Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 16:43, Lester Caine wrote: > That it is not now a 'preferred route' is a problem, which in practice > was screwed up by giving it the A5191 designation in the first place, This does make me wonder how other sat-nav providers handle this road. In any case, I wonder if this section of A5191 has been recently reclassified by council but not in Ordnance Survey yet. Also the old sign at Meole Brace Roundabout - https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.6423=-2.7554437=17=photo=qx_aDiQRrdkhs4bDuv7tQw=0.48639059127464496=0.624061029625061=0 has now been changed and 'B4380' (left turn) is no longer in brackets, which says to me at least the bridge over Rea Brook is now part of the B4380. Jez C ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
19 Jul 2019, 13:55 by for...@david-woolley.me.uk:
> I think mapping it in conflict with a published official designation will
> devalue OSM.
>
Not sure is it happening in UK but Poland has some private driveways that
are officially assigned status of major road ("droga krajowa").
There is also officially existing major road route, crossing river by bridge
that
was destroyed in WW II and not rebuild. As result there is highway=track
that is officially a major road.
Japan has steps that have assigned rank of major road (for some historic
reasons).
In some cases deviating from official designations makes sense (
not sure is it actually happening here).
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 18:05, David Woolley wrote: On 19/07/2019 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote: There are, though, two potentially useful open data coordinate mapping systems that can be used by the likes of OSM. One is Mapcode, the other is Google's Open Location Code (aka Plus Codes). Both have the advantage of not only being entirely free and open to use, but can also be generated programmatically from a published algorithm - no need to hook into an API, just run some code locally. There is also the extended form of the venerable Maidenhead Locator System. Ah, that's a new one on me. Looks a pretty simple algorithm, too. Thanks. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 07:06 -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Tom Hughes wrote: > > That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare > > exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary > > and trunk to the official status of the road. > > It's slightly more nuanced than that - we have always mapped > secondary, > primary and trunk to the _observable_ official status of the road. > > Where a road isn't signposted with that status, we don't have a > strong > precedent. There is at least one such road which has been > highway=tertiary > since 2009. It is not signposted as the A*** on the ground - indeed, > traffic > for the A*** is expressly signed another way - but legally it is the > A***. > And no I'm not going to say where it is or some Sabristo[1] will come > along > and "fix" it. > > Philip's example is the same: I know the road he's talking about and > it > isn't signposted as the A, it's signposted only for the little > suburb > along it. There is a very definite decision there on the part of the > highways authority to not treat it as an A road. > > I don't have a simple answer, but I am tempted by the logic that > where the > highways authority has clearly made a decision not to signpost a road > as (in > OSM terms) secondary, primary or trunk, we should follow suit and tag > something like highway=tertiary, designation=primary, ref=A***. > Thank you for your comments Richard. Using a designation tag in these cases would make a lot of sense. We should certainly not be undermining hard pressed local authorities who are doing their best to improve the quality of life of their residents. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote: There are, though, two potentially useful open data coordinate mapping systems that can be used by the likes of OSM. One is Mapcode, the other is Google's Open Location Code (aka Plus Codes). Both have the advantage of not only being entirely free and open to use, but can also be generated programmatically from a published algorithm - no need to hook into an API, just run some code locally. There is also the extended form of the venerable Maidenhead Locator System. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 16:43 +0100, Lester Caine wrote: > On 19/07/2019 16:04, Philip Barnes wrote: > > As the sabristi have already discovered this one, and the OSM edits > > appear linked to Sabre Wiki edits, I will identify it. > > > > In this case I am concentrating on A5191 (Coleham Head, Belle Vue > > Road, > > Hereford Road) > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.70122/-2.74811 > > > > Not a primary on the ground as can be seen on mapillary. > > https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=A5191 > As some say, sabre is not an official source but it does use OSM as > it's > mapping tool! > > Essentially this seems like the opposite of my own problem. Around > here > the A46 moved over closer to Evesham, and the old road became the > B4632. > Traffic is then pushed towards the A46 and what can be a 10 mile+ > detour > over the other more direct routes linked with the B4632 and even the > secondary B4632 is 'avoided' by the routers! In your case the > preferred > route would seem to be the A49 and rather than downgrading the old > route > to a B road it's been left with an A designation? Bottom line is if > the > A5191 is used on traffic reports it should be identified. That it is > not > now a 'preferred route' is a problem, which in practice was screwed > up > by giving it the A5191 designation in the first place, and tagging > it > 'tertiary' IS breaking the rule don't tag for the router :( In the > absence of something to override the 'primary' rule set then we are > a > bit stuck, but that should be something additional to what is the > documented designation. That the road classifications provide a > crude > rule set for routing has always been a problem but in the case of > the > A5191 what is the speed limit? I think I would expect 30MPH if it is > essentially 'residential' which should push routing to faster > alternatives, but we are now seeing 20MPH zones even on primary roads > to > calm traffic and provide direct rules for routing? > Looking through the history this road has been mapped as tertiary since 2008, several local mappers have touched it but until one remote mapper, nobody had considered it to be primary. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 16:04, Philip Barnes wrote: As the sabristi have already discovered this one, and the OSM edits appear linked to Sabre Wiki edits, I will identify it. In this case I am concentrating on A5191 (Coleham Head, Belle Vue Road, Hereford Road)https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.70122/-2.74811 Not a primary on the ground as can be seen on mapillary. https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=A5191 As some say, sabre is not an official source but it does use OSM as it's mapping tool! Essentially this seems like the opposite of my own problem. Around here the A46 moved over closer to Evesham, and the old road became the B4632. Traffic is then pushed towards the A46 and what can be a 10 mile+ detour over the other more direct routes linked with the B4632 and even the secondary B4632 is 'avoided' by the routers! In your case the preferred route would seem to be the A49 and rather than downgrading the old route to a B road it's been left with an A designation? Bottom line is if the A5191 is used on traffic reports it should be identified. That it is not now a 'preferred route' is a problem, which in practice was screwed up by giving it the A5191 designation in the first place, and tagging it 'tertiary' IS breaking the rule don't tag for the router :( In the absence of something to override the 'primary' rule set then we are a bit stuck, but that should be something additional to what is the documented designation. That the road classifications provide a crude rule set for routing has always been a problem but in the case of the A5191 what is the speed limit? I think I would expect 30MPH if it is essentially 'residential' which should push routing to faster alternatives, but we are now seeing 20MPH zones even on primary roads to calm traffic and provide direct rules for routing? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.uk Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On Fri, 2019-07-19 at 15:06 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 19/07/2019 14:17, David Woolley wrote: > > On 19/07/2019 13:37, Tom Hughes wrote: > > > > I would say the logical consequence of that argument is that no > > > > road > > > > should be mapped as tertiary, as, unless taken from OS, it is > > > > a > > > > subjective judgement and can't be consistently verified. > > > > > > That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare > > > exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary and > > > trunk to the official status of the road. > > > > You seem to be rejecting the original proposal. I was analysing > > the > > case where the original proposal is accepted, and therefore the > > official > > status must be ignored if it is not signposted. > > Well I'm not entirely sure what the true status is since the road > hasn't been identified and OS OpenData seems to be being used as > the source of truth which wouldn't be my first choice. > > Philip seemed to be saying that this was genuinely a white > signed A road (or at least that OpenData says it is) and hence > that it is a primary although he apparently prefers it to be > tertiary. > > You then followed up by saying that the logical consequence > of it being a primary (which I was assuming was correct) was > that nothing was tertiary, which didn't seem to make much > sense to me > > Perhaps if the road was identified it would be a more productive > discussion... > As the sabristi have already discovered this one, and the OSM edits appear linked to Sabre Wiki edits, I will identify it. In this case I am concentrating on A5191 (Coleham Head, Belle Vue Road, Hereford Road) https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.70122/-2.74811 Not a primary on the ground as can be seen on mapillary. As Richard says this is legally a primary route, but the Highway Authority have chosen not to promote it as a primary route, it is signed at both ends as Belle Vue. The Meole Brace end sign is http://trigpoint.myzen.co.uk/photodump/HerefordRoadSign.png The signed primary route is via Hazledine Way, Pritchard Way and Old Potts Way. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 13:50, Andy G Wood wrote: On Friday, 19 July 2019 13:30:48 BST Martin Wynne wrote: On 19/07/2019 12:55, David Woolley wrote: ... (As a variation on the last point, one of my pet hates, these days, is how few houses now have house numbers in the UK. It make it difficult to give accurate locations for fly tips Have you seen: https://what3words.com/ [...] "3. Rights in what3words Materials and your licence to use them Yes, unfortunately W3W is useless for any open data application as it exists primarily as a commercial service aimed at the likes of satnav manufacturers rather than being available for anyone to use. (It also doesn't work globally as the words are language specific). There are, though, two potentially useful open data coordinate mapping systems that can be used by the likes of OSM. One is Mapcode, the other is Google's Open Location Code (aka Plus Codes). Both have the advantage of not only being entirely free and open to use, but can also be generated programmatically from a published algorithm - no need to hook into an API, just run some code locally. Personally, I prefer Mapcode, its codes are more memorable (and, if you take the country for granted, can be very short). But I suspect that OLC is more likely to gain widespread use simply because it's backed by Google. https://www.mapcode.com/ https://plus.codes/ Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 15:14, David Woolley wrote: The logical consequence of ignoring the official classification if it is not signposted, is that you cannot map tertiary, because with, very rare exceptions, they are not signposted and you can only distinguish them from residential by using the official sources, or by personal judgements. Certainly the key tertiary roads around this area ARE easy to identify on the ground and while small sections could be tagged residential or service the majority of the roads are clear 60MPH routes in open countryside and are essential 'primary' routes to get from A to B without long diversions through M,A & B roads many of which have a 40MPH speed limit! As I said ... this is not a case of tagging for the routers, but simply identifying the facts on the ground which often are clear. These roads to not have primary route reference numbers ... but they are a key part of vehicle routing. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.uk Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 15:06, Tom Hughes wrote: You then followed up by saying that the logical consequence of it being a primary (which I was assuming was correct) was that nothing was tertiary, which didn't seem to make much sense to me The logical consequence of ignoring the official classification if it is not signposted, is that you cannot map tertiary, because with, very rare exceptions, they are not signposted and you can only distinguish them from residential by using the official sources, or by personal judgements. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 14:17, David Woolley wrote: On 19/07/2019 13:37, Tom Hughes wrote: I would say the logical consequence of that argument is that no road should be mapped as tertiary, as, unless taken from OS, it is a subjective judgement and can't be consistently verified. That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary and trunk to the official status of the road. You seem to be rejecting the original proposal. I was analysing the case where the original proposal is accepted, and therefore the official status must be ignored if it is not signposted. Well I'm not entirely sure what the true status is since the road hasn't been identified and OS OpenData seems to be being used as the source of truth which wouldn't be my first choice. Philip seemed to be saying that this was genuinely a white signed A road (or at least that OpenData says it is) and hence that it is a primary although he apparently prefers it to be tertiary. You then followed up by saying that the logical consequence of it being a primary (which I was assuming was correct) was that nothing was tertiary, which didn't seem to make much sense to me Perhaps if the road was identified it would be a more productive discussion... 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] Ground truth v legal truth
Tom Hughes wrote: > That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare > exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary > and trunk to the official status of the road. It's slightly more nuanced than that - we have always mapped secondary, primary and trunk to the _observable_ official status of the road. Where a road isn't signposted with that status, we don't have a strong precedent. There is at least one such road which has been highway=tertiary since 2009. It is not signposted as the A*** on the ground - indeed, traffic for the A*** is expressly signed another way - but legally it is the A***. And no I'm not going to say where it is or some Sabristo[1] will come along and "fix" it. Philip's example is the same: I know the road he's talking about and it isn't signposted as the A, it's signposted only for the little suburb along it. There is a very definite decision there on the part of the highways authority to not treat it as an A road. I don't have a simple answer, but I am tempted by the logic that where the highways authority has clearly made a decision not to signpost a road as (in OSM terms) secondary, primary or trunk, we should follow suit and tag something like highway=tertiary, designation=primary, ref=A***. cheers Richard [1] https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/ -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 13:37, Tom Hughes wrote: I would say the logical consequence of that argument is that no road should be mapped as tertiary, as, unless taken from OS, it is a subjective judgement and can't be consistently verified. That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary and trunk to the official status of the road. You seem to be rejecting the original proposal. I was analysing the case where the original proposal is accepted, and therefore the official status must be ignored if it is not signposted. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 13:37, Tom Hughes wrote: On 19/07/2019 12:55, David Woolley wrote: On 19/07/2019 12:36, Philip Barnes wrote: I cannot dispute this is legally a primary, OS Opendata shows it. I would say the logical consequence of that argument is that no road should be mapped as tertiary, as, unless taken from OS, it is a subjective judgement and can't be consistently verified. That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary and trunk to the official status of the road. Roads with no official status as A or B roads are then divided between tertiary, unclassified and residential on a more subjective basis. Agreed ... if a UK road has an official reference it's classified. If not then it's tertiary if it does form part of the main road system and unclassified if it's not suitable for normal vehicle use. MANY of the roads around here are 'class c' and while it IS tempting to re-tag them as a higher level in order to get the routers to actually work, it's the routers treating them as lower speed routes which is the problem. At least around here and that is when 'service' as opposed to 'tertiary' should apply where a route IS more access route than primary link between to 'higher classification' routes. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.uk Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On Friday, 19 July 2019 13:30:48 BST Martin Wynne wrote: > On 19/07/2019 12:55, David Woolley wrote: > ... > > > (As a variation on the last point, one of my pet hates, these days, is > > how few houses now have house numbers in the UK. It make it difficult > > to give accurate locations for fly tips > > Have you seen: https://what3words.com/ [...] "3. Rights in what3words Materials and your licence to use them 3.1 We are the owner or licensee of all of the what3words Materials and all Intellectual Property Rights in the what3words Materials. You acknowledge that in being permitted to use the Site and the what3words Materials as set out in these Terms the Intellectual Property Rights are licensed (not sold) to you, and that you have no other rights in, or to, the Intellectual Property Rights and nothing in these Terms shall be deemed to grant you any right, title or interest in the what3words Materials or any of the Intellectual Property Rights in the what3words Materials. etc, etc." I think you can guess the rest! Andy. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 12:55, David Woolley wrote: On 19/07/2019 12:36, Philip Barnes wrote: I cannot dispute this is legally a primary, OS Opendata shows it. I would say the logical consequence of that argument is that no road should be mapped as tertiary, as, unless taken from OS, it is a subjective judgement and can't be consistently verified. That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary and trunk to the official status of the road. Roads with no official status as A or B roads are then divided between tertiary, unclassified and residential on a more subjective basis. 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] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 12:55, David Woolley wrote: ... (As a variation on the last point, one of my pet hates, these days, is how few houses now have house numbers in the UK. It make it difficult to give accurate locations for fly tips Have you seen: https://what3words.com/ Every 3m (10ft) square on the planet is given a location name consisting of 3 random words from the dictionary. Their app shows you the 3 words for your current location. Many emergency services are using it -- much easier than asking callers to give postcodes, grid refs, lat/lon, road numbers, etc. Just read out the 3 words from your screen. Even if the local authority don't already use it, they can easily download it when given the 3 words, or go to the web site to find the location. Anyone can scribble down 3 words without making a mistake. And often remember them. cheers, Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
On 19/07/2019 12:36, Philip Barnes wrote: I cannot dispute this is legally a primary, OS Opendata shows it. I would say the logical consequence of that argument is that no road should be mapped as tertiary, as, unless taken from OS, it is a subjective judgement and can't be consistently verified. I think mapping it in conflict with a published official designation will devalue OSM. As you hint, the correct thing to do, in mapping, is to map verifiable attributes that would make a rational router want to avoid it. Beyond that, like any tagging for the renderer issue, it is up to routers to use more than the primary classification in deciding whether to route. This is going to get more important, with the continuing trend is to reduce signage, on the basis that it distracts drivers, and they have access to GPS maps so don't need it. (As a variation on the last point, one of my pet hates, these days, is how few houses now have house numbers in the UK. It make it difficult to give accurate locations for fly tips - many of the apps use sources like Bing, which use address interpolation, and can be a long way out in some cases. I believe some US cities have bye-laws requiring them to be displayed.) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth
I have always held the view that the great strength of OSM is boots on the ground and mapping what we see is always better than other sources. I currently have a dispute with a remote mapper who is upgrading tertiary roads to primary. In the case of one I see a quiet tertiary road, with no signs indicating other than the local area it serves. It is narrow, has narrow pavements and has lots of parked cars. There is slightly longer bypass route, which was until this change routing on the bypass roads. Now OSM is routing through a residential area. I cannot dispute this is legally a primary, OS Opendata shows it. I can certainly change the ref to unsigned:ref and ensure any weight restrictions are mapped but is the view of others? Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
