Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?
I had a bit of an interest in tagging speed limits a few years back. It's way more complicated than it should be in the UK. Researching led me down a bit of a rabbit hole of legislation & case law. I made the following personal notes about UK limits and how to recognise them, which I think is mostly correct. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu/UK_Speed_Limits I personally tagged restricted roads as maxspeed:type=UK:nsl_restricted All a bit of a mess though. Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes
The subject of UK speed limits and problems of mapping them has come up a couple of times on these lists. Firstly we have a problem because many users want a single numerical value in the maxspeed tag, despite UK legislation having a range of speed limits for road dependent on the physical nature of the road. Secondly our Speed Limit legislation is an utter mess, with poor simplified guidance that confuses people. I suppose you can argue that our problems with tagging speed limits is appropriate because it mirrors the mess that is our speed limit legislation. Last year, when I was a bit more active in OSM, I wrote up all my notes on Speed Limits on my OSM wiki page. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu/UK_Speed_Limits Worth reading because a few posts before show some people are making perfectly understandable but incorrect conclusions about speed limits eg 1 On 21 September 2013 22:09, Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk wrote: I'm also not a huge fan of the current practice of placing single or dual in the maxspeed:type tag either as I consider the number of carriageways to be feature of the road rather than the speed limit. Regards, Andy Street Single or Dual refer to two of our three national speed limit types. NSL speed limits are created by the physical nature of the road and *not*signs. Dual Single are definitely a feature of the speed limit. eg 2 On 23 September 2013 09:34, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: National speed limits rarely apply in built up areas, other than sometimes on faster feeder roads. The built up area limit in the UK is 30mph, unless signposted differently. This is implied by the presence of street lighting. 30mph limits, where there are no streetlights, require repeater signs. Phil (trigpoint} National speed limits nearly always apply in built up areas. The 30mph 'built up area limit' you refer to is the third type of NSL, the NSL Restricted road type. Along side the other two NSL's it is created by the physical nature of the road and *not* signs. But getting to the main point, the use of maxspeed:type=national I strongly disagree with removing data which tells us the type of speed limit and replacing it with a word that implies 1 of 3 types of speed limit is in place. It's useful information and more importantly it's the correct information. I'm not sure if this is actually the case here though? Peter, you argue that your mapping what's on the sign? But the signs do not create the speed limit for a NSL road, its the physical features of the road that create the NSL type. That means '*System of Street Lighting*', '*oncoming traffic separated by barrier*', but if neither of the previous applies the road is 'single carriageway NSL' Personally, I think having two tags is bad practice, and that we should remove the numerical value from the maxspeed tag and replace it with the correct speed limit type. End users should then use a table to get the speed limit for the vehicle they're interested in. I accept its a complex subject and I accept average users of OSM will find it easier to simply type in the maxspeed for cars, but the more confident users of OSM should be seeking to improve data, and not strip it out. Having access to NSL types is very useful especially when we hear about plans to change speed limits. Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Three Choirs Way relation completed
On 2 June 2013 19:11, Steve Brook srbr...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: Should the parent relation be a route_master is that just for buses? I am considering splitting it into three separate child relations, one for each side of the triangle. This would overcome the problem I faced where you have to retrace your steps near the cathedrals in order to start the next section of the walk (repeating ways in a relation is messy). Does anyone have any strong objections to be doing this? Just over a year ago I converted the South West Coast Path into a super-relation. (There's some discussion of the reasons why somewhere in this mailing list). I broke the route into the 52 sections described by the management body. So there is precedent for doing this. When the whole route is broken up into child relations it would helpful if those sections were intuitive or existed 'on the ground'. I also think it's very helpful if the a wiki webpage is created explaining the super and child relations with links to the webpage in the relations. This is what I did for the South West Coast Path. I also added a note to the super relation and each child relation to futher reduce chances of mappers making blunders when working with the relations. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/South_West_Coast_Path The details of the super-relation can be seen here. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2376086 Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Usage of lanes / turn restrictions versus multiple ways when road is not divided
On 8 May 2013 16:09, Jason Woollacott wool...@hotmail.com wrote: And then we end up with disputes over what areas you are and are not permitted to enter. Broken Lines, and you are permitted to enter if safe, solid lines, only permitted to enter in an emergency. Both of which technically allow you to do a u turn, in the event that a incident dictates so. And lets not even discuss yellow box junctions... Jason. (UniEagle) +1 regarding broken/solid lines do not create an absolute barrier. The white diagonal lines you commonly see are more an advisory that you shouldn't use the area unless it safe to do so and you can drive on them if you think it's necessary, although if have a continuous line at the edge you should not cross that line unless there is an emergency. UK legislation is fairly clear that Traffic Islands (with or without hatched markings before are after) are not considered to create two carriagways. We're not mapping legislation, but nethertheless I wouldnt create two carriageways for a traffic island in a stretch of road. I assume it's acceptable at some complex junctions (eg entrance to large roundabouts) where 'traffic island' cause an absolute split in the road as part of the function of the junction. But back to the point made in the first post. I'd agree that it is wrong to split a road for the reasons given, and I think it should be actively avoided due to the confusion it will cause. Jason (jamicu) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Dartmoor needs fixing (heath area missing a chunk)
On 28 February 2013 23:07, Jason Woollacott wool...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Jason, Think I’ve managed to fix the problem. Looks like a user had split the heath area, and then added a stream tag to part of it. This stream was actually sat on top of another stream when I separated them. Will need to check when the Map updates, might need a little bit of a tweak. Jason W (UniEagle) I think the problem is back. A large area of heath is once again not showing up in the main map, but can't be sure it's the same area. Its the following area (way) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/158904193 Which is not appearing at the following zoom level http://osm.org/go/euIIsAA- I have had a look at it and can't spot a problem. Can anyone sort it out? Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Crystal Palace
On 8 March 2013 09:04, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: I live in Crystal Palace, that's not far from where my brother and sister in law live. I'll get onto it. Tom I left the area just before Tom moved in. I can pass on a bit of advice. The problems are in The Central Hill Estate, an area with a high crime level, so be a bit more cautious than normal if going for a walk around it. There is a abandoned nuclear bunker under of the buildings that might interesting to add to OSM (thats if there is tag for such things) Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Dartmoor needs fixing (heath area missing a chunk)
It looks like an edit in the Dartmoor area has caused problems. A large square chunk of heath is missing with a waterway unnaturally running along the line of the bottom right of the square. I've had a quick look but it looks like it's not a quick fix, well at least not for me. Does anyone want to try and fix this? Its this area http://osm.org/go/euIIrXu jason (user:jamicu) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Find myself more or less agreeing with the points Chris and Dudley made. I see see farmland as a default, and haven't put any effort into mapping farmland or fields. But I also agree with Tom's point, it is information that has a place in the database, and you dont need to render it if you dont want to. I feel the mapping of barriers (hedges, walls, fences) are of fundamental part of useful countryside mapping. Now that we have fairly good imagery of rural areas I've started to add hedge lines and fences. I think it's very important to indicate the source as Bing. A significant help would be to have the 'main' mapnik map start rendering rural boundaries at zoom 14. Currently the map only starts showing fences/hedges at zoom 16 which is a little bit too late. The main map renders a boundary between fields at zoom 14 so I assume the change wouldn't create problems. How would I go about asking for a change to that? Here's an example where not rendering of barriers make things confusing. Zoom in 1 level to see the field edges. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.46370267868042lon=-3.6121607666zoom=15 I know of organisation/people that wanted to use our mapnik map to show routes but where put off because the map didn't render field boundaries at at a useful zoom. They weren't passionate enough about OSM to start rendering their own maps. There's an issue regarding whether we should add the barrier tag to the same area tagged as landuse, or even use them with areas *Firstly* if two fields are created sharing one side and each area has barrier=fence does it mean there are two fences along the shared side. *Secondly* it appears several of the barriers can also be an area. So if you create a field area with landuse=farm, then add barrier=wall/hedge/fence/etc the the whole of the field area is considered a wall/hedge/fence/etc ?. You can see this as rendering issue here for hedges. zoom in a bit and the hedges are rendered over the fields and not along the edge. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.46370267868042lon=-3.6121607666zoom=15 The 'main' mapnik map ignores 'area' when rendering wall fences, but we still need to consider if what should be the correct approach. 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
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] maxspeed changes
On 30 September 2012 22:43, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: So what about slip roads on non-motorway dual-carriageways? Are these 70mph or 60mph in your view? Thanks, Peter From what I've read I think there's a problem with the term '* dual-carriageway*' being commonly used to describe all the core parts of a route rather than the road sections along a route that meet a particular legislative definition (hope that's makes sense?). The slip road may be a core part of a route that consists primarily of 'dual-carriageway', but when considering speed limits it is wrong to consider a slip lane as part of the dual-carriageway. My opinion is that a slip road is a separate road, a road that joins two other roads. Therefore to find it's speed limit you look at the road before you and the legislation. The definition for a dual-carriageway is clear (if I've got the legislation correct!) *“dual-carriageway road” means a road part of which consists of a central reservation to separate a carriageway to be used by vehicles proceeding in one direction from a carriageway to be used by vehicles proceeding in the opposite direction* A slip road is highly unlikely to meet the above definition, since normally traffic travels in only one direction and there is no central reservation. The legislation states *all* other National Speed Limit roads are single-carriageway with a speed limit of 60 mph for cars. This all assumes a lack of a 'system of street lighting' Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] maxspeed changes
