from:"Dave F"


On 01/06/2021 19:37, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:


Why bother with OSM at all then? Just look at a Ordnance Survey map 
and use your sentience to find what you're looking for.




OSM is free.

OSM is not a database sink.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain




On 01/06/2021 18:32, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Tue, 2021-06-01 at 13:07 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 12:38 Dave F via Talk-transit <
talk-transit@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

On 01/06/2021 16:11, Christopher Parker wrote:

On 6/1/2021 10:54 AM, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:

What's wrong with consulting a timetable?

To consult a timetable you need to know what station to use.

Then map the stations!


So we've mapped the stations Windsor and Eton Central and Windsor and
Eton Riverside, now how do we know which station timetable to consult
to find out how to get to Paddington? Riverside is marginally closer to
Paddington as the bird flies.

Traveline https://www.traveline.info/

Uses OSM


Database or just tiles?
Many things look slightly offset in Traveline.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain

On 01/06/2021 18:07, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 12:38 Dave F via Talk-transit 
<mailto:talk-transit@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

On 01/06/2021 16:11, Christopher Parker wrote:
>
> On 6/1/2021 10:54 AM, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote:
>> What's wrong with consulting a timetable?
>
> To consult a timetable you need to know what station to use.

Then map the stations!

So we've mapped the stations Windsor and Eton Central and Windsor and 
Eton Riverside, now how do we know which station timetable to consult 
to find out how to get to Paddington? Riverside is marginally closer 
to Paddington as the bird flies.

You use a 'timetable' https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/ a make a sentient 
decision based on what you discover.

You appear to assume OSM should contain all the data in the world and 
make you tea & toast each morning. It doesn't, & can't.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain

Which is why OSM has route relations. Michael's wanting to add services 
& timetables to route relations. The data is too transient & time 
consuming to maintain for OSM. Sort the basics out. Learn to walk before 
running.

DaveF

On 01/06/2021 15:59, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
Without route relations, OSM shows where you can get on the 
train/vehicle, but not where you can go

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 10:58 Dave F via Talk-transit 
<mailto:talk-transit@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

What's wrong with consulting a timetable?

Maps show you where you can go, timetables tell you when .

DaveF

On 01/06/2021 01:18, Michael Tsang wrote:

> I think you are missing the point that GB is not a city.

> Cities are densly pack and urban transport systems reflect this. In
London tube trains simply stop at every station.

> This structure will not work when it comes to rural stations,
and what
we have works very well. It would not be efficient to stop every
trains
at stations which only have a few dozen passengers in a day.

Other European countries are doing it much better. The routes are
numbered. There are designated express services with stops only
in big cities. The rural stations have only local stopping
services which call at every stop en-route.

We don't even have a useful route map from train companies that
can work out which train I should take without consulting the
timetable.

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org  <mailto:Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit  
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit>

___
Talk-transit mailing list
Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-transit@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit>

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

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

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain

What's wrong with consulting a timetable?

Maps show you where you can go, timetables tell you when .

DaveF

On 01/06/2021 01:18, Michael Tsang wrote:

> I think you are missing the point that GB is not a city.

> Cities are densly pack and urban transport systems reflect this. In
London tube trains simply stop at every station.

> This structure will not work when it comes to rural stations, and what
we have works very well. It would not be efficient to stop every trains
at stations which only have a few dozen passengers in a day.

Other European countries are doing it much better. The routes are 
numbered. There are designated express services with stops only in big 
cities. The rural stations have only local stopping services which 
call at every stop en-route.

We don't even have a useful route map from train companies that can 
work out which train I should take without consulting the timetable.

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

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

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain

For the last few years I've added/deleted & maintained Britain's railway 
stations. All National Rail stations (currently 2571) have the Station's 
3 digit CRS code (ref:crs=*). This is the public facing code which 
allows routing developers to link to NR webpages which provide more 
*accurate* detail than can be in the OSM database.


https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/SFD/details.html
https://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/ldbboard/dep/SFD

I took a brief look at railway NapTAN/ATCO codes. It appears some got 
confused between StopPoints/StopAreas and codes for the station itself & 
all its various entrances. A right pig's ear. I gave up.


DaveF


On 31/05/2021 23:14, 10992 via Talk-GB wrote:

And I would have thought that the best way forward is surely to ensure that bus 
stops / train stations etc are properly mapped and tagged 
(NaPTAN/ATCO/3-alpha/TIPLOC etc), so that they can be linked to the appropriate 
data for routing engines to use, rather than attempting to duplicate data in 
OSM.  For most purposes, as long as all stops are mapped, the route a train/bus 
takes is irrelevant (thought there may well be some cases where it is useful).  
It may well be that some open data that is available could facilitate automatic 
maintenance of route relations in OSM, but if it were to be so easily 
transferable, that would negate the point to an extent, since routing engines 
could do it themselves.

