i.e. the locked gate to the highway authority so that action
> can be taken to get the problem resolved.
>
> In my experience they like a photo of the problem.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On Tuesday, 8 December 2020, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> > WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to
> have
> > been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I
> can't
> > see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
> > track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
> > just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no
> physical
> > evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've
> seen
> > in other cases on OSM.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> _______
> 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] Bridleway across field

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 08/12/2020 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:

Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have
been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't
see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical
evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've seen
in other cases on OSM.


Welcome to OSM.

If I come across a non obvious path I attempt to look around for a worn 
way, especially through boundaries. Aerial imagery suggests the edge of 
the field is used. Please check on the ground first to confirm it's 
still used.

http://osmz.ru/imagery/#20/51.12946/-1.79511/bing

I would mark the way as the definitive map alignment & add a note 
describing the direction that's actually used.


It may be words in a book, but definitive statements are physical evidence.

As the access tag is to describe legal use, I'd remove it in this case.

Both bicycle & walking on a bridleway are designated.

The surface tag is a useful addition for paths.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface


Dave F


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[ael via Talk-GB]

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:36:31AM +, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
> WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have
> been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't
> see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete

 I have come across some of these where it is no longer possible to
 walk or ride. Especially when they cross rivers where there was
 presumably once a ford. In at least one case that I surveyed, there
 were large trees blocking access on the river bank, and absolutely
 no sign of a ford in the river itself. Crossing there looked potentially
 dangerous. These had been added by armchair mappers from a definitive
 map.

 OSM should not direct users onto useless and perhaps dangerous ways.
 As I recall, in that case I removed the section crossing the river
 and added a note.

 ael


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

[Talk-GB] Bridleway across field

[Mark Lee via Talk-GB]

Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have
been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't
see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical
evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've seen
in other cases on OSM.

Thanks,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] British Waterways

[Malcolm Herring via Talk-GB]

On 07/12/2020 12:52, SK53 wrote:

but other operators too


Also note that British Waterways Marinas Ltd has now become Aquavistq 
Waterside Ltd



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Nominatim oddity

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

Hmm.
Well, in my case, it seems to come up as "Royaume-Uni"!
I'll need to try to fix that. (presumably in my account settings...)
Regards,Peter


On Monday, 7 December 2020, 17:38:49 GMT, Ken Kilfedder 
 wrote:  
 
 That's the name in latin for the UK, I think.  Is it under name:la, and do you 
have your browser set to latin for some reason?

I was able to set Chrome to Latin, and your URL did indeed have "Britanniarum 
Regnum" for place:country.
But in Firefox, set to English (GB), it just displays as "United Kingdom".

I wonder how many users OSM has in Vatican City?  (Where the ATMs have a Latin 
option, IIRC)

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020, at 5:23 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
> This may be a dim question, and this may possibly be the wrong place to 
> ask it. But, at the risk of being both dim and out of place... Why does 
> Nominatim return "Britanniarum Regnum" as the country name for objects 
> in the UK? For example:
> 
> https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=21279378=place
> 
> 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
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Nominatim oddity

[Tom Hughes via Talk-GB]

On 07/12/2020 17:23, Mark Goodge wrote:

This may be a dim question, and this may possibly be the wrong place to 
ask it. But, at the risk of being both dim and out of place... Why does 
Nominatim return "Britanniarum Regnum" as the country name for objects 
in the UK? For example:


https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=N=21279378=place 


Well it doesn't for me. Do you have your browser languages set to
prefer Latin or something (that's the name:la for the UK relation).

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

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

Re: [Talk-GB] British Waterways

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 7, 2020, 16:00 by and...@black1.org.uk:

>
>
>
> On 07/12/2020 10:33, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>
>>   
>>
>> TBH there's  only 170 operator=British Waterways tags according 
>> to  taginfo, so it could be polished off pretty quickly with 
>>  an Overpass query and a manual edit.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> But (correct me if I am wrong) that is still an automated edit
>
>
Depends on whatever you just replace everything or check individual objects.

Meaning of "check" is important here. Is it necessary to just check tagging
(handling other operator tags, for example wikipedia:operator, 
wikidata:operator)?