As I mentioned earlier on it was speed limits for roundabouts along a dual carriageway that led to me doing a bit of research on UK speed limit legislation. My 'notes' are below http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu/UK_Speed_Limits A roundabout does not meet the given definition of a dual carriageway provided by legislation, and therefore is classified as a single carriageway road. Therefore a NSL roundabout can either be a NSL Restricted road or NSL single carriageway road speed limit. Recently spotted that my satnav already new this. Slip road connected to dual carriageways also does not meet the definition of a dual carriageway. Slip roads on motorways are not covered by NSL legislation. The whole motorway network, which includes the slip roads, is deliberately outside NSL legislation. Motorways are special roads with separate legislation. If the slips roads are part of the Motorway Network then they're special roads covered the Motorway Legislation with a maxspeed for cars of 70 mph. Things can be different in Scotland. I concentrated on reading 'English' legislation and case law. Having read legislation and case law I'm happy to argue that British speed limit law is a mess. Once you understand the foibles of the legislation you'll start spotting stretches of road where signs are wrong or missing. The link below shows locations of street lighting around a junction. http://goo.gl/maps/I8uhr (yellow for lighting for main road, and orange for lighting of runabout which is technically a separate section of road.) There are clearly sections of road with 3 more street lamps that mean that unless otherwise signed the stretches of road are 'NSL Restricted' with speed limits for cars of 30mph. Roads leading up to the lighting are NSL single carriageway with speed limits cars of 60 mph. Legislation states there should be signs clearly advising you that NSL Restricted begins or small signs reminding you NSL single lane carries on, but they are missing (I haven't spotted nsl signs while driving or when double checking today using StreetView). Therefore the speed limit defaults to NSL Restricted. Since drivers would expect a sign for a change in speed limit they are unlikely to slow down to the NSL Restricted speed limit. Lack of signs for any other change in speed limit would mean it would be impossible to prosecute, but signs are not needed for NSL Restricted road and there is case law to support this. A problem for drivers, and for people trying to map speed limits. Putting aside my little rant about missing speed limit signs, I think we could do with proper page giving some advice of speed limits if we intend to map them. Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for import guidelines
On 26 September 2012 11:02, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: - I only _use_ OSM data for the UK, where we don't have imports, and I'm not on DWG so I don't have to deal with the angry mails. I'm simply trying to help and getting hostile doesn't really encourage that.) Richard I was typing up a response when your email came through. I was based around the numerous imports in the UK of Ordnance Survey VectorMapDistrict Data. I guess I'm using a broad definition of import In the UK we have available data from Ordnance Survey in Rasta and Vector format. There is a wiki page on how we should use the data with a requirement we should add a source tag. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata For me the main use of the vector data is adding rivers, water bodies, coastlines, and boundaries. For these types the Ordnance Survey data is commonly the best source, but I'd argue strongly it still needs checking. I read the initial proposal as meaning that if I added a 3 ponds by tracing over rasta image availabe in Potlatch or JOSM it would not be considered a manual drawn action, but if copied the vector data then it would fall under automated edit because it would be an imports of external data. It would not be a bulk edit but would still require several actions I'd consider to be over the top (eg adding bot= and bot_url=) Subsequent discussion suggests that the addition of this vector data would not be considered an 'automated edit', but I think it would help to make this clearer. I prefer the wording used by Tobias Knerr On 26 September 2012 10:51, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: An 'automated edit' is one where the editing is not carried out by manual drawing actions. This includes (but is not limited to): - imports of external data without inspection of individual objects - any changes performed by a script/bot Of course there are special cases where e.g. a powerful editor is used to blindly do the exact same thing a script would do, but things like these are what the not limited to is for. I'd suggest changing 'automated edit' with something along the lines of 'blind import', and defining it based around lack of inspection of impact of individual objects. I'd slightly change one of the lines to - imports of external data without inspection of individual objects, or consideration of impact on existing surrounding objects. Jason ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] This one is driving me potty
The waterways in the area of the road seemed also to cause a problem. I've remapped them and they've now sorted themselves out Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] UK website using OSM to show live rain map
Just seen that the latest OpenGeoData blog entry (Weekly OSM Summary #47) links to a weather map that uses OSM as map. Reminded me that a UK weather website is using OpenStreetMap for its maps, and that the free version of the live rain map might prove useful to people out mapping. Does not work well on a mobile though. As well as being an nice example of OSM use it could be very useful to a lot of us out mapping (especially this summer!). The link for the live rain map is http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=radar There is a lot other overlays which you have to subscribe to view, including a for better version of the live rain map which can be very useful if you spend a lot of time outdoors. Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Admin Boundaries and OS OpenData BoundaryLine
On 29 May 2012 23:59, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: I have prepared a set of GPX files (one per admin area) from the main OS shapefiles. What would be the best way to get these into OSM? Thanks for doing this. I agree use of the data will require individuals effortt, so I'd suggest creating a wiki page which people could be updated to show areas status. I'd like to raise another issue. I agrree that the OS data is as definitive as we are going to get, but it looks like the recent OpenData releases have been dumbed down. If you compare the original 2010 releases with the 2011/12 releases then the 2010 release appears, in places, far superior. Only a few weeks ago I unfortunately deleted my original download of the Boundrary Data, but to show you what I mean I've put the 'VectorMapDistrict - AdminstrativeArea' shapefile from 2010, and a Boundrary Line 2011, on a google image (using qgis). Green = 2010 Red = 2012 http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd132/jamicu/VectMapDist_AminBoundary_2010vBoundary-Line2012.jpg You can see the Boundary Line 2012 has lost a lot of data originaly available. This suggests the original Boundary Line data is superior, but would need to be compared to 2012 releases to check boundaries have not moved. Does anyone have the original Boundary Line release? and would they be able to make them available? Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] NSL in built-up areas: what source:maxspeed to use?
On 25 May 2012 12:30, Andrew Chadwick a.t.chadw...@gmail.com wrote: What value should we use for source:maxspeed=* in built-up areas when there's no signage or road markings, just street lights?http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb There was bit of discussion on this about a year ago. While some guidance may strongly indicate (mislead?) that lightng+urban area = 30mph this is not the case. These roads are 'National Speed Limit - Restricted Roads', where the presence of street lighting enforces and reminds that the road is a Restricted Road. As Restricted Roads do not necessarily occur in 'build up areas' I think using built-up_area would be misleading. The word 'restricted' may not be commonly used, but it has the effect of making people think about what they're adding. More importantly taginfo shows source:maxspeed=UK:restricted_road is clearly the common way of tagging uk restricted roads. http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=source%3Amaxspeed%3Duk I didn't respond the original emails a year ago, but as a result I did start adding speed limits. Quickly realised how utterly confusing UK/GB speed limits are and wrote down a bundle of notes mainly aimed at trying to work out speed limits on badly signed roundabouts along NSL roads. Lost original notes but a lot was remembered and I've added them to a personal 'uk speed limit notes page'. I think it sums up GB/UK speed limits, and I've cleaned it up a lot today. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu/UK_Speed_Limits Second issue is the change in the wiki to suggest GB instead of UK. The intended result is the same and I have a preference for GB because it's 'official', but once again taginfo shows that UK is the common way of indicating the speed limit is British version. http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=source%3Amaxspeed%3Duk http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=source%3Amaxspeed%3Dgb I can't support changing to GB unless it involves changing all the UK maxspeeds to GB maxspeeds. Having two versions is confusing and unless this can happen I'd rather stick with UK. Cheers, Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging the South Dorset Ridgeway (was South West Coast Path Inland)
On 19 May 2012 01:22, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Given that the SW Coast Path relation has broken and had to be repaired recently, I'd definitely add a new relation for the new bit. Perhaps it makes sense to have a super relation for the whole SW path made up of smaller relations, of which this can be one alternative route (if I've understood the situation properly)? The section mentioned is part of the SW Coast Path so it should be relation that is part of a suggested super relation. Unless it's really obvious that the name of a particular piece of path is blah (as opposed to being part or a longer route called blah) I'd name the relation but I wouldn't name each way blah. I'd imagine that most data consumers can handle named relations - Garmin users; Lonvia's hiking map: +1 After spotting the the most recent problem with the SW Coast Path, I'd decided to follow the suggested idea of creating a super relation for this route. The official website breaks the whole route down into 52 sections so I was thinking of using those. Would 52 relations be too many? I may have given the idea some thought but I didnt get far because it seemed a huge bit of work. I meant to do a bit of research to see if there was an easy way of splitting this massive relation but havent got round to it. So I may as well ask now - Is there an easy way to split this massive relation? I'd thought about about trying to downloading with Josm, then copy and pasting sections of the route to a new layers then adding the relation data to this clean bit of route? Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Cycling, the law and traffic signs
On 15 May 2012 23:32, rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: As I am not a regular cyclist I must admit that I don't pay much attention to these signs. So my question is do Local Authorities use the cycle and foot signs (segregated or otherwise) and reserve the cycle sign for cases where traffic regulation prevents foot access (in which case foot=no would be correct), or is use mixed? Cheers, Rob Unless it's been recently changed. the Cycle Only sign could never prohibit 'pedestrian access' because use of the sign is defined by the Department for Transports Traffic Signs Manual (chapter 3) [1]. The DFT guidance confirms the signs can be used for routes where cycles can travel and all other vehicular traffic is prohibited. Therefore this sign must not be used to prohibit pedestrian access. The Manual also points out usefulness of a convenient footway or footpath to lure pedestrians away from this intended 'cycle only' way. Jason [1] http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/traffic-signs-manual/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Designation: should we begin using prefixes