10992

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, 31 May 2021 22:54, Philip Barnes  wrote:


On Mon, 2021-05-31 at 22:18 +0100, Michael Tsang wrote:


On Monday, 31 May 2021 16:14:47 BST Roger Slevin wrote:


and one in which I agree with Tony, Mark and Peter in saying that
public
transport services and timetables don’t appear to me to have a
valid place
in OSM

We have already mapped the complete bus networks in certain cities.
In OSM
terms, a public transport route is defined as "the order where the
service
stops to carry passengers, and the path where it transverse on". It
does not
include the timetable data.
I have also mapped a lot of bus and train routes in different cities
as well,
and it is very useful for OSM to have bus and train routes. When I
travel to a
new city I use OsmAnd a lot to find which bus I need to take to go to
a certain
direction, and where it will stop.

I think you are missing the point that GB is not a city.

Cities are densly pack and urban transport systems reflect this. In
London tube trains simply stop at every station.

This structure will not work when it comes to rural stations, and what
we have works very well. It would not be efficient to stop every trains
at stations which only have a few dozen passengers in a day.


The problem with GB railways is that each departure serves completely
different
stops, which means, if we strictly follow the "one variant = one
relation"
model as in current PTv2 schema, we have to map each departure as
distinct
relations on the map, because each departure serves different stops,
which mean
they are different variants.

You also have to remember that the timetables and hence services are
seasonal to reflect different passenger demands.

Many of us have thought about train routes but concluded on a country
level they are too complex and require a huge amount of mainatainance.
The timetable changes every 6 months, and as a minimum needs to be
checked.

I started thinking about my local station, to the North trains can go
to Crewe, Chester or Manchester Piccadilly. To the south trains can go
to Shrewsbury, Birmingham International, Cardiff Central, Swansea,
Carmathen, Pembroke Dock, Milford Haven and Fishguard. That is all
before to start considering which of the dozens of stations each
service calls, or may call at if it is a request stop.

As other have said, this is not something that belongs in OSM.

If you need to work out how to get somewhere then the train companies
apps and websites work very well. If you want to include buses as well
the traveline is excellent.

Phil (trigpoint)

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


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


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

Re: [Talk-transit] [Talk-GB] Mapping train services in Great Britain


As others have said, this data doesn't really belong in OSM.
It's too transient, too complicated to maintain.

GB timetables are officially updated every 6 months, but services vary 
on an ad-hoc basis. This previous year being a good example. How 
detailed would your system be? Would you adjust it to the level of 
maintenance closures &  rail replacement services?


We don't even a valid database for buses. The Naptan import was poorly 
executed & even more poorly maintained. There are currently over 15000 
without highway=bus_stop tags.


The bus route relations are so poor Traveline/Travel West don't use them

Maybe it's best using your OSM time to improve & complete what is 
already in the OSM database.


DaveF

On 31/05/2021 22:18, Michael Tsang wrote:

On Monday, 31 May 2021 16:14:47 BST Roger Slevin wrote:

and one in which I agree with Tony, Mark and Peter in saying that public
transport services and timetables don’t appear to me to have a valid place
in OSM

We have already mapped the complete bus networks in certain cities. In OSM
terms, a public transport route is defined as "the order where the service
stops to carry passengers, and the path where it transverse on". It does not
include the timetable data.

I have also mapped a lot of bus and train routes in different cities as well,
and it is very useful for OSM to have bus and train routes. When I travel to a
new city I use OsmAnd a lot to find which bus I need to take to go to a certain
direction, and where it will stop.

The problem with GB railways is that each departure serves completely different
stops, which means, if we strictly follow the "one variant = one relation"
model as in current PTv2 schema, we have to map each departure as distinct
relations on the map, because each departure serves different stops, which mean
they are different variants.

Michael


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

2020-12-10 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


That's weird.
Save for some tactile paving what's the difference between North & South?

DaveF

On 10/12/2020 14:08, Tony Shield wrote:
/Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually 
banned?

/

Unfortunately yes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295

Quite clear signage - Mapillary - 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.66933432657343=-2.6290113968031967=17=_ir_HmYAIa4H0rnj1JrO8A=photo

//

When I walk there I take my chances on the illegal walking along a 
cycleway rather than the 50 mph dual carriageway where it is legal to 
walk.



Tony Shield - TonyS999

.

On 10/12/2020 12:47, Martin Wynne wrote:
My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a 
greater number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2)


Many public bridleways have many more walkers and cyclists using it 
than actual horse-riders. But are still mapped as bridleways.


Map it as a cycleway, unless it is a public bridleway, in which case 
map it as bridleway. You are mapping the status, not the actual usage.


