Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 20/09/2018 18:37, Adam Snape wrote: Hi, If these boundaries were purely of historical interest I doubt that you'd find many experienced contributors arguing for their inclusion in OSM. The argument is that these areas retain a continued cultural geographic relevance. No, they don't.

Re: [OSM-talk] Waterway rel with mix of line & poly

On 21/09/2018 00:31, Warin wrote: On 21/09/18 06:11, Jem wrote: Thank you both. That's very helpful. On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 22:25, Dave F <mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote: Hi Short answer: Yes There's a few problems here: Relations should no

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths: lagginess in Firefox 62.0 - use Chrome for now

Can confirm. It's also occurring in Overpass Turbo. An alternative to using Chrome is to: Download an older version of Firefox from FileHippo https://filehippo.com/download_firefox_64/ In your current FIrefox turn off auto updates Options>General (Scroll Down) Uninstall Firefox Load old

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 19/09/2018 23:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: It still is one today. So there's no problem, then. So: Historic counties can and often do represent genuine, attested, useful geographic information. If you're proposing to delete them, you need to come up with a

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 20/09/2018 13:24, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-09-20 14:12, Dave F wrote: See the OSM Welcome page. Quoting the law does not make a person guilty. Misunderstanding 'the law' doesn't prove 'innocence'. If it were that simple these boundaries would have been removed long ago. Being

Re: [OSM-talk] Waterway rel with mix of line & poly

Hi Short answer: Yes There's a few problems here: Relations should not be used to collect thing together. There shouldn't be tags on the ways which conflict with those in the relations MP relations require a 'type' tags and 'inners' & 'outers' roles In this case the Southern section

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

See the OSM Welcome page. On 20/09/2018 13:00, Martin Wynne wrote: The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't be verified on the ground. No, Martyn. It's that they are not current. Make up your minds! Previously: > > On 09/19/2018 06:38 PM, Martin Wynne wrote:

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Sure (green tick): https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome On 20/09/2018 12:52, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-09-20 13:22, Dave F wrote: As I noted previously, many discussions have been had & a decision made. The discussion is clearly ongoing Could you point me to the "decisio

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 20/09/2018 12:07, Martin Wynne wrote: The argument against the historic county boundaries is that they can't be verified on the ground. No, Martyn. It's that they are not current. Current boundaries aren't visible on the ground either. No one's painted dashed lines across the fields,

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 20/09/2018 11:57, Dan S wrote: Poohsticks. (How did the conversation get to this...) OSM threads *always* go off track, often from the first reply. Could we all please /try/ to keep on topic, or start a new thread? Cheers DaveF ___ Talk-GB

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Hi all. There's appears to be a misguided belief this hasn't been discussed previously. It has, numerous times, and the consensus of those who took part was so clear it's now included in the first page every new users sees. I feel there is nothing to discuss/vote on as it all been said &

Re: [OSM-talk] 46 errors on OSM

Hi As OSM is a 'DIY' contribution project, here you go: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=17/59.91777/10.80644 There's a help icon on the right hand side with a walk through on how to detail buildings Cheers DaveF On 04/09/2018 11:25, Stadia Arcadia wrote: Hi, I found some

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

On 29/08/2018 20:32, Toby Speight wrote: I consider it a "niche" that wants them hidden. The vast, vast majority are hidden on the ground. I don't see that we have to mis-tag them all to have them hidden - I can see it would be useful to have a map with less clutter, but it shouldn't be

Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

On 29/08/2018 20:35, Toby Speight wrote: Wou> ... GB doesn't include Northern Ireland, ... Even in these days of Brexit, I don't think there's any movement for Northern Ireland to leave GB. You've been misinformed! Sorry Toby, but it's you who's been misinformed.

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

On 29/08/2018 20:44, Toby Speight wrote: 0> In article , 0> Dave F. mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> ("Dave") wrote: Dave> Point about OSM wiki: IMO giving multiple options for the same Dave> entity leads to confusion & errors so should be avoided. That's exa

Re: [Talk-GB] Some leisure=track not rendering

Hi Hmm.. strange. Note Cycle Map does still render Check here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/compare/v4.10.0...v4.13.0 Raise a query here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues Cheers DaveF On 28/08/2018 18:48, jc...@mail.com wrote: Has there been a

Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

On 28/08/2018 20:24, Brian Prangle wrote:  I suggest at the very least that the change is reverted for NI. I wish people would read before putting their hands anywhere near a keyboard. DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