I believe these tags should contain something along the lines of 'uk', 'sco' etc. Not because I'd wish the prefix to show the region, but because the designations are unique and need I believe the tags need to be unique. So for an Area of Outstanding Beauty resulting from UK created legislation I'd use designation=UK_AONB The aim is to create an unique name. Despite that fact AONB don't occur in Scotland the name still is unique. But... I don't see anything wrong with a tag holding location info in situations like these, especially if it may make it easier for people to interact with the data. I agree you strictly don't need it but for many it will reduce the amount of actions needed to engage with the data. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
And on another slight different tangent, I've noticed a lot of 'implied surfaces' in both versions eg *Please note*: omitting the surfacehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface =* tag implies it *is unpaved* What's the background for suggesting not providing a surface tag will result in an implied surface. I feel a missing surface tag 'implies' that the surface tag is missing, and nothing more. Jason, ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Permissive paths and uncrecorded rights of way
On 27 April 2012 15:00, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: * Public rights of way are recorded by the local council on the Definitive map and statement. I am pulling all the details together and will contact all England councils asking for access to the definitive statements (and requesting its release under the OGL license). This will be the topic of a later email and will be summarised on the wiki. * Any path not recorded on the councils definitive map and statement by 2026 will no longer be a public right of way - Once we have these statements I encourage you to write to the council about missing footpaths (details to follow). For now you can make use of note=, fixme= and perhaps suspected=row as suggested by Nick. I'm not sure if this has come up before, but inner London council's are not obliged to hold a definitive map statement for public rights of way. The Ramblers association have a campaign to encourage inner london councils to create definitive maps, but I assume the Ramblers association are not really bothered about the copyright issues. http://www.ramblers.org.uk/Campaigns+Policy/maplondon.htm http://www.ramblers.org.uk/Campaigns+Policy/map+london+council+feedback.htm I guess it would be very useful if people used the wiki to let others know how their contact with councils went, especially the requests for the council to apply to OS to release the data using current legislation. Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Using UK v GB for uk speed limit tags
Just in the process of adding some speed limits and went to the wiki to clarify tagging. UK speed limits commonly had a source:maxspeed tag, which contained UK, eg source:maxspeed=UK:motorway. Wiki page was recently changed and advised using GB eg source:maxspeed=GB:motorway The change notes correctly pointed out that GB was the correct international code for the UK. But with so many speed limit tags now using UK is it helpful to change? Personally not bothered whether UK or GB, but in the area I'm mapping I'd like all my tags to be the same. Does anyone else have views on this? (I've memories of a few arguing that we dont need UK/GB tags when the data is georeferenced but I'm not really interested in that right now) Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Southwest Coast Path (relation) has mostly disappeared.
Hi all, Randomly found myself checking the status of the 'Southwest Coast Path' relation yesterday. Checked it using a few of the links found on the Wiki United Kingdom Long Distance Pathshttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_Long_Distance_Paths#England_and_Wales:_National_Trails page. The route was first completed in 2009, since when sections tend to be disappear for a while then get remapped, a situation common for most long routes. Last nights check showed almost the entire route has gone! A small section is left around Minehead and Brixham. Disturbingly I've been mapping around Brixham for the last six months and I'm therefore concerned I may have done the dirty deed. For other routes your able to access a history, but when I seek the history of the 'Southwest Coast Path' things just hang and eventually result in an error message. Assuming it's not linked to the licence change cleansing, because I assumed that process starts on the 7th? Cheers Jason (user:jamicu) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwest Coast Path (relation) has mostly disappeared.
thanks for the fix. was logged into the IRC channel so was aware you were fixing it. Various available links given for checking or viewing the relation are not working (at the moment). Is this a temporary problem, or is it linked to the size of the relation? Is this a type of relation that should be broken up and put into a super-relation? I think I'll stay clear of it until after the odbl cleaning thing has finished Cheers, Jason On 5 April 2012 16:16, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Right, (following a discussion on IRC) the SW coast path should be back to as it was in rev 1746 now, apart from ways 30720938, 65128178, 2604800, 30337452, 22976293, 4980897, and 98346377 which were deleted. Locals familiar with the route might want to check what to check the gaps. Also, apologies to anyone who's edited it since it was deleted; I've not merged those changes (that'll also need someone more familiar with the route). 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Un-relicensable roads - now with secondary roads included
Thanks, now feel a bit embarrassed, that was kind of obvious. Jason On 22 March 2012 22:37, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Jason Cunningham wrote: Just had a look at the text file. Can anyone give me some advice on a way to quickly find the locations given in file? It's the way ID: http://www.openstreetmap.org/**browse/way/78499375http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/78499375 http://osm.mapki.com/history/**way.php?id=78499375http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=78499375 __**_ 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
[Talk-GB] Bing imagery update? using photo's from late 2011?
I've just noticed an update to Bing imagery in the UK. Area I was looking at was Torbay, Devon. [link http://binged.it/yq8NYY]. The updates images are not available at full zoom for some reason, so by zooming all the way in you can see the previous images. Finding it hard to give a date to the images, but I think for Torbay they were taken in late summer 2011. I've spotted land changes in images for South London that indicate a recent imagery update there. Has this happened across the UK? Apologies is this info has already come up in the list. Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] HS2 route is open data!
Good to see the data being released, But I don't believe this proposed route should yet be added to OSM. You'll regularly here the phrase map what's on the ground, but we all(?) accept upcoming changes to what's on the ground can be mapped, and these upcoming changes to the land are mapped using the proposed tag (then construction tag). Not much guidance is given for when a plan has reached a status that fits with the 'proposed' tag. I'd hope everyone would agree that to map *any*proposal, whatever the source, would be ridiculous. 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], was proposed in the 1950's, but constantly been put to the back of the 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 two tests 1. The proposal has, at least, outline planning permission 2. The proposal has funding in place 3. The proposal is also likely to proceed. (eg Developer hasn't pulled out) 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 have announced it they'll now proceed with the project. 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. Therefore I believe the HS2 route should not yet be added. Many active mappers of OSM, including me, have some level of bias in favour of high quality transport networks, but we shouldn't let that impact on how we choose what's added to OSM. All the above doesn't change the fact that the current 'proposed' tag is very generous and would appears to allows adding proposals that will not happen. Jason On 23 January 2012 17:37, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: We had a discussion recently about getting a usable source of route data for HS2. I am pleased to say that it is on data.gov.uk and is available on an OGL license. http://data.gov.uk/dataset/hs2-gis-route Can we get to use this as a backdrop in Potlatch or JOSM to get the route added? Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] GB License Change Readiness
Thanks Mike, I'll now start having a proper go at replacing some of Guys data. A monumental task and I think I'll just start with the important roads. Definitely looks like there will be possibilities for mapping parties in the southwest, for those that enjoy that sort of thing Jason On 11 January 2012 09:15, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: On 10/01/2012 19:34, Jason Cunningham wrote: Can anyone provide more detailed info on the final stance of the of the top decliners? Looking at one of the websites, some are Guy, Ed Avis, Andy Street, Simon Ward, Paul Martin and ulfl. I'd given a bit of though to mapping some of the areas that are to be affected by the loss of 'Guy's data in the southwest (a lot of data!). Would be upset to spend time remapping and then find out someone was in talks with him. Jason, As I understand it, ulfl will never agree to the new terms and I remap everything I find in the UK and Sweden. Ditto with JohnSmith fixme edits. You should find that ulfl edits are constructive but bot-like POI corrections of tag keys and their spellings and forcing to lower case of religions on churches ... just check that the IPR (Intellectual Property Right) value comes from you or other accepted contributors. Guy was contacted in November and again by me very recently but has not responded. Not known if contact details valid. A large part of his contributions are unrefined waterway and road digitisations from NPE and there is now much better complementary OS25k/Bing/StreetView. I feel that we should make a start on these now, (I have, please join me), as it is worthwhile whether or not he agrees ... it is just that they get replaced rather than refined. Paul Martin was contacted by me very recently but has not responded. Not known if contact details valid. Apparently very unhappy with ODbL. I have been talking to Ed Avis, Andy Street, Simon Ward. All are reasonable people but with particular defined concerns. I believe I have directly met Andy's concerns as per http://www.openstreetmap.org/** user/Andy%20Street http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Andy%20Street but he has not responded since early December. I do not believe I can meet Ed and Simon's concerns other than to be very aware of them and pledge to make sure that they get properly aired and discussed on an ongoing basis; so I appreciate that they have a difficult choice to make. Same with 80n. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] GB License Change Readiness
Can anyone provide more detailed info on the final stance of the of the top decliners? Looking at one of the websites, some are Guy, Ed Avis, Andy Street, Simon Ward, Paul Martin and ulfl. I'd given a bit of though to mapping some of the areas that are to be affected by the loss of 'Guy's data in the southwest (a lot of data!). Would be upset to spend time remapping and then find out someone was in talks with him. Jason On 10 January 2012 17:03, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.ukwrote: I'd just like to add that one of the top contributors down as declined is actually undecided due to Ordnance Survey OpenData compatibility concerns, not sure why he's down as declined, whether that was a mistake on his part. I've emailed him to get him to decide one way or the other, but as I said his *only* concern is whether OS OpenData is compatible with the new licence. As said before I'm agnostic on this issue, but I'm extremely keen not to have local data by this contributor deleted!!! Nick -Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: - To: OSM talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz m...@ayeltd.biz Date: 10/01/2012 04:48PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] GB License Change Readiness Back to the original thread, good news. Three of the top UK undecided contributors have responded to my messages and kindly accepted the new terms. York, South Wales and High Wycombe looking much better now. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS VectorMap water feature import