My feeling is that a highway should be mapped at the highest level of 
permitted usage. The assumption is that pedestrians can go almost 
anywhere anyway. Motorways excepted.


Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually 
banned?


cheers,

Martin.

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



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

2020-12-10 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


I believe you're incorrect.

Cycleways can be shared use with pedestrians, & almost always are in the UK.

Cycleway/footway/path tags are not based on usage figures. Cycleway 
allows for two modes of transport, footway allows one.  Likewise 
'bridleway' allows for three modes - horse/bicycle/foot.


The path tag was an invention after contributors got confused by the 
above. It should be removed from the database.


Your 'surface' comment is irrelevant to your problem.

Tagging *incorrectly* to suit the renderer/router should not occur, but 
given it's a part of a NCN route, this is clearly a correct tag.


DaveF

On 10/12/2020 12:24, Thomas Jarvis wrote:

I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural
shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as
highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path,
bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply
to it).
My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater
number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2), the path is designed for
both types of user & not the whole route has a blacktop surface (therefore
not suitable for road bikes, these bits do have their surface tagged though
so that shouldn't be an issue for routers).
His argument for keeping it as highway=cycleway is because his render is
not configured to show highway=path & bicycle=designated the same as
highway=cycleway. Other reasons are because it is part of the NCN Route 88,
as such it is "cared" for sustrans. Also it is a  well used cycle route.
Both of which are very much true, and are tagged with the
appropriate relations to reflect this.

I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that I ask
the community here to see what the consensus is.
I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the sole
reason being because it renders differently.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94598759


Thank you,

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field


On 08/12/2020 12:36, nathan case wrote:

but instead setting as disused:highway. This is what I tend to do when the PROW 
route is clearly inaccessible from aerial imagery (e.g. due to new buildings, 
or rivers).


IMO, this is bad mapping.
Just because one person concludes it isn't used by staring at photograph 
taken thousands of feet in the air doesn't mean it isn't.


Accessibility is variable & subjective. What might be a deterrent to a 
wheelchair user, could be considered easy by a high jumper.


Even if it is found to be inaccessible after an on ground survey it 
doesn't mean it's been declared disused.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field


On 08/12/2020 12:42, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:

Ah sorry, I shall remove it then Robert. I have drawn it freehand based on
what I'd seen on their site as a right of way. Presumably then, if there's
no established path, I can never add it to OSM because the definitive map
is my only source for this information. Even if I walk it and use my GPS
recording, the source of the path is ultimately the definitive map? How
does that work?



https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg

There you go, free of any supposed copyright infringement.

FYI Wiltshire Council's Rights of Way Explorer is not the 'definitive 
map'. It usually a misnomer. Paths are described with words in a  
definitive statement. Their map is a representation of that data. Many 
authorities add a caveat clarifying that it's not the authoritative 
document.


DaveF
R.jpg
https://snipboard.io/scrm5R.jpg
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field




On 08/12/2020 12:08, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB
 wrote:

Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway 
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the 
Wiltshire Definitive Map.

Generally these maps have lines drawn on top of
Copyrighted Ordnance Survey base-maps, which means they're off-limits
for use in OSM.



Do you have evidence of this being the case? Has someone from OS (or 
anyone outside OSM) stated that?



Dave F



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway across field




On 08/12/2020 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:

Hello. I've just added a missing public bridleway (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882278479) which is detailed on the
WIltshire Definitive Map. It runs across a field and doesn't appear to have
been in use recently, I couldn't see it on the ground in person and I can't
see it in any of the aerial images. It runs fairly close to a concrete
track, however, there is a locked gate across that track (which I've also
just now added). What's the OSM policy on legal ROWs that have no physical
evidence and no rerouting such as along a field boundary such as I've seen
in other cases on OSM.


Welcome to OSM.

If I come across a non obvious path I attempt to look around for a worn 
way, especially through boundaries. Aerial imagery suggests the edge of 
the field is used. Please check on the ground first to confirm it's 
still used.

http://osmz.ru/imagery/#20/51.12946/-1.79511/bing

I would mark the way as the definitive map alignment & add a note 
describing the direction that's actually used.


It may be words in a book, but definitive statements are physical evidence.

As the access tag is to describe legal use, I'd remove it in this case.

Both bicycle & walking on a bridleway are designated.

The surface tag is a useful addition for paths.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface


Dave F


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

Re: [Talk-GB] electric fences

2020-11-23 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB

Some of the properly installed versions I've tagged as gates - The 
electricity passes through a bungy cable & is connected with a metal 
hook at one end which is encased in a rubber handle allowing the walker 
to unhook it & pass through.


I usually only map the ones where I know, or it looks like, they've been 
installed for a while. With seasonal fences (horse breeder) I don't bother.


DaveF

On 23/11/2020 05:25, Martin Wynne wrote:
There are several instances locally where a footpath across a field is 
crossed by an electric fence.