Hi Toby You've been given the link to the previous discussions, which explains the reasons. What is your objection to the reasons given for this amendment? The wiki is a guide, not the law. It hasn't been updated yet as you & others still wish to discuss the situation. If it had, I suspect

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

Hi Adam On 28/08/2018 08:35, Adam Snape wrote: The UK tagging guidelines have always advised against using the ref tag: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines although you'll notice from that there's still no overall agreement on exactly which other tag to

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Hi To repeat, They do exist, but only as a record of old data, not current. just as there's a record of Humberside & Avon. That they don't get altered is irrelevant. I disagree about their legality. DaveF On 26/08/2018 23:01, Adam Snape wrote: Hi, Both Colin and Dave have repeated the

Re: [Talk-GB] When is a hedge a wood?

When someone's appearance is still presentable after being dragged backwards through one. DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 26/08/2018 21:47, Adam Snape wrote: On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 21:20 Mark Goodge, > wrote: I think it's slightly unfortunate that OSM uses the tag 'historic' for something that's different to what we are discussing here. As well as being

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

mailto:andrewdbl...@googlemail.com>> wrote: I agree with Dave F " It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant. They add no quality to the databas

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

No, it's hasn't been acquiesced. It's still historic data, irrelevant to OSM. They are neither "current or real". That they will "never change" is irrelevant. They add no quality to the database.They should be removed. DaveF On 26/08/2018 11:46, Colin Smale wrote: It has gone all quiet

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.13.0

I know, which is why I removed you from c/c. On 17/08/2018 18:49, Dave F wrote: Thanks for letting us know. Wasted half an hour checking it wasn't just me & providing examples. How about not posting until it's been deployed in future? DaveF On 17/08/2018 18:35, Tom Hughes w

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.13.0

ades to the rendering stack. The 4.14.0 has just been pushed and should go live over the weekend. Tom On 17/08/18 18:25, Dave F wrote: Hi Are any of these icons displaying? For me, charity & houseware are still dots & casino is only rendering the name. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418385072#map

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.13.0

Hi Are any of these icons displaying? For me, charity & houseware are still dots & casino is only rendering the name. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418385072#map=19/51.49491/-0.13207 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/349935002#map=19/51.51279/-0.13030 Casino as node doesn't display icon

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

On 16/08/2018 16:00, David Woolley wrote: I thought that we were heading towards indicating whether the reference was signed, but keeping the reference. The reference is kept. It's being transferred from multiple different keys (listed in my OP) to just one. One of the thing on my to-do

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

On 16/08/2018 14:45, webmas...@killyfole.org.uk wrote: Hi, I am a bit surprised that an editing war or even a block would even be considered in this case! Err?... I clearly said that what I *don't* want. DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

into an edit war & believe blocking is a last resort, would it be possible if a couple of others attempt to help him understand the reasons. Cheers DaveF On 04/08/2018 00:47, Dave F wrote: Hi After many discussions over the years about the referencing of 'C' class roads there appe

Re: [Talk-GB] Royal Mail trialling 'parcel' post boxes

I wonder if, like South West ambulances with defibrillators, they believe the public knowing their locations is a security risk. DaveF On 13/08/2018 14:00, Philip Barnes wrote: Interesting, but cannot see any locations to use as survey hints. Although I can guess at one or two in

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Hi On 10/08/2018 12:05, John Aldridge wrote: I *generally* agree with your principle of 'only mapping what is on the ground', but if we followed that strictly we wouldn't map current administrative boundaries either. That isn't the correct mantra. "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 08/08/2018 13:54, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-08-08 14:17, Dave F wrote: Hi On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote: If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, at least these relations would have a verifiable source. https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Hi On 08/08/2018 12:14, Colin Smale wrote: The OS publish boundaries for historic counties, so one could say these boundaries are the current boundaries for the historic counties. To me that's an oxymoron. If this (probably completely static) dataset is used as a baseline, at least

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On 08/08/2018 12:05, Lester Caine wrote: On 08/08/18 10:56, Dave F wrote: On 08/08/2018 09:54, Lester Caine wrote: we are now in a situation where much accurately mapped material is simply dumped when there is a change to the current situation. 1. it's not dumped, it's still