I try to add the rivers streams when I can, but it always takes a lot of work. Previously didn't agree with adding straight from OS Vectormap without fixing all of it's peculiarities, and was unhappy with a lot of woodland added. But, I coming round to thinking OSM is about incremental improvements, it doesn't have to be perfect first time, and the woodland added is an improvement. Still wouldn't add without cleaning up the data myself though, and there are a lot of water features, especially drains, that are not really there on the ground. Original release of Vectormap had more detailed water features, but this years release appears to have been dumbed down. If you got them I'd use the first detailed release of water features. Jason On 12 December 2011 11:40, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Have any large scale imports from this dataset already been done? Do people think this is a good idea? Any suggestions regarding the process? As others said it is quite a bit of work. I've done the Tendring district of Essex. The Vectormap data includes some water areas which are now dry, some swimming pools belonging to larger rural properties (seem to be ignored in towns), and often need breaks in streams joining up. So local knowledge is really needed and why I only did the local area. If you do the work though you will end up with OSM having a better, more current set of such data than OS have currently released. Ed ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Bing OS maps (slightly OT)
I've had the same problem. A quick search came up with a website suggesting changes are being implemented and notes that these changes have broke the OS and Collins Maps. http://alastaira.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/bing-maps-hybrid-imagery-style-generation-700-and-broken-labels/ Cheers, Jason On 6 July 2011 19:35, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi Today (for me at least) Bing have removed the OS map option from the selection list. Has this happened to others? Is this intentional? - I can't find any news about it. To those who like to jump the gun - No, I don't use it to add data to OSM. Cheers Dave F. __**_ 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: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
I think using the word pitiful goes a bit far, but it got the intended response. As someone who spends little time reading through the mailing list I would expected this important step to be very well publicised, and that does not appear to be the case. After reading a few of these emails, and not having heard of this Phase 4 before, I went to the Wiki Main Page nothing there. Main reason for replying was some of the emails implied it would be more helpful to actually find ways to advertise the change rather than go around in circles arguing about it not been advertised. I've added it to the News Section on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page but obviously someone who understands what is going on should improve what I've done and add an appropriate link (hopefully very quickly). Cheers, Jason On 20 June 2011 14:55, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: NopMap wrote: How should that work - without concrete information posted anywhere? Ok. How do you fancy volunteering to be the person who posts the concrete information, then? You seem to be under the impression that magic communication fairies will crop up and make everything ok. It doesn't work like that. Everyone here is a volunteer. If you're not happy with the effort that other volunteers are making, you should volunteer yourself. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495858.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
I'd also like to give my support to using a bot to add names to existing roads. My views on this have moved one way then the other over the last few months. My main issues were based around 1 - It would reduce foot surveys which would mean missing out on POI's (etc). Now feel this argument is short sighted and we would still have to deal with how we map POI when all streets are surveyed, so that should not stop us using the OS data. We need to consider a future where roads are considered complete and how we keep on top of mapping ever changing POI's. I'd suggest 'POI Mapping Parties' using the Walking Papers tool. 2. - I was worried about the quality of data provided by OS due to reading thoughts of others. But although we often put a lot of focus on an OS error it appears that OS is far more accurate than the average OSM street walker. Looks like less than 3% errors, and many of these errors may turn out not to be errors (eg we've got it wrong, not OS). So this weekend I could go out and get names for remaining streets in my area, or we could use the bot. I believe the bot would result in less errors (but see point 1) So I'd support the bot. Adding a clear source tag is obvious and I don't think needs much discussion. Cheers, Jason (user:jamicu) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis New Data and bot
On 9 June 2011 15:59, Derick Rethans o...@derickrethans.nl wrote: I can. I've a friend in the Netherlands that I'd say is the typical person that we want as mapper. He had mapped a lot of town Which then got wiped out by the AND import, and he didn't bother with OSM for a looong time. Luckily, he now finally started contributing again. Let's hope he keeps it up. There has been no suggestion that there are plans to wipe out data. The wiki suggests road names should only be added under the following conditions - The bounding box for the road matches the bounding box for the OS Locator entry within 10% - There is only one OS Locator entry that overlaps the road. - Only if the 'name' field is empty or missing - The bounding box is completely within the permitted area of operation. - Only if no road has ever existed in OpenStreetMap history for the area with the same name (to avoid adding back out-of-date names) There is definite room for arguing that it will reduce active mapping in some situations. Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] findmaps using OSM, and current situation regarding use of OS 'stuff' used in Google maps
Hi all, Recently was made aware of Findmaps new free service that overlays a lot of recently released UK data over maps. http://free.findmaps.co.uk/ The available background maps are 'google maps' 'osm mapnik' and OS. You then chose to see several different datasets sourced, for example, from Natural England and Ordnance Survey. You can add (draw) you own basic shapes/lines/arrows, and print out a pdf. Overall an excellent service But it raises three issues. 1. The OSM map is called the Urban Detail. Since Google Map gets called Google Map it would of been nice to see OSM referred to as OSM. But I guess the whole point of OSM is to provide maps (data) with a minimum of use restrictions. 2. The use of OS data in Google Maps. I though this wasn't allowed. Last time I looked at this there was a problem with googles terms of use, which OS were not happy with. I remember thinking OS were in the right, and remember a response from OS which suggested that other mapping sites could be used. Since findmaps is clearly using OS data with with Google maps it suggests the situation has changed. Does anybody have info on the current state of play. 3. The use of Natural England data. Seems Natural England have an even more complex set of terms and conditions for their data sets [linkhttp://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/data/default.aspx]. I therefore find it hard to believe this data can be used in google maps. Has there been any discussion about using Natural Englands data in OSM because it does provide some very useful info (eg national trails) Cheers, Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?
Hi Mike, Can you provide us with a grid ref(s) for a location where the OS data is wrong Jason On 9 March 2011 13:33, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: At 13:29 09/03/2011, Chris Hill wrote: On 09/03/11 11:57, Michael Collinson wrote: At 12:32 10/02/2011, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: Henry Gomersall [mailto:h...@cantab.net] wrote: Sent: 10 February 2011 11:07 AM To: Peter Miller Cc: Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping? On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 10:30 +, Peter Miller wrote: On reflection possibly we should use river-bank as that has more information in it, but recommend that anyone importing does a 'bridge cleanup' at the same time. This is an area I'm actually really interested in (for rural rivers) and keen to contribute. So far I've been put off by exactly this problem. Is a reasonable approach to use the OS data for river edges and then fill in the gaps (bridges etc) with OSM data? +1 If the OS vector data is only assumed to be the banks and the additional data for flow direction, bridges and other features are added from survey/BING etc then we should end up with a very functional dataset. A late response to this thread, but a word of caution. Comparing Bing imagery recently for several Yorkshire rivers with folk's riverbanks derived from OS data indicates that very frequently the OS are not tracing the riverbank as the dividing line between water (clear river channel) and land (grass, scrub) but the top of the riverbank or where the rough verge meets pasture land. A further word of caution: Bing and all other imagery only shows a snapshot of the way things are, often many years ago, and in an indeterminate state of water level. Some rivers have tidal influences, some rivers have very different levels in flood or drought. Sometimes where the rough verge meets pasture land is the highest point the water reaches regularly, but still only occasionally. Certainly both Chris' and Phillip's cautions are certainly true but I've paid particular attention to the River Wharfe mid-reaches, which I know very well and flows in a well-defined channel with high banks and has not shifted markedly in the last 40 years. In places, it is almost twice as wide as it should be. Chris may be right in suggesting that the highest water mark is being mapped, but why map the 10 - 25-year flood event level rather than the natural bank line? I am tempted to think that automated software has been used which like PGS coastlines occasionally gets confused by nearby lineaments. I also recall comparing with digitised 25:000 maps (vintage 1900 - 1960 surveying) and noticing that it correlates much more closely with Bing than StreetView. Needs more analysis but be aware! Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Southwark update
Well done to all those who finished off the road network in Southwark. I was drawn into OSM when searching for a mapping solution in the far south of Southwark, and it's brilliant to see how things have come along. Tom, I've noticed you've added a large number of trees with species details supplied by Southwark Council. Some of the trees appear a bit random eg http://osm.org/go/euuuYWULe-- Whats the story behind this? I wondering if they're from Southwarks TPO list? or list of plum trees? Noticed Southwark are one of the better councils for providing maps on their website showing important info (hopefully they can start using OSM as the base map) cheers Jason On 2 March 2011 13:28, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: Following Steve's happy email about Enfield, we now have Southwark up to 100% accuracy against OS Locator with 56 (!) discrepancies identified in the OS data, compared to 9 in Enfield. We're also plowing ahead with buildings, and have perhaps 1/2 to 2/3rds of the borough's buildings now traced, with a big chunk my way in East Dulwich/Peckham also fully addressed. I see Barnet is also up to 100% - congrats! That takes us up to 9 local authorities in the UK with 100% accuracy. 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Incorrect use of OS VectorMap District when mapping?
