Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Import Progress

2017-03-23 Thread Andy Townsend 

On 19/03/2017 14:57, Andy Mabbett wrote:

"On 19 March 2017 at 13:13, ajt1...@gmail.com  wrote:

On 19/03/2017 12:52, Andy Mabbett wrote:

I'm told that Brian has been blocked for these edits This is
outrageous.

No, he was sent this message:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1271

Which opens with the words "brianboru blocked by SomeoneElse"


The way that the DWG communicates with users is described in some detail 
at http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group . The "User 
Blocks" section makes it clear how blocks are used (sample quotes: 'The 
vast majority of blocks imposed do not consist of any "blocked from 
mapping" period' and '... even a "0-hour message that has to be 
read"').  If you wish to change the message that the website displays to 
something other than "... blocked by ..." then you are welcome to 
suggest alternatives.


I usually make it clear when there _isn't_ a "blocked from mapping" 
period, as in this case - I said: "I think that the link between OSM 
changeset discussion comments and your email client has been broken" ... 
"This is just a message that you have to read before continuing editing".





There is clearly consensus for them in the local mapping
community, and a well-defined and transparent plan for the process has
been published.

That was one of the questions asked in changeset discussions - can you
please link to where the "well-defined and transparent plan" for the "trees"
import was published, and where discussion took place?

On the mailing list where I posted, for one.


If it exists, an actual link would be really useful here.  I'm aware of 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-westmidlands/2017-March/002127.html 
, but that is by no means a "well-defined and transparent plan". 
Particularly worrying about that post is the last paragraph "On both 
issues I'll contact Amey as to how they propose to release data for 
additions and deletions" - that suggests that the process is rather more 
"suck it and see" than anything resembling 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines .


It'd be great to be able to move forward here - to identify the parts of 
the process that were missed, to have a discussion about tags (including 
answering e.g. Will's questions from 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-March/020058.html 
).  The replies to this thread make it pretty clear that the West 
Midlands group has some work to do to persuade the majority of the UK 
OSM community that the approach taken so far is a good one.


Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (the member of the DWG who handled the complaint about 
this import)





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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Import Progress

2017-03-19 Thread Andy Robinson 
Like all good OSM activity, discussion occurred in the pub. We may or may not 
have got our knickers in a twist when we did but usually we get the things 
sorted out. The Naptan and tree updates were discussed at length within our 
small west mids group and I was (and am) happy to support. Brian has been doing 
a fantastic job working with local groups who have data and the last thing I 
would want to see is his efforts squashed. It's quite possible that some of 
what gets added is crap and its also possible we have some inappropriate tags, 
but let us get the stuff into OSM and we can sort it out where it's not 
perfect. As a local group we generally know what we are doing, we've been doing 
it now for over 10 years!

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: ajt1...@gmail.com [mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 19 March 2017 13:13
To: talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org
Cc: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Import Progress

On 19/03/2017 12:52, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 18 March 2017 at 18:52, Brian Prangle <bpran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm off for a break and I'm leaving a couple of key imports partially 
>> complete so I thought it best to give you an update of where I'm at:
> I'm told that Brian has been blocked for these edits This is 
> outrageous.

No, he was sent this message:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1271

because it appeared that the link between changeset discussions and his email 
inbox was broken.

> There is clearly consensus for them in the local mapping community, 
> and a well-defined and transparent plan for the process has been 
> published.

That was one of the questions asked in changeset discussions - can you please 
link to where the "well-defined and transparent plan" for the "trees" import 
was published, and where discussion took place?

> A well-respected member of the community should not be treated this way.

No-one doubts that Brian is well-respected member of the OSM community - few if 
any have put in as much effort as him over the years.  
Unfortunately even well-respected community members can have email filters go 
rogue on them - it's not the first time that it's happened and I'm sure it 
won't be the last  :)

Best Regards,

Andy

(cc:ing talk@ because I know there's been discussion, including on IRC, outside 
the West Mids about the trees import and as similar sort of council work is 
being outsourced elsewhere, it's useful to discuss it more widely).