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Hi On 08/08/2018 09:54, Lester Caine wrote: we are now in a situation where much accurately mapped material is simply dumped when there is a change to the current situation. 1. it's not dumped, it's still in the database as a historic version. 2. Changes almost always increase the accuracy &

[Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Hi User smb1001 is currently adding county boundary relations with boundary=historic through out the UK: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ASf (May take a while to run) Changeset discussion: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/61410203 From the historic wiki page "historic objects should not be

Re: [OSM-talk] Paper/Article about stagnation in OSM

Hi I didn't read this article. I went out & mapped instead. DaveF On 31/07/2018 22:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, I don't necessarily agree with all that's been written but I found http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053951718790591 an interesting read: "The social construction of

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

Hi On 04/08/2018 03:03, webmas...@killyfole.org.uk wrote: I don't understand the logic of doing this? Surely we map for what is there on the ground, not how it renders? The vast majority of 'C roads aren't signed on the ground. There's a feeling that those that are maybe old signs & when

Re: [Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

On 04/08/2018 09:55, David Woolley wrote: On 04/08/18 00:47, Dave F wrote: After many discussions over the years about the referencing of 'C' class roads there appeared to be a general consensus to keep them in the database but provide a unique tag to allow them not to be rendered. I

[Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

Hi After many discussions over the years about the referencing of 'C' class roads there appeared to be a general consensus to keep them in the database but provide a unique tag to allow them not to be rendered. This is a list of the discussions (there maybe others):

Re: [Talk-GB] Closed Footpaths

On 31/07/2018 16:58, Adam Snape wrote: My personal convention for temporary closures is to add access=no. This is what I've done in the past, although some users feel access=* isn't the top level in the hierarchy of restrictions, & is usurped by foot=designated. DaveF.

Re: [OSM-talk] User deleting abandoned and rejected proposals on the wiki

Hi Unsure what Adam's precise error has been (User Page = TL;DR), but giving the wiki a spring clean seems like good idea. Asking the admin to remove old pages is the correct way to do it. Has he deleted any himself? How has making it clear that they're not current pages "made it difficult

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths update - GB1900 footpath locations

Hi Can I please urge caution if using this feature. GPS traces are rarely accurate enough in their raw state to be included directly. Dense woods, deep valleys & solar winds etc will all introduce errors into the traces & walkers will often wander 'off-piste' when crossing fields. Using an

Re: [Talk-GB] Missing long distance footpath relation

Jerry's OP query also contains the ways, so if you up load them you could be duplicating them. Have you used the 'revert changeset' JOSM plugin? It works well. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Reverter It retains the history of the relations edits DaveF On 27/07/2018 12:56,

Re: [Talk-GB] Missing long distance footpath relation

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/75266 found via: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_long_distance_paths#.27C.27 Cheers DaveF On 27/07/2018 12:09, Brian Prangle wrote: The relation for the Centenary Way in Warwickshire has disappeared. How do I trace which changeset

Re: [Talk-GB] University of Northampton new campus - mapper required

On 13/07/2018 23:26, Dan S wrote: I hope this is not too much of a side-issue, but: one hopeful request - plase don't use amenity=university for each object in the campus, as was done for some other universities. Indeed. I wouldn't use Oxford as an example. I *definitely* wouldn't look

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Hi On 03/07/2018 13:27, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 03.07.2018 14:21, Dave F wrote: it should be updated when the object is touched individually anyway, thus not spoiling the history There's no difference doing it that way or with a bulk edit  - it will still be recorded in the history

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03/07/2018 12:33, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 03.07.2018 12:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Not skill but knowledge - that fixme and FIXME have exactly the same meaning > I hoped that that in this case there will be no controversy at all and this minor duplication On 03.07.2018 12:52, Dav

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

On 03/07/2018 12:35, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 03.07.2018 13:22, Dave F wrote: Great, but why the objection to a mechanical edit, rather than individually? Doing it one by one still updates the last_modified attribute. it should be updated when the object is touched individually anyway, thus

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Hi Maarten On 03/07/2018 10:38, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2018-07-03 11:23, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 3. Lipiec 2018 10:36 od md...@xs4all.nl: What will prevent users from adding FIXME tags in the future? Nothing, users may add any tags. It is impossible to change that by edits. Then the

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Hi Michael... On 03/07/2018 00:23, Michael Reichert wrote: Hi Mateusz, Am 02.07.2018 um 19:42 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: Please comment - especially if there are any problems with this idea. Please also comment if you support this edit, in case of no response at all edit will not be made as