OS VectorMap District is an excellent source of data for features like streams and woodland, but these layers of data tend to be a bit of a mess and need to be stitched together as part of a method in importing into OSM. eg Streams will end when they meet a bridge, then reappear the other side of the bridge, so for OSM you need to link all the separate sections of the streams into one long stream Started to notice that the VectroMap District data in its raw state has started to appear in the map, from more than one mapper http://osm.org/go/erduA_U9K-- http://osm.org/go/eugeBnUca- You can see stream are broken presumably at locations of bridges, and woodland has strips missing presumably along paths (and is also made up of several sections if you look at it in an editor) Doesn't appear to be guidance in the wiki about how to deal with VectorMap District. I just want to check I'm right in thinking this is the wrong way to go about it? If so I'll try and write up some guidance in the wiki. Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] invisible
I've also got an interest in waterways and found it was possible to make them leap out using OSM Inspector in the Geofabrik Tools website http://tools.geofabrik.de/ This is the link I use to view water in South London http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=waterlon=-0.04362lat=51.38228zoom=11opacity=0.48overlays=bodies_of_water,bodies_of_water,broken_bow,vmap0_rivers,long_rivers,waterways_river,waterways_stream,waterways_drain,waterways_canal,waterways_riverbank,waterways_other,waterways_in_tunnels,waterways_on_bridges A bit long, but it works. Waterway data has the potential to be some of the most accurate in OSM due to the very high quality water line data made available in OS VectorMap_Data. Jason On 17 January 2011 23:05, Chris Moss mosch...@googlemail.com wrote: I'm interested in the GB waterways and it seems there's quite a bit of work done but it's totally invisible. Is anyone working on a layer like the cycle map, which leaps out from the overlays as the only minority interest yet developed? It's not the only layer I'd like to see. What about walking paths, railways, contours, points of interest, postcode areas, administrative boundaries, constituencies, bus routes, etc., etc. Shouldn't maps allow you to concentrate on whatever you're interested in? Can someone please explain to me how or if this can be done with openstreetmap? Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Datastore musical allotments
I'm worried we're assuming that the GLA have supplied us with a definitive source of names. When I had a first quick look at the names provided I was worried they were mainly based around adjacent road names when many allotments have complex names. I can find a couple where the allotments society are using a different name when compared to the GLA list. I'm buy buying a house this week, any chance anyone could check some of the names used by the allotment societies by going to their websites? Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] an estimate of data loss under relicensing
Thanks for taking the time to do this. Having read this a I've decided its about time I read up on licence issue! I guess that the potential loss of a lot of data could be a reason for some people voting against the changes Jason On 22 July 2010 10:34, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Hi all, To try to get a feeling for the potential consequences of relicensing, I have been doing analysis of edits in the UK and how contributors have voted on the doodle poll. I feel that we should look before we leap, regarding the possible impact of people who refuse to relicense. I wondered how many nodes, ways and relations would be transitioned in relicensing. I used the crude assumption that each object has only one editor, which would underestimate the impact of refuser contributions. I requested the biggest contributors to vote on the doodle poll to improve the turn out. Although I only have votes for 1% of individual UK contributors, doodle now has a 24% turn out when weighted by mapping contribution size. A few mappers account for a large proportion of UK data. Previously, I did not notice how many mappers had just done a few small changes: the median number of nodes contributed is only 10! I also have not considered the response rate once OSMF pitch the question to contributors, and what happens if the OS data cannot be relicensed. I want to next give my excuses for not publishing the raw statistics. Even with 24% turn out (by contribution size), the are a few non-committal large contributors (e.g. me and a few others). Unless the turn out rate is higher, the stats can be twisted depending on the mood I am in. But there is a pattern emerging. The overall UK picture seems to be fairly bright for minimal data loss. Every big contributor I contact votes yes to relicencing (with or without reservations). I estimate an overall data loss of 5% to 17% for the UK (ignoring the effect of objects with multiple editors). The main exception to this is a small cluster of refusers around London. (I am not just talking about myself here.) The worst case scenario is 50% data loss in the Greater London area but, really, I don't know how it would play out. Because of the density of mapping, there is more likely to be multiple editors in this area too. Basically, it's a wild card. But I would be surprised if there are big problems outside the London/SE area. Unless of course 5% is a big problem - I am not too sure how much work it would take to patch up omissions, even assuming a relatively smooth transition. Anyway, I never was much good at statistics! I just wanted to circulate something, after many contributors were kind enough to honour my request and vote on doodle. TimSC ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?
I've support this 'project of the week' and I've already tested the idea in a small area. If you look around the web for critical views on Openstreetmap it does look like the big chunks of missing streets puts people off. A few opinions to add. 1. If you know how to convert the shapefile, use Vector Map District instead of Streetview. [Link to Converting Guidehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Shapefiles ] 2. Use the newly created 'Ito _ OS locator layer' to get street names. Do this for areas that appear to have been completely 'street mapped'. [link to using Ito layer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Locator_files] 3. Use the streetview layer as final comparison Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?, (Kai Krueger)
On 6 June 2010 22:13, Phil James peerja...@googlemail.com wrote: ...I just feel that blatant, blind copying of OS data is prostituting what I thought Open Street Map was meant to be about./Rant OK, I've got my tin hat on: standing by for incoming... ;-) Phil. I've got a lot of sympathy for that view. The UK map owes a huge amount to individuals trudging along the streets and footpaths/paths/etc of Britain. Mapping Parties have created community, and were responsible for the detailed mapping of many areas. But. OpenStreetMap is a project to create and provide free geographic data, such as streets maps, to anyone who wants them. That is why I contribute. Blatant, blind, copying of OS Data allows us to provide more detailed geographic data which satisfies the aim of the project. The OS data is been treated as a replacement and hard work isnt being deleted. The OS data is only being used to add data that is not currently present, or to mark up blunders. I have no emotional attachment to the data gathering process, whether it be Mapping Parties, Yahoo tracing, or imports. They are simply a means to an end, to be discarded if a better method comes along. The big question is whether importing OS Data means we'll never see the addition of data normally providing by OpenStreetMap streetwalkers. I'd like to think that an almost complete Streetmap will mean a massive increase in use of OpenStreetMap and those new users will add the missing POI. Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Project of the week - trace a village off of OSSV?, (Kai Krueger)
On 7 June 2010 05:18, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com wrote: The OS data is been treated as a replacement and hard work isnt being deleted. The OS data is only being used to add data that is not currently present, or to mark up blunders. Oops, That should have read The OS data is not being treated as a replacement. Thats what happens if you been up all night looking for bats! I'm now now off to get a good days sleep. Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Software goes on, brain goes off...
1... What's the correct way of tagging a street as 'dangerous/suicidal' for pedestrians in OSM? (Couldnt find an answer in the wiki) Recently come across a road in my area (London, UK) that had no pavement and which clearly should be avoided by pedestrains, but there were no restrictions in place for pedestrians (apart from common sense). The UK also does not have restrictions on pedestrains being on roads that some other countries have. So, in my opinion, foot=no would be wrong because it incorrectly indicates pedestrians are not allowed. I guess foot=dangerous would be useful for routing software, but is there agreed way of tagging these problem roads. 2...Had a look at that American road in Google Satelitte ( http://tinyurl.com/33dvn78) If I was that women I'd be more worried about the colour of the Golf Courses. That's the most unnatural shade of green I've ever seen. Jason ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Offsets between OS and OSM data (was Building with mapseg)
I'm in London and using the method, linked to by Kevin, the VectorDistrict looks very good. I also converted to kml to see how some some of the old docks near sea level matched up in google earth and I was more than happy. Overlaying Vector District and 'StreetView tiles' in Josm indicates the Streetview tiles can be off in places Jason On 30 May 2010 10:09, Kevin Peat ke...@kevinpeat.com wrote: I'm in Devon and I see the same thing although whether it is just the SW I don't know. The Streetview tiles (as I see them in JOSM) are all offset to the SE by 5-10 metres. I've converted some woods in my area from the VectorDistrict data using this process, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Shapefiles and the converted data looks good to me compared to my previous surveys but comes out different to the tiles, so I'm thinking that the tiles are wrong. Kevin On 30 May 2010 09:08, Tim François sk1pp...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On a side note, has anybody noticed a consistent tendency for existing independently surveyed roads to be offset northwards (by around 5-10 metres) from the OS data (vectormap and streetview)? I've seen various cases of existing roads being edited to be consistent with OS data, but I'm not convinced this is a good idea since the problem seems to be consistent in one direction. Glad I'm not the only one. Here in the SW I see the same offsets, although I find the VectorDistrict data to be more like the GPS surveyed data. This means that the StreetView tiles do not match up with the VectorDistrict either: I've been importing some rivers and reservoirs from the VectorDistrict data (namely the River Chew and Chew Valley Lake) and I've found that the polygons seem to be shifted compared to the equivalent positions in StreetView by about 10 metres. I guess this is an expected artifact of the reprojection methods? Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Using OS Shapefiles
Thanks Chris Why have the OS done wrong in their prj file?. The test ogr2ogr I performed using the OS prj files were only slightly off when compared to the prj files you provided, and I didnt realise there was a problem until you provided the a new prj file. Now that Chris has provided us with some tools, it would be helpful if someone else could provide some help with using Python for the 99% that think its a snake. Cheers, Jason On 11 May 2010 16:53, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: I've written up the way I have used OS shapefiles in the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Shapefiles Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping progress in Surrey Heath
You might also consider using the shape files from OS VectorMap for the water ways. This provides a ready-made, quite detailed outline of waterways. I have supplied a few people with help doing this, so think I should write up the process in the wiki. Cheers, Chris I was also going to suggest using the ready-made vector data for lake/rivers/streams. I've worked out a way of converting, but a guide on the wiki would be very useful. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS StreetView accuracy: caution!