Should you check surrounding OSM data? Aerial imagery? Research situation?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

... Just to follow up on this - if it helps explain what I thought would be 
nice for OSMUK to have - something like https://freemap.sk/, which I was 
introduced to by one of the lead developers several years ago at State of the 
Map Europe in Vienna.

This is an OSM-based map site specific for Slovakia, which comes with many 
features such as information about POIs, route-finding, elevation profiles, and 
so on. I've always thought that of all the local OSM sites, this one is 
particularly nice.

It could eventually use our own rendering but for now could use something like 
Andy Townsend's style combined with contours and hillshading.

On another matter, what's the status of whether OSMUK has its own server? (I've 
lost track of this, I have to admit). Do we have a development server where we 
could begin developing something like this, initially on a small scale (e.g. 
one county)?

Thanks,
Nick



From: Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB 
Sent: 04 December 2020 15:40
To: Talk-GB 
Subject: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

Hi,

Just floating an idea for a possible OSMUK site, namely an OSMUK 
'semi-official'  web application for walkers and hikers.

This could provide similar functionality to sites such as the Ramblers' 
Pathwatch 
(https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/pathwatch-report-path-features-and-problems.aspx)
 allowing users to report path problems as well as nice views, historical sites 
and so on. It could also provide info such as train or bus times (by clicking 
on a rail station), beers served (for a pub), routing via public transport to a 
given countryside location, and so on.

Reported path problems could be then made available via an API, which could be 
used by councils - and, given we have the council ROW data available to us via 
rowmaps.com  - the right of way reference could be sourced from this if it's 
not in OSM already.

For rendering, we could perhaps use Andy Townsend's SomeoneElse-style, maybe 
tweaked a little, as it appears to be the most actively maintained of all the 
England and Wales renderings. This could be setup on our own server, I seem to 
remember experimenting with this a couple of years ago when the OSMUK idea was 
first floated, on a server which had been loaned to the community (I need to 
re-check my emails, and indeed check if this server is still open for us to 
use!)

I've done similar things to this in the past on a small scale, e.g. Freemap 
(free-map.org.uk) once had the facility to add path problems, but now we have 
the OSMUK organisation in existence, maybe a semi-official OSMUK walkers' map 
with added functionality would have greater traction and it's something that 
could be launched as a project on GitHub?

Thanks,
Nick



Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM UK's first tile layer

[Adrian via Talk-GB]

 it looks like the simplification is 
hard-wired into the output side of GDAL. The opendata plugin simplifies 
shapefiles in a similar way when they are opened in JOSM.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Inland Border Facilities

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Dec 6, 2020, 15:05 by sk53@gmail.com:

> I was wondering if there were any equivalents elsewhere. 
>
> Closest I can think of is > this location 
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/208540348#map=15/47.1728/9.7746>>  between 
> Feldkirch & Bludenz, which although described as a goods vehicle checkpoint 
> from my personal experience is also operated as in internal custom checkpoint 
> (and therefore amenity=police might be wrong too). As a group travelling from 
> Zurich to Soelden many of us were stopped for a passport/car check. A friend 
> who worked in marketing for BAT was driving a company van, and was hugely 
> amused at the idea that smuggling cigarettes from Switzerland to Austria 
> might be a way of making money.
>
> Close to the Poland/Belarus borders there are > Border Guard 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Guard_(Poland)>>  stations, such as > 
> this one <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/198471176>> . I think these are 
> mainly concerned with immigration rather customs. Certainly if travelling in 
> a car with non-local numberplates one can be expected to stopped & documents 
> checked (first time was stressful as unexpected & about 5:30 in the morning).
>
Looking at description in Polish it seems to be about handling smuggling and 
illegal migration,
not about handling customs of legally traveling cargo (AFAIK it would happen at 
border crossing,
such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.47616/23.35744 ).

BTW, it should be probably tagged as police-type force, not as military-type 
force.

On their website they imply that they enforce ban on presence on part of a 
border
("od znaku granicznego nr 303 do znaku granicznego nr 317 wprowadzono zakaz
przebywania na pasie drogi granicznej").