Re: [OSM-talk] proposed mechanical edit - moving FIXME=* to fixme=*

Hi You beat me to it! I haven't read the whole thread. I came across this irritating anomaly last week & thought it would be good to update. That there are entities with both variations indicates a problem within the database & is not a valid reason to not amend. All the editors need to be

Re: [Talk-GB] Local names of bits of trunk roads

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#loc_name DaveF On 25/06/2018 14:13, Stuart Reynolds wrote: local road names ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] House of Fraser

BBC: "If the plan is approved (by) 75% of its creditors" I think your OSM time is better spent updating/adding shop details that are concrete: Postcodes, full addresses, the one marked as vacant, but has been trading as a pop candle shop for the last eighteen months. And you know... the

[Talk-gb-london] Overpass routine to return London underground stations (All 270)

Hi This post is specifically about rail transport in London. Is there a better forum for this post? I've been retagging buildings associated with railways to 'building=train_station', as per the wiki[1]. They were previously tagged variously as 'station', 'railway_station' &

[Talk-transit] Four queries relating to rail transport

Hi Whilst tidying up UK railway stations so buildings were tagged as 'train_station', I've come across some points which I don't understand. Could someone help clarify? * Is station=subway used to indicate a station that's part of a specific network or if it's physically subterranean?

Re: [Talk-GB] Railway Platforms - Covered=yes are not shown in latest rendering

I think Carto & anyone who added it to underground metro stations have misinterpreted the 'covered' tag. As it's not the whole length of the platform, you could add a building=roof polygon. Shelters, bins, benches etc are better mapped as individual nodes at their locations, rather than

Re: [Talk-GB] Corrections for Ewelme, Oxfordshire

Hi Ewelme resident. OpenStreetMap is a public crowdsourced venture, where people often start adding data to the map for the area which is local to them. With your 43 years of knowledge you make the ideal person to improve the map for Ewelme & it's surrounds. It's easy to get going, just

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

anks, *Rob* On Wed, 9 May 2018 at 23:37, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com <mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote: Hi I'm probably missing something. As we have current data on prowmaps.co.uk <http://prowmaps.co.uk>, will using such old data have any value/accu

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

Hi I'm probably missing something. As we have current data on prowmaps.co.uk, will using such old data have any value/accuracy? DaveF. On 09/05/2018 21:13, Rob Nickerson wrote: Hi Just posted a "challenge" to Loomio for anyone who is interested. It's a bit beyond me so thought I'd post it

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

Is there a tag being used to add these to OSM? On 08/05/2018 13:14, David Woolley wrote: On 08/05/18 13:10, Dave F wrote: I've changed over to using disused:shop=* as it keeps the use of the shop in the tag. Due to shop classifications they often reopen with businesses of a similar nature

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

On 07/05/2018 20:27, Brian Prangle wrote: The answer to the question I posed originally seems to be either  "never" or "immediately". Maplin I understand waiting some more time for the liquidation process to complete. For clarity the mechanical edit would be shop=vacant and previous_name=

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

I concur with this. I'd much rather have an up to date map. Part of OSM's USP is its quick turnarounds. I disagree with Frederik's claim that changing one entity would "destroy the valuable information that this general area of the map hasn't been updated". It seems perverse to want to

[Talk-GB] A few too many icons at The Tower of London

Hi In the latest OSM-Carto upgrade an icon was added for historic=castle. Which highlights a bit of a problem with the tagging of The Tower of London (1) The walls are split individually as the turrets have names. Most of those tags are duplicated with an building=castle.  I think there

Re: [OSM-talk] New wave of Pokémon Go mappers – check the parks

FYI way[recreation_ground]; uses recreation_ground as the key, not the value. So leisure=recreation_ground etc won't be returned DaveF. On 25/04/2018 07:45, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 25. Apr 2018 06:17 by roland.olbri...@gmx.de : Thus, I suggest the

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM AGM and notification

On 14/04/2018 14:16, SK53 wrote: Hi Tony, The weekly OSM newsletter is global so I'm not sure that it would make a specific feature of an AGM in a single country. The 'upcoming events' section seems an ideal place to advertise AGMs. DaveF

Re: [Talk-GB] recent School ref:edubase update

On 13/03/2018 13:57, Mark Goodge wrote: I think you'll find that the displayed names are the official ones, and hence the same as in Edubase. But that's the problem. They're not the same. I've just checked all the schools that I'm personally familiar with in my area, and the name shown