On 9 April 2010 18:40, Robert Scott li...@humanleg.org.uk wrote: I'm not really sure about this whole attitude of OS data is not perfect, so let's ignore the imperfect bits. I agree, and I'd go further The accuracy of OS data looks vastly superior to our data. Its always hard to keep track of discussions in OSM lists, but I can't work out the apparent attitude of many towards the OS data. It appears many who have given up 100's (1000's?) of hours to help create the OSM map don't want to see their work replaced by more accurate OS data, and are looking for errors in the OS data? There seems to be an movement towards arguing OSM is about people going out and gathering data in the field, and not simply bulk importing other peoples info? This thread started off by mentioning errors seen in the OS map when out mapping the Centenary Way, but can we be sure the OS map was wrong? Handheld GPSr receivers can be out by 10's of meters. Looking at the Centenary Way route (from OSM) as kml within Google Maps shows we clearly have the route 'off the path', and in places it goes through water. Is that accurate? Download any OSM path/walkway/route and look at it using google aerial maps, the path is nearly always out. OS products wont be perfect, and should not be bulk imported, but the supplied data will still be more 'accurate' than the OSM Cheers, Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS 1:25K tracing
+1, I think we should be printing off maps and using them during walks. Mark whats there, or not, with a highlighter pen. Havent used 1:25K maps yet, but I have compared them using google when a similar issue arose a couple of days ago. Its clear a huge amount of changes have happened and it would be stupid to simply trace. We can't trace over google/bing satelite imagery because contract/terms of use, but it is tempting use the google satellite images to check what can be traced from the 1:25K (still the chance google is out-of-date!). This doesn't appear to go against google's terms of use. Jason 2010/1/21 Steve Hill st...@nexusuk.org Since the out of copyright 1:25K maps appeared, there has been rather a lot of tracing going on. On the whole, I think the availability of this data is good. However, I have noticed that around the Gower peninsula, quite a few nonexistent roads, etc. have appeared and have been attributed to these maps. I'd like to take the opportunity to point out that blindly tracing fairly old maps without doing any kind of a survey is pretty counterproductive - someone now has to go around and survey and delete these bogus features. By all means, trace the maps to add stuff you know is there, but please don't just trace everything without some local knowledge. -- - Steve xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org xmpp%3ast...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org sip%3ast...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Countering Google's propaganda
This discussion is concentrating on the merits of Google, but I am more concerned about the involvement of UNICEF and their apparent decision to encourage people to create mapping data for Google. I assume UNICEF has a variety of 'mapping data' or POI that it would like to see freely available, and surely UNICEF should have seen OSM has the best organisation to hold that data? A search of UNICEF's website shows some of UNICEF's views on mapping. Its a GIS related pdf (1.5Mb - July 09), which mentions several internet map suppliers, but not OSM. http://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/files/2009_Global_DevInfo_Fina.pdf This document implies UNICEF doesn't even know OSM exists, which is just as worring as them funding Google's map making My view is the OSM foundation or some other official OSM group should be contacting and creating relationships with UNICEF (and others such organisations). If in the future they decide to once again sponsor Google's map making, they at least should be justifying why they are not supporting putting mapping data in the public domain. Importantly OSM and UNICEF would benefit from working together. Jason ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] OSM Licence vote
Can I also be sorry for being pedantic and point out an issue with the license. The OSMF decided to base themselves in the UK and is A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales. Company Registration Number: 05912761 The Articles of Association [ http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association] details the role / function of the organisation in detail, and offers definitions of words used. What is clear is that the decision to base themselves in the UK as a British Company means the 'legal language' of the OSMF is British English. Now for the pedantic part The proposed licence appears to be in American English, but doesn't state that. I think it is important that the 'core' or 'main copy' uses the language of the country in which this company has based themselves, and the same language as the 'The Articles of Association' At the very least its 'bad practice' to have your 'Articles of Association' in one language and your licence in second. It's a small issue to have someone suitably qualified read through the American license and translate it into British 'legalese', but something that should be done. Suppose you could move the foundation to the USA. It would also be worth looking at what Creative Common do, and provide the licence in several different languages. (I think I support the licence/license change, but I need to read more. Sadly not a member of the OSMF because of their links with Paypal, a point of principle for me) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Adding some additional building around the Angel area of London?
I'd 'vote' for going ahead and using the roundel in the rendered mapnik map. Use of the roundel is ubiquitous, and I cant believe that TFL would have a problem with us advertising the location of tube stations. The roundel wont be in the osm data set, its a rendering issue. I am worried about the domino affect. We wont be able to stop with the London Underground roundel. You'll probably end up with people wanting specific icons for regional or national 'organisations' (Starbucks etc), Jason ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[OSM-talk] How do you easily add a location pointer to maps on main website?
I asked early on in the year for way to add a marker to a map when I wanted to give a link to a map that that pointed out a location. The answer given was to get a 'permalink' then put an 'm' before 'lat' and 'lon' in the url. The edited link then brings up a map with a red diamond at the centre of the map. This is not user friendly because you have to move the map around and guess when your location is at the centre of the map before getting your permalink. It takes a few attempts to get it right. 1. I am sure I saw a link in these mailing list where the the red diamond was replaced with an arrow. How was this done? 2. Is there an easy way to create the needed link? 3. Is there an easy way to create a link where the marker is not at the centre of the map (see below) I wanted to email a link to an osm map which pointed out the location of a building in a small wood. OSM would have been brilliant because the wood is mapped, but it I didnt have time to spend several minutes trying to create a link with marker. I ended up using http://www.multimap.com/maps/ because it allowed me to add a marker using the right-mouse button, and this marker does not need to be in the centre of the map. Multimap also provides a short url, eg http://www.multimap.com/s/TSOdvGZH I suppose I am hoping that in the future there is some way to replicate the easy method multimap provides. cheers Jason user:jamicu ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (man_made=mineshaft)
I worried that the use of language might prove to be confusing and the the buildings associated with a mine should have a separate tag. 1. Mineshaft may exist but we are going to be mapping the location mine entrances, not the tunnel leading away from the mine entrance. In the future someone may want to map the 'way' that the mineshaft follows especially if its a horizontal tunnel going into a hillside 2. What we want to locate, or map, are mine entrances. Mine entrances to are mostly small and most go horizontally into hillsides. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Mine_entrance.jpg I assume most are too small to map as an area in OSM. They would have to be mapped as a node. 3. There are plans to supply info on structures associated with mines as part of the tag, notably the Pit Head. I think this could be confusing and people would map the outline of the Pit Head structure and tag it as a 'mineshaft'. The Pit Head should be mapped separately as a building and this should be made clear. 4. The term Headframe is used to describe a Pit Head, which is confusing. More problems with language use. Pit Head appears to be the correct term for the building or structure. Jason 2009/10/20 Lesi l...@lesi.is-a-geek.net Hello, based on an old (abandoned) proposal and on a discussion in the German board I have created a new proposal for tagging mineshafts: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mineshaft In addition to this proposal I would like to discuss the tag resource. In my proposal resource is used to describe what is mined for with the mineshaft. These resources are the same that can be used in a power plant, but there they are tagged as power source. It's the same with pumping_rig and pipelines, where this resources are tagged as type. What do you think about standardizing this and replacing all this different tags with one: resource? lesi ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] good news: shapefile usage of ramsar sites for openstreetmap.org
2009/9/22 Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk I am sorry, but I don't understand. Roman references an email from the communications officer of Ramsar, and you are worried? You say the sites in U.K. have probably been mapped by BOS? What kind of authority do you represent to convince us that your concerns should be ours as well? I dont know how to answer this authority question, it does not seem relevant to openstreetmap, or the point I raised. No one in the in the OpenStreetMap community has authority. My interest in OSM is not mapping of streets, its the mapping of wildlife sites and habitat, which includes Ramsar sites. In the UK we have very limited access to maps of wildlife sites. Google is only interested in streets. Maps we do have are owned by Ordnance Survey which restricts use. Local Groups that commonly manage wildlife sites in the UK usually can not afford to pay Ordnance Survey. UK authorities use Ordnance Survey for preparing maps of their Nature Conservation data, and I know that use of this data is restricted by copyright. The data for the UK Ramsar sites will have come from JNCC, and its clear from looking at the JNCC site (which holds data in the UK) that the mapping data is derived from OS maps. In fact you can directly download the data prepared for European Bodies from the website, but with restrictions due to it being derived from OS maps. I am hoping that JNCC has had to enter into a contract with OS to allow them to submit the data to various European bodies without copyright restrictions. If so this is an important set of data for UK users, we have access to up-to-date OS data without copyright restrictions. But I, and I assume a lot of UK users of OSM would be surprised if the data had been supplied to the European bodies without some form of restriction. This is not based on Authority as you put it, but on years of experience of how OS works. In fact OpenStreetMap was created, in large part, as a response to the copyright attitude of OS. I would counter that the British government -- if they indeed stood for the measurements of the data -- has probably signed copyright over to the Ramsar organization. The British Government (or JNCC) would have to buy the 'copyright' for this data. This British Government has little interest in wildlife in the UK, it definitely has no 'measurable' interest in supporting European Bodies involved with wildlife. They are constantly loosing court cases in Europe and I wouldn't be surprised if they had handed over the data with restrictions, despite having an agreement to provide the data with no restrictions. To repeat, I am not saying the data must not be used, I am simply raising an issue because I think there may be a problem. I don't trust the British Government and OS. I would genuinely surprised (and pleased) if JNCC had paid OS to remove copyright. I also look forward to seeing Ramsar sites added. Jason user:jamicu ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] good news: shapefile usage of ramsar sites for openstreetmap.org