> Even traditional land borders with heavy duty border controls don't seem to 
> be tagged in an obvious way:
>
For example see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700736522#map=16/52.4744/23.3651 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700736522#map=16/52.4744/23.3651=N>
- just fence mapped and some objects inside, no tag for the entire feature
_______
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

>Some councils insist that problem reports only come through their own
>web sites, or reluctantly, by phone, and will ignore emails (which is
>the default presentation for FixMyStreet).

>The web sites generally provide structured input, whereas FixMyStreet is
>generally free text, and also, the web site sometimes bypasses the
>council contact centre, and goes direct to the out sourced contractor.

A while back I did build an app to send problem reports to Hampshire county 
council specifically, as Hampshire had a very keen and enthusiastic staff 
member. However I contacted other local councils asking for details on whether 
they had any APIs to send the data to, but either heard nothing or a response 
(as you said) that they were not so keen on input from other sources.

A shame really, an open, standard API - and accompanying open source clients to 
the API - adopted by all councils for problem reporting would be a great thing 
to have.

Nick



From: David Woolley 
Sent: 04 December 2020 16:49
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

On 04/12/2020 16:38, Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB wrote:
> However as you say council take up could be problematic. Maybe we could
> provide a link to FixMyStreet?

Some councils insist that problem reports only come through their own
web sites, or reluctantly, by phone, and will ignore emails (which is
the default presentation for FixMyStreet).

The web sites generally provide structured input, whereas FixMyStreet is
generally free text, and also, the web site sometimes bypasses the
council contact centre, and goes direct to the out sourced contractor.

_______
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] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

I was just thinking it might be a nice idea to have a completely open path 
problems API that could be used not only for councils but also third party 
applications.

However as you say council take up could be problematic. Maybe we could provide 
a link to FixMyStreet?

Nick



From: Jon Pennycook 
Sent: 04 December 2020 15:51
To: Nick Whitelegg 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

For reporting problems, maybe FixMyStreet might be interested - see 
https://osm.fixmystreet.com/
They have sold a product to some councils to allow integration between the 
website and the council's (and their contractor's) back end systems.

I think that trying to encourage councils to use another API might be a 
challenge unless you offer them money.


On Fri, 4 Dec 2020, 15:43 Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB, 
mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
Hi,

Just floating an idea for a possible OSMUK site, namely an OSMUK 
'semi-official'  web application for walkers and hikers.

This could provide similar functionality to sites such as the Ramblers' 
Pathwatch 
(https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/pathwatch-report-path-features-and-problems.aspx)
 allowing users to report path problems as well as nice views, historical sites 
and so on. It could also provide info such as train or bus times (by clicking 
on a rail station), beers served (for a pub), routing via public transport to a 
given countryside location, and so on.

Reported path problems could be then made available via an API, which could be 
used by councils - and, given we have the council ROW data available to us via 
rowmaps.com<http://rowmaps.com>  - the right of way reference could be sourced 
from this if it's not in OSM already.

For rendering, we could perhaps use Andy Townsend's SomeoneElse-style, maybe 
tweaked a little, as it appears to be the most actively maintained of all the 
England and Wales renderings. This could be setup on our own server, I seem to 
remember experimenting with this a couple of years ago when the OSMUK idea was 
first floated, on a server which had been loaned to the community (I need to 
re-check my emails, and indeed check if this server is still open for us to 
use!)

I've done similar things to this in the past on a small scale, e.g. Freemap 
(free-map.org.uk<http://free-map.org.uk>) once had the facility to add path 
problems, but now we have the OSMUK organisation in existence, maybe a 
semi-official OSMUK walkers' map with added functionality would have greater 
traction and it's something that could be launched as a project on GitHub?

Thanks,
Nick



Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>
_______
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] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application

[Nick Whitelegg via Talk-GB]

Hi,

Just floating an idea for a possible OSMUK site, namely an OSMUK 
'semi-official'  web application for walkers and hikers.

This could provide similar functionality to sites such as the Ramblers' 
Pathwatch 
(https://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/pathwatch-report-path-features-and-problems.aspx)
 allowing users to report path problems as well as nice views, historical sites 
and so on. It could also provide info such as train or bus times (by clicking 
on a rail station), beers served (for a pub), routing via public transport to a 
given countryside location, and so on.

Reported path problems could be then made available via an API, which could be 
used by councils - and, given we have the council ROW data available to us via 
rowmaps.com  - the right of way reference could be sourced from this if it's 
not in OSM already.