___
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-westmidlands] Import Progress

2017-03-19 Thread Andy Mabbett 
"On 19 March 2017 at 13:13, ajt1...@gmail.com  wrote:
> On 19/03/2017 12:52, Andy Mabbett wrote:

>> I'm told that Brian has been blocked for these edits This is
>> outrageous.

> No, he was sent this message:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1271

Which opens with the words "brianboru blocked by SomeoneElse"

>> There is clearly consensus for them in the local mapping
>> community, and a well-defined and transparent plan for the process has
>> been published.

> That was one of the questions asked in changeset discussions - can you
> please link to where the "well-defined and transparent plan" for the "trees"
> import was published, and where discussion took place?

On the mailing list where I posted, for one.

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Import Progress

2017-03-19 Thread Rob Nickerson 
Hi,

This was discussed at our monthly meeting, it was then shared to the
appropriate local list [1] and a post about quality to Mappa Mercia blog
[2].

Brian has also been meeting with the data suppliers on a regular basis (at
times spending an hour a week with them) helping to develop a strategy.
Expert advise was also sought on the tree data.

So we have a data process that is supported by the local community, shared
publicly and covers a very small region. Our community is also well
established (10 years) and experienced to make these decisions.

My view is that appropriate steps have been taken. Anything more would have
been disproportionate any suggests a desire to have OSM centrally run
(which as we know is unrealistic).

Best,
Rob


[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-westmidlands/2017-
March/002127.html
[2]
http://www.mappa-mercia.org/2017/03/massive-release-of-highways-asset-data-in-birmingham.html


On 19 Mar 2017 1:14 p.m., "ajt1...@gmail.com"  wrote:

> On 19/03/2017 12:52, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
>> On 18 March 2017 at 18:52, Brian Prangle  wrote:
>>
>> I'm off for a break and I'm leaving a couple of key imports partially
>>> complete so I thought it best to give you an update of where I'm at:
>>>
>> I'm told that Brian has been blocked for these edits This is
>> outrageous.
>>
>
> No, he was sent this message:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1271
>
> because it appeared that the link between changeset discussions and his
> email inbox was broken.
>
> There is clearly consensus for them in the local mapping
>> community, and a well-defined and transparent plan for the process has
>> been published.
>>
>
> That was one of the questions asked in changeset discussions - can you
> please link to where the "well-defined and transparent plan" for the
> "trees" import was published, and where discussion took place?
>
> A well-respected member of the community should not be treated this way.
>>
>
> No-one doubts that Brian is well-respected member of the OSM community -
> few if any have put in as much effort as him over the years.  Unfortunately
> even well-respected community members can have email filters go rogue on
> them - it's not the first time that it's happened and I'm sure it won't be
> the last  :)
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> (cc:ing talk@ because I know there's been discussion, including on IRC,
> outside the West Mids about the trees import and as similar sort of council
> work is being outsourced elsewhere, it's useful to discuss it more widely).
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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-westmidlands] Import Progress

2017-03-19 Thread ajt1...@gmail.com 

On 19/03/2017 12:52, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On 18 March 2017 at 18:52, Brian Prangle  wrote:


I'm off for a break and I'm leaving a couple of key imports partially
complete so I thought it best to give you an update of where I'm at:

I'm told that Brian has been blocked for these edits This is
outrageous.


No, he was sent this message:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1271

because it appeared that the link between changeset discussions and his 
email inbox was broken.



There is clearly consensus for them in the local mapping
community, and a well-defined and transparent plan for the process has
been published.


That was one of the questions asked in changeset discussions - can you 
please link to where the "well-defined and transparent plan" for the 
"trees" import was published, and where discussion took place?



A well-respected member of the community should not be treated this way.


No-one doubts that Brian is well-respected member of the OSM community - 
few if any have put in as much effort as him over the years.  
Unfortunately even well-respected community members can have email 
filters go rogue on them - it's not the first time that it's happened 
and I'm sure it won't be the last  :)


Best Regards,

Andy

(cc:ing talk@ because I know there's been discussion, including on IRC, 
outside the West Mids about the trees import and as similar sort of 
council work is being outsourced elsewhere, it's useful to discuss it 
more widely).