I am worried there might be some copyright issues The sites within the UK will probably have been mapped using the British Ordnance Survey, and therefore should have copyright restrictions. A quick internet search shows that data is available to download in the UK, but with some conditions(?). http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/gis_data/terms_conditions.asp I think the status of the data needs to be very carefully checked. Jason user:jamicu 2009/9/22 Roman Neumüller r.neumul...@gmail.com Good news: we can use the shapefiles of wetland.org (1)! :D Roman (1) http://ramsar.wetlands.org/GISMaps/DownloadGISdatasets/tabid/769/language/en-US/Default.aspx --- Forwarded message --- From: PECK Dwight p...@ramsar.org To: Roman Neumüller em...@katpatuka.org Cc: stephan.fl...@wetlands.org stephan.fl...@wetlands.org Subject: RE: RE: shapefile usage of ramsar sites for openstreetmap.org Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:06 +0300 Greetings, many thanks for your message. As far as we are concerned, we consider all of the Ramsar site data and products, including those that Wetlands International prepares for us, to be in the public domain. We only ask that the use of any data should be dated so that users can judge the currency and accuracy. Best regards, Dwight Peck. ** Dwight Peck Communications Officer Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Gland, Switzerland p...@ramsar.org, www.ramsar.org -Original Message- From: Roman Neumüller [mailto:em...@katpatuka.org] Sent: 22 September 2009 10:15 To: Ramsar Mailbox Subject: Fwd: RE: shapefile usage of ramsar sites for openstreetmap.org Hello, I contacted Stephan Flink from wetlands.org to ask if openstreetmap.org could make use of their shapefiles of Ramsar sites under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license. He adviced me to ask the Ramsar Secretariat to confirm that there are no restriction to use this data (see correspondence below). Please let me know if there are any legal restrictions in using the data. Greetings Roman Neumüller --- Forwarded message --- From: Flink, Stephan stephan.fl...@wetlands.org To: Roman Neumüller em...@katpatuka.org Cc: Subject: RE: shapefile usage for openstreetmap.org Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:52:33 +0300 Dear Roman, I'm not aware of any legal restrictions to display the shapefiles in OSM other than the following ToU (http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Home/tabid/719/ctl/Terms/Default.aspx). As Wetlands International is the caretaker of all Ramsar Site information and the ownership of the data lies with the Ramsar Secretariat in Switzerland (ram...@ramsar.orgmailto:ram...@ramsar.org), I suggest contacting the Secretariat to ensure that this is indeed the case. Best wishes, Stephan Flink -Original Message- From: Roman Neumüller [mailto:em...@katpatuka.org] Sent: vrijdag 18 september 2009 16:14 To: Flink, Stephan Subject: RFI: shapefile usage for openstreetmap.org Hello Stephan, I see that I can download shapefiles of Ramsar sites from wetlands.org. Are there any legal restrictions for conversion and usage of these shapefiles under the wiki map project http://openstreetmap.org (OSM)? OSM's content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license... Greetings Roman Neumüller ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] how to map this? cycleway or footpath?
And I would be tempted to tag it highway=footway graffiti=yes I am beginning to think cycleway gets added by eager cyclists far more often than should really happen. Jason Cunningham user:jamicu 2009/9/10 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:59 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: I don't really want to get into this argument again, but I believe that either we're going to end up with local rules for the access mappings, or some regions are going to have to tag every single cycleway/footway with overrides. There is another option: The characteristics of *paths* should be tagged only as they exist *on the ground* - that is, surface, width, lanes, *signage*. Local laws should be known by the locals (and tourists should use the I'm a tourist, Officer + but the sign didn't say I couldn't X here excuse). I know this is probably controversial, but I think it is one way to define the scope to avoid some problems, and also enforces verifiability. Personally, I think the former is better because it's a lot less work and there are going to be other things that need local interpretations - such as whether highway=residential should be practically treated as access=destination for the purposes of vehicle routing. Nah, I think access=destination roads should be marked as access=destination (when they are signed as such, as they are in, e.g. Brisbane, Australia). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[Talk-GB] Naptan merging advice on wiki
Hi, I've edited the Naptan merging procedure on the wiki. There has been a lot of discussion but no solid advice given for what we should do. I hope by changing the wiki it might encourage more edits and give people some confidence about what they should be doing. This is important when these bus stops are now appearing all over the UK. Looking at discussions, mainly in Talk_transit, I decided on the following. An imported Naptan node should be merged with the existing bus stop, if present. Get the location correct! therefore we can move the node We should change the name tag to the name on the bus stop We should change the Local_ref to the ref on the bus stop We shouldn't change the tags beginning with Naptan until the community is in agreement on what to do. If tags starting with Naptan are incorrect, we should make a note with the correct information. We can change the naptan:verified tag to yes if we are happy we've verified it. Discussion about merging and use of naptan now belong in the talk_gb group. I've no problem with this advice changing, I've done this to hopefully encourage editing and hopefully see some good advice appear. Jason Cunningham user:jamicu ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Agree here. UK bridleways for instance should have foot=designated; horse=designated; bicycle=designated as all three have equal right. It would be a mistake to assume the horse rights are greater than foot/bicycle; they are not. I would similarly guess the shared foot/cycleways in Germany would be similar, i.e. foot=designated; bicycle=designated. Nick After looking at the British Ramblers Association website today it does not appear cyclists have equal rights on Bridelways. This website give advice on access rights to footpaths etc in the UK, and it says Pedal cyclists have a right to use bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic, but on bridleways they must give way to walkers and riders. Like horse riders, they have no right to use footpaths and if they do so they are committing a trespass against the owner of the land, unless use is by permission (see Q26http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw2.htm#trespass). As with horse-riding (see Q10http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/footpathlaw.htm#horses), use of any right of way by cyclists can be controlled by traffic regulation orders and byelaws imposed by local authorities. Infringement of byelaws or orders is a criminal offence. Under the Highways Act 1835, it is an offence to ride a bicycle on the pavement at the side of a road, and under the Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999 a person who rides on a pavement can be fined on the spot by a police officer. Jason jamicu http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way
Has there been any contact in the past with ramblers groups to help mapping of footpaths in the countryside? We arrange mapping parties but often that involves preaching to converted. I just had a look on the Ramblers Association website and their forum. A quick search shown no mention of openstreetmap, but does mention problems with OS and copyright, and mentiones use of GPSr's. eg. (link 1http://www.ramblers.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=76294highlight=maps#76294) (link2http://www.ramblers.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=72564highlight=maps#72564) (link3http://www.ramblers.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71646highlight=maps#71646) (link4http://www.ramblers.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9931start=0postdays=0postorder=aschighlight=maps) They also have good advice on Public Rights of way and the law (linkhttp://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/footpathlaw/ ) Since they are actively involved in protecting and using these footpaths the organisation or its members might be interested in the OSM project. As I said at the beginning, does anyone know if there has been any contact? If not its something I'd be willing to do since I've finally got a bit of spare time this summer Jason Cunningham user:jamicu http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu 2009/8/14 Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk And just a quick reminder that the NPE edition map is available as on overlay in both JOSM and Potlatch editors David Caution is needed here though. I have an NPE map of the local area which I sometimes use to locate possible rights of way in an area with which I am unfamiliar. In about 80% of the cases, they are indeed rights of way, however there are some false positives. So I'd recommend *not* tagging NPE paths as rights of way unless you can get evidence on the ground. Also there are a good number of rights of way not shown on the NPE map (about half IMX) Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [OSM-talk] A process for rethinking map features
I agree with the working groups idea, but disagree with membership of the OSMF or attending SOTM being a requirement for taking part. (I wont joint the osmf while it has links with paypal) The working group would have to produce a report, and be able to show they had considered all input. The recommendations should be final, and only disputed on grounds that agreed procedure hadn't been followed (for example, where it can be shown that a significant recommendation or input had not been considered) A big problem would be setting up the rules for working groups, and this would probably need a working group. It would be useful to go ahead and try creating a working group as an experiment, with the results used to see what the positives and negatives are. This might be too organised a system for many who like OSM to be anarchic, but I feel it becomes more necessary with each passing day, and especially after reading the discussions on paths/footways and woods/forests. Jason Cunningham user:Jamicu http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jamicu 2009/8/10 Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net Dear all, If the wood/forest and path/footway arguments have taught us one thing, it's that the current model doesn't work all the time (100s of emails, disorganised wiki discussions, votes with 20 or so random people). We develop, over years, one set of tags like highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway/etc. and then over time we realise the schema isn't quite right. But we're incapable of discussing it in a structured manner, and we rarely get a useful consensus. For simple matters like proposing a completely new, minor tag it's fine. Where competing proposals for new features, like house numbers, live side by side we generally find a superior solution gaining traction. Where proposals throw up bigger or more complicated questions about existing tags, used on thousands or even millions of nodes and ways, the whole thing is falling apart. So... I propose that we grow up a little and use something like this process: - Tags are proposed on the wiki, no change to current practice - If the proposal throws into question existing, accepted tags, defer the proposal to small working groups - These working groups study the wider questions and formulate a complete proposal for new tags, deprecation, etc. - At SOTM present and discuss their proposals and vote - If proposals are accepted, a combination of carrot (rendering stylesheets, Potlatch presets, etc.) and sticks (error checking, auto-correcting bots) to implement the accepted proposals So for example Nick Whitelegg and Martin Simon might lead a group to work out how best to tag paths of all kinds. If their proposal was accepted at SOTM 2010, somebody would create a map highlighting all the ways that probably need to be corrected and a massive effort to bring things in line with the new schema would kick off. Does this sound workable? Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ...