The farmer usually fits a length of rubber hosepipe over the wire so 
that walkers can safely step over the fence. Sometimes with the aid of 
a couple of concrete blocks.


How to map? Technically it is probably a form of stile. But the 
problem is that the location isn't fixed. Electric fences are moved 
about according to which area of the field the livestock are currently 
grazing. In a large field the position could change significantly.


But walkers with restricted mobility do need to know that there is one 
somewhere in the field. The position might be important if there is an 
alternative gate or other access which could be used.


Martin.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

2020-11-21 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


On 21/11/2020 18:35, Edward Bainton wrote:
Thanks all for these ideas. The path is marked as shared, but only in 
the middle of the park 
 
- it's a bit odd. (It's even on a cross-city cycle route.)


It's the actual highway=* tag that I was most puzzled over, but it 
sounds like with the access tags this is academic for routing purposes.


In which case it would seem the 'looks like a footway, rides like a 
footway' criterion would be best?


Given the signage, I think the tags I listed are appropriate.



Not relevant here, but like Tony I also would love a tag that means 
'everyone cycles here, even if it's technically illegal'. I think it 
was SK53 who suggested some use 'tolerated', which seems pretty good 
to me.




That's a whole load of subjectivity, that OSM  /really/ shouldn't get 
involved with.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Footways bikes can go on

2020-11-21 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


HI

There's a misconception that highway=cycleway implies an automatic 
authority over other path users. This is untrue It's just a hierarchy of 
the number of different transport modes permitted to use it. Similarly, 
highway=residential permits motor vehicles as well as bicycles & 
pedestrians.Who has right of way is specific to certain locations.


If it's definitely designated as cyclable (I couldn't see any signs in 
GSV) then I'd tag it as


highway=cycleway
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=no
surface=asphalt  (in this case)
width=*

If you know it's a public footpath add:
designation=public_footpath

If you know the footpath's reference add:
prow_ref=*

Is there a reason you tagged it as access=no?

The only place a rider of a bicycle should go full speed is in a velodrome.

Cheers
DaveF

On 21/11/2020 10:28, Edward Bainton wrote:
Is there established tagging for a tarmac path that is ~1.5m wide, but 
designated foot and cycles shared?


Eg: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871919974

There's highway=cycleway | cycleway=shared, but when you're on it it 
doesn't feel like one, and you can't go full speed. But maybe that's 
the best tag nonetheless?


Thanks.



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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] featdesc & featcode

2020-11-19 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB




On 19/11/2020 20:57, Brian Prangle wrote:

Dump for external databases? Surely not!



FHRS?


Well that's why I've been trying to clean up FHRS tags.
The only tag that should really exist is the ID code which refers /back/ 
to the external database.




UPRN? USRN?


I'm struggling to see the benefit of these ATM, & given some of the 
comments, I'm reminded of the US Tiger dump.



Edubase?


A reference to an external database, not a dump.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] featdesc & featcode

2020-11-19 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


Thanks for that.

I'm struggling to see the benefit of this in OSM, & given only one 
contributor has added them I presume I'm not alone.
The codes appear to be another company's database reference system, of 
which OSM has its own.
OSM should not become a dump for external databases. Anyone with valid 
reasons for not removing these tags?


DaveF

On 19/11/2020 16:49, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 19/11/2020 16:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
>
> Anybody know what featdesc & featcode refer to? Local authority
> references?

Hi Dave,

Sorry about poor formatting, copied from:


https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/os-vectormap-district-product-guide.pdf 





OS VectorMap District technical specification feature codes  v1.8 – 
09/2016   © Crown copyright   Page 51 of 56


  Feature Codes


Feature Codes represented in the vector product

FeatureType  classification   featureCode
Building    25014
Glasshouse    25016
Road  Motorway  25710
  Primary Road  25723
  A Road  25729
  B Road  25743
  Minor Road  25750
  Local Street  25760
  Private Road Publicly Accessible  25780
  Pedestrianised Street  25790
  Motorway, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25719
  Primary Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25735
  A Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25739
  B Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25749
  Minor Road, Collapsed Dual Carriageway  25759
RoadTunnel    25792
MotorwayJunction    25796
Roundabout  Primary Road  25703
  A Road  25704
  B Road  25705
  Minor Road  25706
  Local Street  25707
  Private Road Publicly Accessible  25708
SurfaceWater_Line    25600
SurfaceWater_Area    25609
TidalWater  High Water Mark  25608
TidalBoundary  High Water Mark Low Water Mark  25604
  Low Water Mark  25605
Foreshore    25612
AdministrativeBoundary  National  25204
  Parish Or Community  25200
  District Or London Borough  25201
  County Or Region Or Island  25202
RailwayTrack  Multi Track  25300
  Single Track  25301
  Narrow Gauge  25302
RailwayTunnel    25303
RailwayStation  Light Rapid Transit Station  25420
  Railway Station  25422
  London Underground Station  25423
  Railway Station And London Underground Station  25424
OS VectorMap District technical specification feature codes  v1.8 – 
09/2016   © Crown copyright   Page 52 of 56