[Talk-GB] recent School ref:edubase update

Hi Robert Whittaker has recently performed an edit across England & Wales to update Schools ref:edubase code. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57034975 As well as the reference, he's amended some of the names in OSM as listed in the database. I think this is wrong. Similar to shops &

Re: [OSM-talk] OSM SPAM detector

Struggling to understand this If users are expected to send you changeset ids, how does it "detect spam"? In what way are users informed of spammy changesets? DaveF On 05/03/2018 14:06, Jason Remillard wrote: Hi, This weekend I put together a SPAM detector for OSM changesets.

Re: [OSM-talk] Donation from the Pineapple Fund

I've very little knowledge or even interest in Bitcoin, but was it converted into hard currency? If not, is it worth much now? DaveF On 05/03/2018 03:15, Daniel Koć wrote: Hi, You might remember news about big bitcoin donation from the Pineapple Fund:

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

On 15/02/2018 08:52, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 14.02.2018 17:39, Dave F wrote: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5408566797 It appears that you already engage in an edit war, although half a dozen people here tell you, from a variety of perspectives, that you are wrong. https

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

On 15/02/2018 09:11, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Especially, as from looking at aerial images it is clear that these roads are not entering/leaving at the same point. It's very poor mapping to assume aerial imagery is current. DaveF ___ talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

If I'm judging the angles correctly, OsmAnd will not even announce that intersection: the angle between Wapping and Commercial is shallow enough that OsmAnd sees it as a single road, while the angle between Wapping and the roundabout is sharp enough to not require a "keep left" instruction.

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

On 14/02/2018 20:19, Matej Lieskovský wrote: If two ways enter a roundabout at the same point, you can turn from road A into road B instantly, but going from B to A will require going around the entire roundabout. For a router to detect this, it would have to check (for every encountered

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

On 15/02/2018 10:05, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2018-02-14 19:39, Dave F wrote: On 14/02/2018 18:23, Johan C wrote: No, they are not. Roundabouts are special types of intersections.  Which is another type of intersection. They have a way on which you can drive round. And round. And round

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

On 15/02/2018 09:33, Andy Townsend wrote: On 14/02/2018 18:57, Dave F wrote: On 14/02/2018 18:32, Andy Townsend wrote: Having one exit node not joined to the next entry node better represents the real-world situation*. Disagree. Sharing a node should make no difference to the real world

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

On 14/02/2018 18:32, Andy Townsend wrote: Having one exit node not joined to the next entry node better represents the real-world situation*. Disagree. Sharing a node should make no difference to the real world or a router's perception of it. DaveF.

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

It doesn't work like that anywhere in OSM. I can cross a road that I'm not allowed to drive on. The router does not need to know anything about the road that I'm crossing and I can always cross a road that I'm not allowed to enter. It would make mapping extremely awkward if that were not so.

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

On 14/02/2018 18:23, Johan C wrote: No, they are not. Roundabouts are special types of intersections. Which is another type of intersection. They have a way on which you can drive round. And round. And round. And they have other ways leading to and from this round way. Whenever you enter the

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

On 14/02/2018 17:13, Maarten Deen wrote: On 2018-02-14 17:39, Dave F wrote: I think I have read it correctly. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5408566797 It is easy to determine this shared node is part of the roundabout as well as the entrance from Wapping & can exit along Commer

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

d not have to map incorrectly to suit these data users DaveF. On 2018-02-14 17:39, Dave F wrote: I think I have read it correctly. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5408566797 It is easy to determine this shared node is part of the roundabout as well as the entrance from Wapping &

Re: [OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

02-14 15:53, Dave F wrote: Hi Could anyone give me an explanation for this line from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction=roundabout "Each road has to be connected with the roundabout in a separate node—that is, between these nodes a segment of the roundabout is required." I

[OSM-talk] Roundabouts - why is a separate segment required?

Hi Could anyone give me an explanation for this line from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction=roundabout "Each road has to be connected with the roundabout in a separate node—that is, between these nodes a segment of the roundabout is required." I see no requirement for a

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Government Boundary Commission for England license?

responsibility, such as parish boundaries described in Community Governance Reviews carried out by local authorities. On 2018-02-08 15:08, Dave F wrote: Hi I've received some proposed boundary data from Local Government Boundary Commission for England (No, I am *not* going to add it to OSM

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS info when pub has been taken over.