You cant confidently split trees into two groups, although Ordnance Survey have tried to. I believe in the future there will be a desire to give areas of woodland a tag that describes the type of woodland. But there is not rush and Evergreen, Deciduous and Mixed seem like a safe start Jason Cunningham 2009/8/8 Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com Sympathy from a pom! Deciduous and evergreen are orthogonal. Coniferous is not even quite a sub-set of evergreen as there are a few deciduous conifers, e.g. larch. So OSM to use evergreen vs. deciduous and show its innate superiority to OS? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Liz [mailto:ed...@billiau.net] Sent: 22 July 2009 21:38 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ... On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Alice Kaerast wrote: There is also another property which hasn't been considered - type of trees. Evergreen vs. Deciduous might be nice to know. Ordnance survey maps differentiate between coniferous and non-coniferous and has symbols for coppice and orchard. Another Venn diagram problem. Our trees are neither coniferous or deciduous, and the alternate is mixed Liz living in country covered in mallee, casuarina and occasional eucalypt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Earth equivalent for Openstreetmap
Try the following website. http://wtp2.appspot.com/wheresthepath.htm It opens showing UK Ordinance Survey and Google maps side by side, but a drop down list allows you to choose Mapnik only. You can then use site to create a path. Click on the ? for instructions. Not to sure if I needed to used babel to convert a route to a path after using the site. Cheers jason 2009/6/9 Tanveer Singh tanveer1...@gmail.com Sometimes when I have to plan a route, I can simple open the city in google-earth, and then draw a path, and save it as kml, and then convert it to the format my GPS understands. So In GPS I just have to load the track and follow it. Is there a similar software in openstreetmap which downloads openstreetmap data, allows me to create a track based on that. I am not interested in ariel imagery, just the map. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] best GPS for trekking
2009/4/16 Karl Newman siliconfi...@gmail.com On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Igor Brejc igor.br...@gmail.com wrote: Lambertus wrote: Igor Brejc wrote: I think 5 sec interval when walking is quite enough - realistically that's less than 7 m of distance between two points. The problem with Garmins (at least eTrex) is that they only really use unit's internal RAM for storing tracks and they store up to 10,000 points there. When storing tracks on SD cards, Garmins do a lot of simplifying, so the tracks end up being useless. This is not the case with Vista HCx and 60CSx when the settings are correct: In the track menu goto Setup - Enable the Wrap When Full option Goto Data Card Setup menu - Enable Log Track To Data Card option Now you can log the raw trackpoints to the SD-card practically forever. You're right - I've just compared the GPX from the internal memory (Vista Cx) with the one from the SD card and they seem to be exactly the same. Hmmm I'm SURE I viewed these a way back and they were all mangled You learn new things every day. Igor If you save your internal track, it simplifies (mangles) it. But the track on the card will always have the original data. Karl I only realised last week the importance of setting up the Garmin GPSmap 60C(S)x to save gpx to the SD Card. They appear to be more accurate and have time stamps retained. It only took me a year to work out that files saved to the RAM were edited! And with a 2GB sd card I can let a huge amount of tracks build up before worrying about editing. The GPSmap 60C(S)x is a very rugged model, which is something take into account. As regards batteries, I guess you should experiment before you head off and decide whether its easier to carry a lbox of batteries or recharger. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] xybot
Regarding The Bot. An excellent tool to to correct spelling errors (brigde to bridge), but it must stay clear of tagging blunders. A Bot can have no idea whether Landuse=Wood should be Landuse=Forest or Natural=Wood, and therefore should stay clear, but could add something like a note so local users can check. I think very few of the mapping pairs should be changed using a bot. The Bot changes Natural=Meadow to Landuse=Meadow. User:Class Augenr has added Landuse=Meadow to Map Features with the justification it is used by Mapnik. We dont tag for the renderer, and therefore a Bot definitely should not edit for a renderer. Regarding Landuse Natural. It's clear people are confused. I find the whole concept of Landuse=* confusing, because all land has a use. Many area tags could come under Landuse. Why do we have Landuse=Recreation_Ground, and Leisure=Nature_Reserve? A recreation ground is an area set aside for public leisure, many Nature Reserves ban people from entering and are a Landuse Designation. Regarding Wood Forest. I've more interest in mapping natural habitat than any street. A lot of my time is spent working in Woodland and I find it very frustrating to see Woodland separated with two tags which give poor consideration to meaning or use. Its clear in the UK these two unique definitions for Woodland are being ignored, which is significant when we have a soft convention that we should try to use British English when defining tags. I've tried to track back and find how these two unique and confusing definitions for Woodland came about, and it seems to lead to the talk-de list (I cant be sure though). Its something I'd like to try and sort out in the summer with a new Woodland=* tag, but its looks like I'll ironically be too busy working in Woodland. In the meantime it appears I can simply edit the wiki definitions for Wood and Forest. Jason user:Jamicu ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] licence plan - Question about supplying own data
Hi All I've read through a bundle of licence emails, and there is one aspect that worries me, which hopefully someone can clarify. From my understanding (and I dont speak legalese), under the CCBYSA license you can take OSM data, create a derived work and distribute it. But, you had to let people know you where using OSM data, you had make it clear that other people where allowed to use your derived work to make further derived work and the CCBYSA licence must apply to their work. But its turned out this license may not be enforcable. A new licence has been proposed that is enforcable, but adds a significant new obligation to people/groups creating derived works. Looking through advice regarding the new or proposed licence in the wiki I have come across the following which I am worried about and wish to clarify (which I quote below) 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ requires those that combine our data with their own data will have to give the latter to OSM. This means *we get more open data*. 2. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases *Section 4.3 also requires that the notice include information regarding where the user can obtain a copy of the Database or Derivative Database.* So it appears under the new licence when I create a map using OSM and add my own data (derived work), I have to make my data available to OSM. This leads on to a couple of questions. *Questions* 1. *The main question*. Do I (any one else affected) have to actually send my data to OSM, or, make sure its available (via an emailed file (if requested) or as a download on a website), or, am I simply giving the right for OSM to to take the derived work and copy/extract all data. 2. I am not entirely happy about making people/groups supply their data to OSM if they wish to create derived work. I agree with the original principle within the CCBYSA, that the derived work had to be CCBYSA. But I feel demanding that individual/groups make the data available puts a burden on some people they can not meet, or will not be acceptable. eg - (extreme example?) A group of 8 year old kids spend a day in a local park mapping out locations where they find butterflies. They map this information using an OSM map and stick a copy on their local parks noticeboard. Surely they shouldn't be made to make this data available to OSM? Its not worth the bother for them (or OSM) - A wildlife group wishes to map the location of endangered species. Lacking money, OSM seems like a good resource, but they* *can not supply the data and therefore the location of protected species to OSM. So they can not use OSM and have to spend money on another map? I started supplying data to OSM in the belief I was creating map data that was free and could easily be used by everyone. This can not be achieved if the burden of using OSm data is greater than the benefit. Cheers Jason * * ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link
I'm still a relative newbie, and am confused about how this could get added to the Mapping Features. I guess like a lot of people I joined the osm community then immediately started mapping stuff in my local area. In the last few weeks I've tried to learn a bit more by reading emails sent to the lists, and by reading the wiki. I've come to the conclusion that OSM is inherently anarchic. But, although everyone is allowed to add their own tags when mapping, the community is building up an agreed set of Mapping Features on the mapping features page, via drafts, proposals and voting. But it appears this feature was added to mapping features without a draft, proposal or voting. If this is the case the feature should be removed then added after correct procedure has been followed? Bots in my limited knowledge seems unacceptable. Surely a bot should also have to go through some sort of approval process before being unleashed? Then again, I assume someone will answer with the following The first rule of OSM, is that there are no rules. (If it has been approved or I've not understood a procedure, then the mapping features page needs to make things clearer) Jason 2009/3/2 Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com I've just added it to the wiki, and since it's transcluded on Map Features, the wiki promptly went down on saving. Hope it comes back up soon... 2009/3/2 Andrew Chadwick (email lists) andrewc-email-li...@piffle.org: Tom Hughes wrote: Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean people should go round removing it! Though the tag should probably be documented too, for the avoidance of future errors amongst those who attach undue meaning to lack of documentation, and too little importance to the spirit of [[Any tags you like]] and the nature of other people's data :( -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