For rendering, we could perhaps use Andy Townsend's SomeoneElse-style, maybe 
tweaked a little, as it appears to be the most actively maintained of all the 
England and Wales renderings. This could be setup on our own server, I seem to 
remember experimenting with this a couple of years ago when the OSMUK idea was 
first floated, on a server which had been loaned to the community (I need to 
re-check my emails, and indeed check if this server is still open for us to 
use!)

I've done similar things to this in the past on a small scale, e.g. Freemap 
(free-map.org.uk) once had the facility to add path problems, but now we have 
the OSMUK organisation in existence, maybe a semi-official OSMUK walkers' map 
with added functionality would have greater traction and it's something that 
could be launched as a project on GitHub?

Thanks,
Nick



Disclaimer<http://www.solent.ac.uk/disclaimer/disclaimer.aspx>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] FWD: Re: High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

--
Sent with Tutanota, the secure & ad-free mailbox:
https://tutanota.com


Date: 1 Dec 2020, 11:25
From: ipswichmap...@tutanota.com
To: robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS 
(!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?


> Yes we do. Here is the rest of the email NLS sent to OSMUK.
>
> > I think since you were last in touch we have georeferenced a 1:10,560 layer 
> >for Great Britain in the 1949-1969 period, which you can view at: > 
> >https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=7=52.29994=-2.19749=193=1>
> > . The tileset is available at > 
> >https://geo.nls.uk/mapdata3/os/britain10knatgrid/> . We could share this 
> >with the OSM community, even though I know you would prefer more detailed 
> >mapping.
>
>
> -- 
>
>
> 1 Dec 2020, 10:51 by robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 09:53, Ken Kilfedder  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> IpswichMapper forwarded me this note, apparently received from NLS via an 
>>> enquiry made by Rob-from-OSMF:
>>>
>>> > “I wish I could give you better news on the 1940s OS maps of south-east 
>>> > England.
>>> > Unfortunately, you’re right, they were scanned by a third-party 
>>> > commercial company
>>> > who have placed commercial re-use restrictions on this layer – there are 
>>> > further
>>> > details under our Copyright Exceptions list at
>>> > https://maps.nls.uk/copyright.html#exceptions. These restrictions will 
>>> > last for
>>> > another couple of years – until the end of 2022 – which I know might seem 
>>> > a long
>>> > way off, but hopefully will pass quickly. Then we’ll be happily able to 
>>> > share
>>> > them with the OSM community, along with the rest of England and Wales
>>> > National Grid 1940s-1960s mapping, that will be of interest too.”
>>>
>>
>> Looking at https://maps.nls.uk/copyright.html#exceptions am I right in
>> thinking that the non-commercial contract restriction also applies to
>> some other NLS layers (e.g. OS 1:25k and 7th series scans) which have
>> been available (and being used) in popular OSM editors for some time
>> now? Do we have some specific permission to use those layers, and if
>> so does that permission apply to the new house number layer as well?
>>
>> Robert.
>>
>> -- 
>> Robert Whittaker
>>
>> ___
>> 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: Re: High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

--
Sent with Tutanota, the secure & ad-free mailbox:
https://tutanota.com


Date: 1 Dec 2020, 11:23
From: ipswichmap...@tutanota.com
To: scolebou...@joda.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS 
(!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?


>
> My experience is the oposite. It even listed housenumbers such as 12A. 
> Checking google streetview shows they are correct.
>
> It obviously depends, however.p.s. where are the oxted housenumbers? Osm.org 
> doesn't display housenumbers in Oxted.
>
> IpswichMapper> -- 
>
>
>
> 1 Dec 2020, 09:58 by scolebou...@joda.org:
>
>> As a side note to the legal aspect, the house numbers can be horribly
>> inaccurate. I compared Oxted to a ground survey, and the old map
>> simply numbered the houses consecutively, which isn't reality on the
>> ground. One possible explanation is that brand new estates (1940s)
>> were done this way, as the final house number hadn't yet been chosen.
>> Anyway, be careful when trusting these maps.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 09:33, Ken Kilfedder  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> SO,
>>>
>>> It turns out - we cannot use these images until the scanner's copyright 
>>> expires at the end of next year.  Happily, it seems like there will be 
>>> GB-wide coverage available at that point, not just the 
>>> London-Southend-Brighton area.
>>>
>>> However, I have been happily using these images for a bit less than a year 
>>> now, so I'm looking for advice on How to redact. I've tagged all the 
>>> relevant changesets with the name of the TMS, so it should be possible.
>>>
>>> 1.  Is there an overpass syntax that would let me download (to JOSM) - all 
>>> ways with addr:housenumber added or changed via a changeset with a certain 
>>> source tag?  (and not updated by something else later)
>>> 2. Could I then wipe all such addr:housenumbers and re-upload?
>>> 3. Could I keep a JOSM session file around to reupload the 
>>> addr:housenumbers once the scanner's copyright has elapsed?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This has come to light thanks to IpswitchMapper's tireless efforts to set 
>>> up a tasking manager for adding housenumber, and thank to Rob-from-OSMF's 
>>> communications with NLS.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
>>> spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk
>>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2020, at 10:55 AM, Ken Kilfedder wrote:
>>> > Hi Mark,
>>> >
>>> > If there is absolute confidence in that, can it be added to the wiki page 
>>> > here:
>>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Library_of_Scotland
>>> >
>>> > And can it be added to the default set of old maps in JOSM?
>>> >
>>> > If it is available for use, not point in keeping it a secret.
>>> >
>>> > ---
>>> > https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
>>> > spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 6:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On 30/10/2020 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 
>>> > > > 1944-1967
>>> > > > in NLS is available freely.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > What are its licensing terms?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > "available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license"
>>> > >
>>> > > It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving
>>> > > data from it.
>>> > >
>>> > > I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for
>>> > > wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey.
>>> > > House numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets
>>> > > are renamed or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number
>>> > > in the 1950s is the same number it is now, even if the building is still
>>> > > the same.
>>> > >
>>> > > 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
>>> >
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[Tom Hughes via Talk-GB]

So that can't possibly be when the copyright expires, rather it's
a question of contractual provisions in a license agreement between
them and NLS not copyright as such.

Of course it's only claiming they do have a copyright that they
can make such a license necessary.

Tom

On 01/12/2020 09:49, Ken Kilfedder wrote:

Hi Tom,

IpswichMapper forwarded me this note, apparently received from NLS via an 
enquiry made by Rob-from-OSMF:


“I wish I could give you better news on the 1940s OS maps of south-east England.
Unfortunately, you’re right, they were scanned by a third-party commercial 
company
who have placed commercial re-use restrictions on this layer – there are further
details under our Copyright Exceptions list at
https://maps.nls.uk/copyright.html#exceptions. These restrictions will last for
another couple of years – until the end of 2022 – which I know might seem a long
way off, but hopefully will pass quickly. Then we’ll be happily able to share
them with the OSM community, along with the rest of England and Wales
National Grid 1940s-1960s mapping, that will be of interest too.”




---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk

On Tue, 1 Dec 2020, at 9:41 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:

If we assume that a new copyright is created by the scanning (which is
a complicated question) then there is no way it expires next year.

What exactly do you think the term is for this copyright and when do
you think it starts from?

I don't think it's relevant anyway as I thought NLS had given us
permission to use their scans?

Tom

On 01/12/2020 09:32, Ken Kilfedder wrote:

SO,

It turns out - we cannot use these images until the scanner's copyright expires 
at the end of next year.  Happily, it seems like there will be GB-wide coverage 
available at that point, not just the London-Southend-Brighton area.

However, I have been happily using these images for a bit less than a year now, 
so I'm looking for advice on How to redact. I've tagged all the relevant 
changesets with the name of the TMS, so it should be possible.

1.  Is there an overpass syntax that would let me download (to JOSM) - all ways 
with addr:housenumber added or changed via a changeset with a certain source 
tag?  (and not updated by something else later)
2. Could I then wipe all such addr:housenumbers and re-upload?
3. Could I keep a JOSM session file around to reupload the addr:housenumbers 
once the scanner's copyright has elapsed?



This has come to light thanks to IpswitchMapper's tireless efforts to set up a 
tasking manager for adding housenumber, and thank to Rob-from-OSMF's 
communications with NLS.

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk

On Mon, 16 Nov 2020, at 10:55 AM, Ken Kilfedder wrote:

Hi Mark,

If there is absolute confidence in that, can it be added to the wiki page here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Library_of_Scotland

And can it be added to the default set of old maps in JOSM?

If it is available for use, not point in keeping it a secret.

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk

On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 6:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 30/10/2020 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:




Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

  It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967
  in NLS is available freely.

What are its licensing terms?

"available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license"


It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving
data from it.

I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for
wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey.
House numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets
are renamed or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number
in the 1950s is the same number it is now, even if the building is still
the same.

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



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




--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/



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




--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

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

Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

[Tom Hughes via Talk-GB]

If we assume that a new copyright is created by the scanning (which is
a complicated question) then there is no way it expires next year.

What exactly do you think the term is for this copyright and when do
you think it starts from?

I don't think it's relevant anyway as I thought NLS had given us
permission to use their scans?

Tom

On 01/12/2020 09:32, Ken Kilfedder wrote:

SO,

It turns out - we cannot use these images until the scanner's copyright expires 
at the end of next year.  Happily, it seems like there will be GB-wide coverage 
available at that point, not just the London-Southend-Brighton area.

However, I have been happily using these images for a bit less than a year now, 
so I'm looking for advice on How to redact. I've tagged all the relevant 
changesets with the name of the TMS, so it should be possible.

1.  Is there an overpass syntax that would let me download (to JOSM) - all ways 
with addr:housenumber added or changed via a changeset with a certain source 
tag?  (and not updated by something else later)
2. Could I then wipe all such addr:housenumbers and re-upload?
3. Could I keep a JOSM session file around to reupload the addr:housenumbers 
once the scanner's copyright has elapsed?



This has come to light thanks to IpswitchMapper's tireless efforts to set up a 
tasking manager for adding housenumber, and thank to Rob-from-OSMF's 
communications with NLS.

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk

On Mon, 16 Nov 2020, at 10:55 AM, Ken Kilfedder wrote:

Hi Mark,

If there is absolute confidence in that, can it be added to the wiki page here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/National_Library_of_Scotland

And can it be added to the default set of old maps in JOSM?

If it is available for use, not point in keeping it a secret.

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk

On Fri, 30 Oct 2020, at 6:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 30/10/2020 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:




Oct 30, 2020, 16:28 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

 It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967
 in NLS is available freely.

What are its licensing terms?

"available freely" does not mean "compatible with OSM license"


It's out of copyright, so there aren't any licensing issues in deriving
data from it.

I would, though, be a little reluctant to use it as a basis for
wholesale numbering without any supporting local knowledge or survey.
House numbers can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets
are renamed or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number
in the 1950s is the same number it is now, even if the building is still
the same.

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



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




--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

28 Nov 2020, 10:48 by robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com:

> I guess the problem is that recycling_type=container is being used
> both for individual containers and for mini sites with a group of
> containers.
>
Is it really a problem?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Recycling Points

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

I always mapped group of containers as one object.

amenity=recycling
recycling:type=container
recycling:paper=yes
recycling:metal=yes
recycling:batteries=yes

for location with three containers, one for paper,
one for metal, one for batteries

Easier to map, process, resurvey...

Nov 26, 2020, 14:50 by jez.nichol...@gmail.com:

> "amenity"="recycling" + "recycling:type"="centre" == Council Tip
> "amenity"="recycling" + "recycling:type"="container" == a single recycling 
> box, so multiple would appear at a Recycling Point
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 1:22 PM Dan S <> danstowell+...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:danstowell%2b...@gmail.com>> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Jez
>>
>> Is this not it?
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drecycling
>>
>> Op do 26 nov. 2020 om 13:08 schreef Jez Nicholson <>> 
>> jez.nichol...@gmail.com>> >:
>>
>>> I'm planning some work with Household Waste Recycling Centres and Recycling 
>>> Points during the Code The City OSM hack weekend this Sat/Sun (which you 
>>> are very welcome to join >>> 
>>> https://codethecity.org/what-we-do/hack-weekends/code-the-city-21-put-your-city-on-the-map/>>>
>>>   in any capacity you like)
>>>
>>> A Recycling Centre being the local 'tip', see >>> 
>>> https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/bins-and-recycling/find-your-nearest-recycling-centre
>>>
>>> A Recycling Point being a cluster of recycling containers in, say, at the 
>>> end of your local supermarket car park. Often given a name by the Council, 
>>> see >>> 
>>> https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/services/bins-and-recycling/recycling-points
>>>
>>> Am I missing something, or is there no concept of a Recycling Point in OSM? 
>>> Have you seen/used anything else?
>>>
>>> - Jez
>>> ___
>>>  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] electric fences