On 21/01/2018 12:09, Philip Barnes wrote: rarely accepted by the locals,... loc_name DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS info when pub has been taken over.

Bearing in mind OSM isn't a historical database, how far back should we go with old:? DaveF On 20/01/2018 23:18, Warin wrote: On 21-Jan-18 09:46 AM, Colin Spiller wrote: I have similar near here. Keep the address at least! Remove the fhrs:I'd seems sensible. old:name would seam sensible

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS info when pub has been taken over.

Has it been removed from your local authority's list? I've been prefixing them with disused: as the fhrs:id will be probably be updated after a new review. I found keeping the old one was useful as a checking reference. I've also compiled a list of disused: objects to send to my LA's hygiene

Re: [OSM-talk] place=hamlet in cities

On 18/01/2018 00:34, Mike N wrote: On 1/17/2018 6:53 PM, Dave F wrote: Have you been in contact with the two contributors to see if they can revoke/reupload? I presume it came from a database. If it's still available it can be amended as required. At this point it would be much better

Re: [OSM-talk] place=hamlet in cities

Have you been in contact with the two contributors to see if they can revoke/reupload? I presume it came from a database. If it's still available it can be amended as required. DaveF On 17/01/2018 23:33, Kevin Broderick wrote: In Annapolis, Maryland, for instance:

Re: [OSM-talk] How to teach novices about optimal changeset size?

This a purely an iD problem. It should be down to their core programmers to sort it out. We should be encouraging users, especially newbies, to save frequently. Potlatch does this without the problem of numerous changesets. DaveF On 17/01/2018 13:26, Michał Brzozowski wrote: Many new users

Re: [Talk-GB] Heads up: Please check recent edits by this user...

On 12/01/2018 18:07, Frederik Ramm wrote: This is something that any routing engine for a road network must do Never quite understood the logic for this splitting. When a router traversing a way encounters a node it does a check to see if other ways are connected, If they are, it analyses

Re: [OSM-talk] shop windows on differnt streets

On 30/12/2017 14:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: they might have several addresses, but won’t be using more than one in their communication, typically. There's the answer to the question. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-talk] shop windows on differnt streets

On 30/12/2017 08:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: entrances and _potential_ entrances In OSM we map what's there, not "potential" each window having its own address less so I'm struggling to find a Sandro Ferrone with multiple addresses. http://www.sandroferrone.it/contatti/ This is the

Re: [OSM-talk] shop windows on differnt streets

There aren't multiple entrances in Catonano's examples. Shops on the corner of two streets is common across the globe. Are you suggesting these places have multiple postal addresses? On 29/12/2017 22:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Having housenumbers for every entrance and potential entrance

Re: [OSM-talk] shop windows on differnt streets

Hi I think you're seriously over complicating this. Just look up the address on their website & use that. Multiple house numbers: '107-109' There's a separate tagging forum: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging DaveF On 27/12/2017 17:36, Catonano wrote: I hope this is the right

Re: [Talk-GB] Mistagging of old telephone boxes

Not an expert, but I'm surprised if that's true. Isn't BY attribution the same that OSM asks of map producers? I note Mapillary are also CC BY-SA DaveF On 22/12/2017 23:26, David Woolley wrote: On 22/12/17 22:32, Dave F wrote: To double check - CC BY-SA 2.0 is compatible with OSM

Re: [Talk-GB] Mistagging of old telephone boxes

of use (photo taken in January 2017) so a bit pointless to add it if you are haven't surveyed it. On 22/12/2017 21:41, Dave F wrote: Hi FYI user Yorvik Prestigitator has been tagging telephone boxes across Britain. He assumed some of these are working phones & tagged them as such, when the

[Talk-GB] Mistagging of old telephone boxes

Hi FYI user Yorvik Prestigitator has been tagging telephone boxes across Britain. He assumed some of these are working phones & tagged them as such, when they're purely ornamental (the ones in my city are recent additions & have flowers growing out of them at the moment). When asked for his

Re: [OSM-talk] Street names QA

Hi Am I meant to be seeing a transparent pink overlay instead of roads at z13? DaveF On 14/12/2017 00:13, Simon Poole wrote: The server crashed this morning, but is back now. Unluckily it seems as if the new machine is not quite as stable as its predecessor. Simon On 13.12.2017 17:59,

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >