Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
Jason Cunningham wrote: (just noticed my work on the South Devon Link Road and surrounding area has been deleted, then the same info re-added by someone else! I've been cleansed from the history.) This is the more 'irritating' bit here. People spending a substantial amount of time doing work that someone else simply removes! I'll bang on again about secondary databases where the likes of these 'proposals' can be staged prior to their physical appearance, but the more annoying aspect of this moving forward is the simple scrapping of the current on the ground situation which IS perfectly valid information. Taking the A11 developments as an example, all of the current routing is nicely mapped, so displaying '2012' version of the map requires no 'extra' mapping. It would be nice to be able to roll back show the roads development over time, and there are people around who would contribute that material if a mechanism was available to fill in the gaps. It's the current lack of a mechanism to use/display current historic data that needs addressing? A slightly different example of this is looking at historic data in change sets. I'm probably spoilt with some of the comparison tools when looking at differences between versions of a file or changeset. But it would be nice to see a graphical 'diff' between version of object history in OSM ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
Just spotted all the activity on this thread which is great to see. Personally I am reasonably neutral on what policy emerges from this conversation. I do agree that few schemes are really really certain until the diggers arrive. By way of example, I personally removed the Longdendale bypass ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longdendale_Bypass) from OSM a few years ago after the HA pulled out of the public inquiry when the inspector had rejected their traffic predictions for the seventh time! I do also agree that it is also far from certain that HS2 will be built whatever the administration is saying at present. I would therefore understand the view that nothing should be added as proposed until it is 99% certain that it will be constructed. By way of example it would be most remarkable if the A11 Fiveways scheme was not completed now that work has started. It would also be remarkable if Crossrail was not completed (but there is a bit more risk there). Some people however seem to believe that it is never appropriate to add content until construction has actually started for that bit of the infrastructure which seems a bit extreme. As people may know, I am very interested in understanding and modelling how our transport system is likely to develop and I if it is agreed that information about less certain schemes does not belong in OSM then we at ITO will devise a system to hold this information separately and allow people to contribute to it. We will combine it with OSM so that people can see what it might look like. You can see an example for the Norwich Northern Distributor Road (which is not in OSM btw) here: http://www.itoworld.com/map/245# Another approach would be to allow 'aspiration' as a tag prefix for roads that have considerable support but which do not yet meet the strict requirements for 'proposed'. Can I suggest that we work out what we believe are appropriate guidelines here and then get them discussion on an appropriate international list and also on the wiki? Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd On 12 December 2012 09:37, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: Jason Cunningham wrote: (just noticed my work on the South Devon Link Road and surrounding area has been deleted, then the same info re-added by someone else! I've been cleansed from the history.) This is the more 'irritating' bit here. People spending a substantial amount of time doing work that someone else simply removes! I'll bang on again about secondary databases where the likes of these 'proposals' can be staged prior to their physical appearance, but the more annoying aspect of this moving forward is the simple scrapping of the current on the ground situation which IS perfectly valid information. Taking the A11 developments as an example, all of the current routing is nicely mapped, so displaying '2012' version of the map requires no 'extra' mapping. It would be nice to be able to roll back show the roads development over time, and there are people around who would contribute that material if a mechanism was available to fill in the gaps. It's the current lack of a mechanism to use/display current historic data that needs addressing? A slightly different example of this is looking at historic data in change sets. I'm probably spoilt with some of the comparison tools when looking at differences between versions of a file or changeset. But it would be nice to see a graphical 'diff' between version of object history in OSM ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=**contacthttp://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.**ukhttp://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 10/12/2012 08:18, Kevin Peat wrote: On Dec 10, 2012 1:25 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote No. We should be mapping physical objects... There are plenty of non-physical objects mapped in OSM As primary tags? Yes --- administrative boundaries, for example. __John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
On 11/12/2012 11:18, John Sturdy wrote: Yes --- administrative boundaries, for example. __John Fine, but that's kind of missing the point. That boundary is physical in that it does actually exist in statute books maps. The proposed autumn statement developments aren't (and probably won't be as they're more political dogma designed to appease the broad-sheets than actual go ahead, JCB mud clearing. Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] wrote: Sent: 11 December 2012 12:16 Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM On 11/12/2012 11:18, John Sturdy wrote: Yes --- administrative boundaries, for example. __John Fine, but that's kind of missing the point. That boundary is physical in that it does actually exist in statute books maps. The proposed autumn statement developments aren't (and probably won't be as they're more political dogma designed to appease the broad-sheets than actual go ahead, JCB mud clearing. Er, I think some are a little more refined that that. See the status of play for the A11 Thetford project for instance: http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/a11-fiveways-to-thetford-impr ovement/ Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
On 11/12/2012 12:29, Andy Robinson wrote: http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/a11-fiveways-to-thetford-impr ovement/ Great. Then tag the fencing, access tracks construction site. They're physical. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
David Earl wrote: http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/road-projects/a11-fiveways-to-thetford-improvement/ Yes indeed, it's true, they have been clearing the trees through the forest alongside the existing road and levelling the ground. It's been closed overnight in sections to do this so I had to go a long way round when I went that way a few weeks ago. It's a pity that the roundabouts are not being bypassed :( Getting traffic up to the Thetford Bypass quicker is just going to increase the queues there? I seem to remember queueing that end every time I want over but it's been a couple of years since I last went. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
This subject kind of came up when the HS2 route was announced and made available as open data. I didn't agree with that proposed route being added to Openstreetmap, because I didn't feel the likelihood of it happening was high enough. Below is my, slightly amended, views on 'proposed' routes *I've only added one 'proposed' route and that was in winter 2011. The route was South Devon Link Road [linkhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.4974985122681lon=-3.59270095825195zoom=14], which was proposed in the 1950's, but constantly been put to the back of the funding queue. Last summer as the likely hood of it happening started to increase I looked at the 'proposal' tag wiki page for the first time, and it wasn't much help. Looking at the 50 years of setbacks this route suffered I think it demonstrates a route must be likely certain to proceed before it's added to the map. For the UK I think this means three tests 1. The proposal has, at least, outline planning permission 2. The proposal has funding in place 3. The proposal is also likely certain to be acted on. (eg Not proposed for 10 years in the future when things could be different, or the funding could have disappeared) So for the South Devon Link Road, I added it this winter after (1) It had planning permission, (2) funding had been allocated and (3) the local authorities announced they're proceeding with the project next year. The HS2 had funding in place (although is reasonable to be cynical about spending allocated to future governments), and is likely to proceed, but it does not have planning permission for a very contentious route.* I consider the announed schemes to meet tests 2 3, but I guess some dont have any form of planning permission yet? Normally I'd suggest we wait until planning permission is approved (if necessary), but these road works are of national interest and unlikely to have to deal with significant planning issues. (just noticed my work on the South Devon Link Road and surrounding area has been deleted, then the same info re-added by someone else! I've been cleansed from the history.) Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
On Dec 10, 2012 1:25 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote No. We should be mapping physical objects... There are plenty of non-physical objects mapped in OSM but I don't see the point of adding road schemes to the db before contracts are awarded. The South Devon Link Road near me was in the planning stage for more than 25 years before work started and having proposed routes in OSM for such long periods wouldn't benefit anyone. Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
Kevin Peat wrote: No. We should be mapping physical objects... There are plenty of non-physical objects mapped in OSM but I don't see the point of adding road schemes to the db before contracts are awarded. The South Devon Link Road near me was in the planning stage for more than 25 years before work started and having proposed routes in OSM for such long periods wouldn't benefit anyone. The problem is the lack of any current overlay facilities. We are looking at an overlay for historic information, and perhaps a similar 'projected' overlay is now about due? Where more than one proposed route is being discussed, it WOULD be nice to be able to see that information in parallel with OSM, but certainly not in the main database. ( Removing past history from the database is still not cut and dry in my book, but if a safe haven is created for that ... ) Personally I think the right time for any 'new' development to appear is when the diggers move in and start work. At that point it becomes useful to see what is going on from existing routes? Anything else is just 'speculation'. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
On 10/12/2012 08:18, Kevin Peat wrote: On Dec 10, 2012 1:25 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote No. We should be mapping physical objects... There are plenty of non-physical objects mapped in OSM As primary tags? Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
On 07/12/2012 14:10, SomeoneElse wrote: Peter Miller wrote: Just to say that I have added tagging and a relations for both of the main road schemes mentioned specifically in the Autumn Statement. Is there any actual benefit to doing this before construction actually starts? No. We should be mapping physical objects. Any proposed projects should be overlayed from an external database onto a custom render. I believe the likes of Peter Miller will have a lot of reverting to do if they add these schemes. Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
On 7 December 2012 14:10, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Peter Miller wrote: Just to say that I have added tagging and a relations for both of the main road schemes mentioned specifically in the Autumn Statement. Is there any actual benefit to doing this before construction actually starts? Until that point nothing on the ground has changed - only the degree of smugness on a politician's face. tourism=camp_site operator=swampy Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
Peter Miller wrote: Just to say that I have added tagging and a relations for both of the main road schemes mentioned specifically in the Autumn Statement. Is there any actual benefit to doing this before construction actually starts? Until that point nothing on the ground has changed - only the degree of smugness on a politician's face. OSM unfortunately has more than it's fair share of I wish there was a cycle route here or I wish there was a bypass there - shouldn't we be more worried about mapping what's here now? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Added road schemes announced in the Autumn Statement in OSM
On 7 December 2012 14:10, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Peter Miller wrote: Just to say that I have added tagging and a relations for both of the main road schemes mentioned specifically in the Autumn Statement. Is there any actual benefit to doing this before construction actually starts? Until that point nothing on the ground has changed - only the degree of smugness on a politician's face. OSM unfortunately has more than it's fair share of I wish there was a cycle route here or I wish there was a bypass there - shouldn't we be more worried about mapping what's here now? For sure, we should be mapping what is on the ground and we are getting on with that very well indeed, however I believe it is also appropriate to add details of schemes that have official backing, have a defined start or end date and are have 'a strong likelihood of being built' (such schemes would also appear on a printed road-atlas). Schemes that are aspirational (Boris Island) or which have no official support or which are still at the 'preferred options' stage or before do not. Thoughts? Regards, Peter Cheers, Andy __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