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Some of the properly installed versions I've tagged as gates - The 
electricity passes through a bungy cable & is connected with a metal 
hook at one end which is encased in a rubber handle allowing the walker 
to unhook it & pass through.


I usually only map the ones where I know, or it looks like, they've been 
installed for a while. With seasonal fences (horse breeder) I don't bother.


DaveF

On 23/11/2020 05:25, Martin Wynne wrote:
There are several instances locally where a footpath across a field is 
crossed by an electric fence.


The farmer usually fits a length of rubber hosepipe over the wire so 
that walkers can safely step over the fence. Sometimes with the aid of 
a couple of concrete blocks.


How to map? Technically it is probably a form of stile. But the 
problem is that the location isn't fixed. Electric fences are moved 
about according to which area of the field the livestock are currently 
grazing. In a large field the position could change significantly.


But walkers with restricted mobility do need to know that there is one 
somewhere in the field. The position might be important if there is an 
alternative gate or other access which could be used.


Martin.

___
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] electric fences

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

So it is a footpath where somewhere along it there is an electric fence, but 
location changes?

Maybe wheelchair=no + note tag with an explanation placed on path
would be a good solution?


Nov 23, 2020, 06:25 by mar...@templot.com:

> There are several instances locally where a footpath across a field is 
> crossed by an electric fence.
>
> The farmer usually fits a length of rubber hosepipe over the wire so that 
> walkers can safely step over the fence. Sometimes with the aid of a couple of 
> concrete blocks.
>
> How to map? Technically it is probably a form of stile. But the problem is 
> that the location isn't fixed. Electric fences are moved about according to 
> which area of the field the livestock are currently grazing. In a large field 
> the position could change significantly.
>
> But walkers with restricted mobility do need to know that there is one 
> somewhere in the field. The position might be important if there is an 
> alternative gate or other access which could be used.
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> 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] Footways bikes can go on

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 21/11/2020 18:35, Edward Bainton wrote:
Thanks all for these ideas. The path is marked as shared, but only in 
the middle of the park 
<https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.5448007,-0.2770366,3a,75y,51.5h,82.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0-5dFjAe4D0GCEHPfxmw1A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D0-5dFjAe4D0GCEHPfxmw1A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D174.08063%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656> 
- it's a bit odd. (It's even on a cross-city cycle route.)


It's the actual highway=* tag that I was most puzzled over, but it 
sounds like with the access tags this is academic for routing purposes.


In which case it would seem the 'looks like a footway, rides like a 
footway' criterion would be best?


Given the signage, I think the tags I listed are appropriate.



Not relevant here, but like Tony I also would love a tag that means 
'everyone cycles here, even if it's technically illegal'. I think it 
was SK53 who suggested some use 'tolerated', which seems pretty good 
to me.




That's a whole load of subjectivity, that OSM  /really/ shouldn't get 
involved with.


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

[Talk-GB] FWD: Revert the "Felixstowe to Nuneaton" relation

[ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB]

I am forwarding this here because it seems like the "talk-gb-midanglia" mailing 
list is no longer active.

Date: 14 Nov 2020, 17:44
From: ipswichmap...@tutanota.com
To: talk-gb-midang...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Revert the "Felixstowe to Nuneaton" relation


> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7521925
>
> That is the relation I am talking about.
>
> An edit made by user nplath seems to have made this relation into a clone of 
> the "Ipswich To Cambridge-Ely" relation. You can tell this because the number 
> of members went down from ~400 to ~150. 
>
> If I'm correct, this route (Felixstowe to Nuneaton) is an important freight 
> train route.
>
> If somehow to members of this relation can be reverted to back when there 
> were 400 members, then that would be good.
>
> Thanks,
> IpswichMapper
>

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