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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Import Progress

2017-03-19 Thread Andy Mabbett 
On 18 March 2017 at 18:52, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> I'm off for a break and I'm leaving a couple of key imports partially
> complete so I thought it best to give you an update of where I'm at:

I'm told that Brian has been blocked for these edits This is
outrageous. There is clearly consensus for them in the local mapping
community, and a well-defined and transparent plan for the process has
been published.

A well-respected member of the community should not be treated this way.

-- 
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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Import Progress

2017-03-18 Thread Rob Nickerson 
Hi Brian,

Thanks for the great work here - it's been 9 years since the bus stop data
in Birmingham was this good so great to see such a step change improvement
in the data. Just a few of the orphaned stops to work through.

Also great to see such rich tree data going in. Sorry I never got round to
testing the conflate tool but I see you have your method instead :-)

The bus lanes will help too. They are being removed in Coventry (well, at
trial removal stage so far), but good to add them where they still exist.

Best regards,

*Rob*

On 18 March 2017 at 18:52, Brian Prangle  wrote:

> Hi All
>
> I'm off for a break and I'm leaving a couple of key imports partially
> complete so I thought it best to give you an update of where I'm at:
>
> Trees
>
> 47,000 imported so far (out of a total approx 76,000)- none north of the
> M6 which I've left for Andy R. Less than 0.1% (estimate) are positioned in
> roads or front gardens - a slight improvement of either the road or landuse
> alignment fixes these.  Before any import I've deleted any roadside trees
> added from aerial imagery. There were only 4 trees in the West Midlands
> tagged with species information - all monkey puzzle trees tagged by AndyR
> and all N of the M6. There are trees in the database that have been cut
> down - I think the field value is  "asset to be de-accrued"  and there  a
> few labelled as "pre-contract stumps". I'm generally just doing a blanket
> import and will clean these up later, unless it's an area I know well where
> I'm deleting them manually.
>
> Naptan bus-stops
>
> All pre-existing OSM  bus stops have been upgraded with new naming format,
> route_ref, and Towards tags, and OSM position left intact. All pre-existing
> naptan nodes in OSM  without the bus stop tag have had the bus stop tag
> added as well. Their position obviously will not have been verified by
> survey, but this method offfers completeness
>
> All pre-existing OSM bus stops that have been deleted in naptan have had
> the highway=bus_stop tag removed and a note added explaining what's
> happened. Feel free to delete any you come across.
>
> All new CUS stops have been imported (approx 230)- mainly because they
> don't render. A gradual review will be necessary as I've found in areas
> that  I know  well that many of these now have poles and should be MKD in
> the naptan data, and I've tagged them as bus stops where I've surveyed them.
>
> I'm gradually working through the approx 300 OSM "orphan bus stops" that
> have been surveyed but have no naptan tags. So you'll still see some
> duplicates in places. Where this is the case transfer any extra tags like
> shelter present and shelter ref no to the adjacent naptan node and delete
> the orphan. In most cases where I've done this the OSM position of the
> orphan node is better than naptan so move the naptan node to the position
> of the orphan
>
>  Some of the OSM pre-exisitng bus stops are nothing to do with naptan (e.g
> NEC and Airport car park shuttles) so I'm tagging these with naptan=no.
> About 20 of these so far
>
> Any bus stops where I find there is a discrepancy beween naptan and OSM
> I'm tagging with naptan_refresh=query (most of  these have been Ring and
> Ride stops, or poles flagged physically with NOT IN USE). About 40 of these
> so far.
>
> That leaves about 800 new bus stops which are yet to be imported. Some of
> these will match "orphan bus-stops". The remainder I'm hesitant to import
> as they're either poorly positioned or just don't exist. So it's probably
> going to be a long manual comparison slog. Or we live with this level of
> questionable data and import them
>
> Around the larger interchanges and bus stations  I've been adding a
> stop_area relation and adding the public_transport=platform tags to the bus
> stops. NB these are topographical areas and have no relation to naptan stop
> areas
>
> The last task remains to import the data on shelters, which I'll be
> getting from TfWM towards the end of April
>
> Bus Lanes
>
> TfWM are asking local authorities other than Birmingham (which I've
> already added- but we do need the times for adding conditional tags which
> can only be done with surveys)) for their bus lane data. So far I have
> shapefiles for Wolverhampton. Does anyone fancy adding these?
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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