  Light Rapid Transit Station And Railway Station  25425
  Light Rapid Transit Station And London Underground Station 25426
FunctionalSite  Education Facility - School  25250
  Police Station  25251
  Medical Care  25252
  Place Of Worship  25253
  Leisure Or Sports Centre  25254
  Air Transport  25255
  Education Facility - Higher  25256
  Water Transport  25257
  Road Transport  25258
  Road Services  25259
Woodland    25999
Ornament    25550
ElectricityTransmissionLine    25102
NamedPlace  Populated Place  25801
  Landform  25802
  Woodland Or Forest  25803
  Hydrography  25804
  Landcover  25805
SpotHeight    25810




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



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

[Talk-GB] featdesc & featcode

2020-11-19 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


Hi

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/10kw

Anybody know what featdesc & featcode refer to? Local authority 
references? Appears to be only rivers & woods.These are the only 
examples in the UK

The contributor who added them hasn't responded.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Service road with private locked gate and routing apps

2020-11-16 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB

I wouldn't have mapped that as any kind of road at all. From aerial 
imagery the west end is blocked by a container & vegetation suggests 
it's not been used for years.


On 16/11/2020 11:18, Mat Attlee wrote:
There is a service road in Homerton that I noticed several different 
routing apps including Cycle Streets, Komoot and Citymapper were 
taking me down eg https://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/72171728/


Upon surveying this service road it is very much closed to the public 
with locked gates which I marked as thus 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93935943


However these routing apps still use this service road. Have I missed 
something or does it take a while for the changes to propagate?


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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Q4 2020 Quarterly Project: Defibrillators

2020-11-14 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


On 14/11/2020 12:39, Donald Noble wrote:


Firstly, I have seen a few buildings that have an AED pictogram sign 
outside, suggesting that there is a defibrillator inside. Is this 
considered sufficient 'on the ground' evidence to add to the map.


I'd say yes. Add access &/or note tag to clarify its accessibility & 
location. One I mapped was on the outside of a cricket pavilion, but you 
would probably have to climb a gate to get to it.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] High quality NLS imagery of buildings and HOUSENUMBERS (!) available in London (and Scotland). Create a tasking manger to add this?

2020-10-30 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB




On 30/10/2020 15:28, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote:

Hello,
It has come to my attention that the "Town Plan" map from 1944-1967 in 
NLS is available freely.


Link to this on NLS?

DaveF

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

Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation

2020-10-30 Thread Dave F via talk


On 29/10/2020 06:41, Simon Poole wrote:

Am 29.10.2020 um 00:17 schrieb Dave F:
iD editor attracts a hell of a lot of "WTFs", doesn't it? I mean, 
even its most ardent fan must occasionally raise a Roger Moore eyebrow.


bhuousel has taken the presumptive decision that the contributor's 
desired end result will always be a MP relation. This is wrong, plain 
& simple (& quite arrogant). iD editor should provide tools to allow 
contributors to make their own decisions as easily as possible & not 
take them on their behalf.


I'm not sure why you believe Bryan has or had anything to do with that 
specific design decision, but he didn't, that happened a substantial 
time before he had any formal involvement.




Because he was the only one to reply to github queries (2018) on this 
subject. He closed the query & he talks in the first person: "I'm OK 
with this being hard to do in iD."


But anyway... Point slit stands: Why did iD take this authoritarian 
position.



As has been noted other, editors don't make this assumption.


Other editors don't try to synthesize an area type.



A split polygon with only an outer MP is not an "area".



The correct solution to split polygons with tags on the ways is to 
rejoin those ways, not create a MP.



As I pointed out, the question is -when- to rejoin those ways.


As I pointed out, that's for the contributor to decide, not the editor.


 A MP with only one* outer is invalid.


Nope.


There's a clue in the name 'MultiPolygon' there has to be more than one.
Splitting into two serves no purpose, adds no quality. Entropy isn't 
beneficial for the OSM database.


Incomplete MP relations are not beneficial to OSM quality.

DaveF

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation

2020-10-28 Thread Dave F via talk


On 27/10/2020 03:56, Bryce Cogswell wrote:

I agree it’s a little counterintuitive for experienced users but I understand 
the rationale: If you’re splitting a building (closed way) how is the result 
valid unless it’s converted to a multipolygon?


The editor is presuming the splitting of the way is the final & desired 
result of the contributor. This is wrong.


DaveF

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation

2020-10-28 Thread Dave F via talk

iD editor attracts a hell of a lot of "WTFs", doesn't it? I mean, even 
its most ardent fan must occasionally raise a Roger Moore eyebrow.


bhuousel has taken the presumptive decision that the contributor's 
desired end result will always be a MP relation. This is wrong, plain & 
simple (& quite arrogant). iD editor should provide tools to allow 
contributors to make their own decisions as easily as possible & not 
take them on their behalf.


As has been noted other, editors don't make this assumption.

The correct solution to split polygons with tags on the ways is to 
rejoin those ways, not create a MP.


 A MP with only one* outer is invalid.

* splitting it still means there's only one.

Relations were created to allow mapping of entities, not possible with 
just ways. They aren't meant to be the default for all objects.


DaveF

On 27/10/2020 08:11, Simon Poole wrote:
Its done that essentially since day one. As Bryce points out doing so 
keeps the object a valid "area" (and iD makes a valiant effort to stop 
you from breaking that).


It is also one of my favourite examples in talks why trying to keep 
things simple for the user is very difficult and some times 
counterproductive.


Lots of people have had the wtf moment when they come along a 
multi-polgon consisting of just one ring built from two ways. The 
problem is that once the user has split the polygon, there is no 
obvious point in time were you can be sure that the user is finished 
with it and you could simplify, particularly when you are trying to 
get the user to save often and early. So the simplification for the iD 
user comes at the expense of wtf's of everybody else.


Simon

Am 27.10.2020 um 02:05 schrieb Dave F via talk:

Hi

I don't use iD editor much, but I've just discovered it auto-converts 
closed polygons which are split (Shortcut Key = X) into MP relations.


I'm struggling to comprehend a logical reason for this. Is there one? 
If there's been a previous discussion which I've missed please post a 
link.


There's a couple of threads on iD's github issues, bhousel closed 
them with "wontfix - I Saw A Thing I Didn't Like (but is valid in OSM).


It may be valid, but is it desirable or helpful? I split closed ways, 
in P2, for various reasons without wanting them to be converted. How 
many newbies would even know what a MP relation is?


Having them as as split tagged ways is just as "valid". More so, 
considering splitting long ways is desirable.


DaveF




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation

2020-10-26 Thread Dave F via talk


Hi

I don't use iD editor much, but I've just discovered it auto-converts 
closed polygons which are split (Shortcut Key = X) into MP relations.


I'm struggling to comprehend a logical reason for this. Is there one? If 
there's been a previous discussion which I've missed please post a link.


There's a couple of threads on iD's github issues, bhousel closed them 
with "wontfix - I Saw A Thing I Didn't Like (but is valid in OSM).


It may be valid, but is it desirable or helpful? I split closed ways, in 
P2, for various reasons without wanting them to be converted. How many 
newbies would even know what a MP relation is?


Having them as as split tagged ways is just as "valid". More so, 
considering splitting long ways is desirable.


DaveF




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-transit] bus=yes opinion

2020-10-19 Thread Dave F via Talk-transit

public_transport=platform and  highway=bus_stop are different schemas. 
Please don't confuse the two.
When mapping using the much more prevalent highway=bus_stop there is no 
requirement for bus=* as it's obviously explicit.


DaveF

On 11/07/2020 06:33, Agustin Rissoli wrote:
What are your opinion of adding bus=yes along with 
public_transport=platform + highway=bus_stop?
I can't find info on the wiki that supports this practice, I know it 
was introduced by iD, but I don't see where this has been discussed.
My question arises because there is only one user who is adding 
bus=yes (and train=yes on railway platforms, etc.), to all stops in 
Argentina, probably correcting the errors that iD marks.



Saludos, Agustín.


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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Idea for improving mapping system

2020-10-18 Thread Dave F via talk


All the OSM 'leaderboard' sites I've seen are based on quantity.
OSM needs more quality mappers.

There's a page which tabled the number of changesets created by 
individual contributors per day/week/month. I believe this led to a few 
anal retentives quickly creating one changeset for every couple of 
amendments. desperate to stay a the top of the list.  Not only does this 
speed editing create errors , it meant validation was even harder than 
having one changeset over a large area.


 DaveF

On 18/10/2020 03:31, TheAdventurer64 wrote:

Hello everyone,

A user and I were talking about implementing a system for better 
mapping, as described here:

https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C029HV951/p1602968516431900
This addition would have many benefits, including:
* More mapping. We have tons of new mappers each day, as well as a 
great editor for them. However, many of these new mappers leave after 
just a few edits. Examples:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lukastheg03
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Th3Roomi3

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

2020-10-03 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB



About the only change I've made in years of mapping 'non-mini' 
roundabouts is to split the oneway=yes flare 'V' into two segments. 
JOSM validation started flagging the junction node of the V as too 
tight a bend, which I suppose makes sense.


This is a good example of how routing is misunderstood.

A continuous way does not imply it should be the preferred route. 
Likewise, splitting a way doesn't inhibit routing that direction either; 
it would still be a "sharp angle".


I've just tested in JOSM. It flagged no such validation warning.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/3403352

DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Turn Restrictions at roundabouts

2020-10-03 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB

There is a lot of garbage in OSM due to those creating routers being too 
lazy to write a few lines of code, or even use common sense.


However, in this case I believe it's other contributors who think, for 
reasons that escape me, routers require it.


Routing software must be of a poor standard if it returns the commuter 
to the roundabout after just 10 metres or so after leaving it.


 I partially agree with Phil's suggestion that they're harmless, if 
turn restrictions are by themselves. However if there are  multiple at 
one junction it can become error prone. Any that aren't required are 
best removed.


DaveF


On 03/10/2020 14:05, Brian Prangle wrote:

Hi

There seems to be a predilection for adding turn restrictions , either 
no right rurns or no U turns at the exit flares of roundabouts to 
prevent turning back into the entry flares where there are no explicit 
signed restrictions. I suspect this is "rendering for routers". Do 
routers actually need this data?  I'm tempted just to delete them all 
wherever I meet them, but I suspect there are thousands of them and 
there'll be howls of complaint.


Regards

Brian

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Blocked / overgrown / inaccessible footpaths and bridleways

2020-09-29 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


All
The most important thing to do in situations like this is to contact the 
LA responsible & ask them to clear it.


As I said on the preceding discussion of this topic in Talk, many of 
these descriptions are subjective. What you or I may consider completely 
impassible, others could be willing to hack/wade their way through.


Adding tags to inhibit routing/rendering is not the accurate way to 
proceed,


Use tags which accurately detail the physical conditions & leave it up 
to the user to decide if they wish to traverse  the path.


Even though i suggested Overgrown=yes as an example, it is subjective - 
Is it that the grass hasn't been mown for a few weeks or is it a Bornean 
rainforest?


DaveF

On 29/09/2020 13:51, Andy Townsend wrote:

Hello,

How do people normally map things like "I know there is a public 
footpath that goes through here but it is currently inaccessible"?


A taginfo search finds a few candidates:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=overgrown#values

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=inaccessible#values

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=blocked#values

So far https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/overgrown seems the 
nearest (it's undocumented but mentioned on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking ).  However, I'm sure that 
there are examples that I've missed.  Most seem to be used within note 
tags which can of course contain any old text - are there any actual 
non-note tags and values that are used for this that I'm missing?


Best Regards,

Andy




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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites


On 28/09/2020 17:53, Dan S wrote:

Hi Rodrigo

I think Loomio is designed
for the purpose of making good decisions together:


Come again? Why do you think "good decisions" can't be made here? What 
do those who don't wish to join yet another off-shoot do?


DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites




On 28/09/2020 15:29, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote:

Thanks all of you for your messages.

As a new joiner, I could not ask for more than other members engaging 
in such a passionate way :)


It's fair to say that there is no clear consensus of whether the 
proposal, in its current form, is acceptable or not. So, I am going to 
create a voting section on the wiki page to help us visualise what 
people think


However, before I do that I would like to reply to a point that was 
made by Andy


Andy,

/I'm not actually convinced that's a problem - as others have said, 
*web browsers are perfectly capable of converting "www.mypub.com 
" into either "https://www.mypub.com; 
or ""http://www.mypub.com; 
as appropriate*, so this doesn't really add any 
value. "Letting the browser sort it out" is a great approach as it can 
deal with now/near future things such as removal TLS 1.0 and 1.1 
support as well./


This is not true based on my experience. I just tested on the latest 
version of Chrome and Firefox and, if the URL scheme is not specified, 
they both open the the URL using http even if https is also available 
for it.


An example is Overpass Turbo which has three different pages:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/
http://overpass-turbo.eu/
www.overpass-turbo.eu/

If you've previously run different routines on each you'll see it 
displays them for each URL (tested on Firefox latest)


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites


Three things to note:
SO3166-1=GB is misnomered & includes Northern Ireland. (As I found out, 
some contributors there get annoyed with UK wide edits). You may want to 
use area(id:3600058447,3600058437,3600058446); // England Wales Scotland 
instead.


Many pubs are mapped as ways/relations so node won't return the full 
amount. Use nwr instead.


If you need the output to be as individual nodes use 'out center' option.

area["ISO3166-1"=GB];
rel(pivot)->.UK;
nwr(area)[amenity=pub][website][website!~"http"];
out center;
.UK out geom;

DaveF

On 27/09/2020 16:28, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote:

Hi all,

First of all, I would like to introduce myself on this email list and 
to thank you all for your contributions to OSM. Great work!


After some time using OSM as a user, I decided to make my first step 
as a contributor, hence this email and the proposal inside.


Please bear in mind that this is my first attempt to contribute with a 
proposal and, although I have done my best reading the community 
conventions and best practices, I am sure I have made some mistakes on 
the way. Be merciful! :P


To the point now.

I am importing a subset of nodes from UK (those tagged with 
amenity:pub) for a pet project.


When analysing the data I realised that some of these nodes contain a 
website: tag that does not contain an appropriate URL schema (http/https).


Ie: www.mypub.com  rather than 
http://www.mypub.com or https://www.mypub.com


This goes in contradiction with the Wiki documentation for website. 



I created a proposal for a one-off, scoped, automated edit for these 
nodes to find the appropiate scheme for the existing URL and retag the 
nodes.


I added the proposal to the Automated edits log. You can read it here 
.


Just wanted to share the proposal with the UK community, gather your 
feedback, comments and advises on how to proceed from here


Thanks in advance!








--
Rodrigo Díez Villamuera

w: http://rodrigodiez.io
t: @rodrigodiez_pro
p: 00 44 7513 638225


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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

2020-09-28 Thread Dave F via talk




On 25/09/2020 17:53, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 25/09/2020 17:43, Dave F via talk wrote:

Nick's description is "overgrown, unclear, prone to flooding"

These are all subjective interpretations.
There are many official PROW's in those conditions.


(for the benefit of people outside of England and Wales a "public 
right of way" is a special legal designation here)


To be fair, what Nick was talking about wasn't a PROW though.


Hmm.. Disagree He made no mention in the first paragraph, & he gave just 
one example which happened to not be official.

I mentioned PROWs as another example, not as an absolute.

DaveF

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites


On 28/09/2020 10:56, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Mon, 2020-09-28 at 10:10 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:

On 28/09/2020 10:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:


Remember: OSM is not an IT project.

Indeed not. But this is also a good example of the truism that OSM
is
not a map, it's a database. Having the right data in the database
matters. Fixing clear and obvious errors, such as invalid URLs in a
"website" tag, seems to me to be a worthwhile project if someone is
prepared to put the time and effort into doing it.


Although in my experience the concept of pubs having websites is kind
of dated, typically online communication with customers is via facebook
these days.


Anything other than your experience, as mine is the opposite. Facebook 
is for short lifespan messages not information which needs to be 
repeatedly accessed (menus, opening times etc)

Simply fixing invalid urls is not really a solution, the question needs
to be asked is this data still valid and rather than a mechanical fix
these entries need to be visited and checked.


Two, separate endeavours.

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites




On 28/09/2020 10:00, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Rodrigo,

On 27.09.20 17:28, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote:

After some time using OSM as a user, I decided to make my first step as
a contributor, hence this email and the proposal inside.

If your first idea of "how to contribute to OSM" is "how to write a
script that runs an automated edit on the body of OSM data", then
something is amiss!


Anyone can contribute to OSM in ways that best suits them.
He's here asking for advice & guidance & appears to be following the 
rules..



The change you plan to execute is of limited use. Yes, it ensures more
conformity in the data, but it will be a temporary fix (since new
"wrong" URLs can be added at any time).


Moot. Your claim applies to all tags, all the time. By your logic we 
might as well not amend anything.



Anyone consuming OSM data must
be able to work with URLs that miss a schema, and indeed today any
browser can do that.


I noted links without http or www. ie zonzorestaurant.com isn't 
recognized by OSM website, but is interpreted by web browsers.



So what your edit does is, it "touches" lots of objects and adds no
meaningful information whatsoever.


Conformity, accuracy.


  It creates load on the database;


Seriously? For how long?


it creates a new version of every object you touch which, informationally
speaking, is identical to the old version. It produces larger diff
files, larger history files, and on top of that runs the risk of making
data look more current than it is ("oh, this pub has last been changed
by someone two months ago, so surely it will still be in business" when
in fact the last OSMer who saw that pub with their own eyes did so five
years ago).


These are nit-picking excuses, that occur with all edits.

Unsure why some are against improving the quality of the database, 
especially by automated/mass edit*. Having one user amend hundreds of 
tags is the same as have hundreds of contributors amending individual 
tags, except there're all  checkable within one changeset & can *easily* 
be reverted if required.


* Please remember those who conceived this anti mass edit ruling were 
the ones who messed up the US TIGER import & couldn't be bothered to fix it.




There are many, many better ways to contribute to OSM than runnning a
useless automated conformity edit. Take a notebook or mobile editor, go
outside, check if the phone booths on OSM are still there on the ground,
add a few opening times, or even trees for that matter - a single hour
of such original work is more useful to OSM that what you are proposing
here.


This is my retort to the requests to join OSMF & sit through long, 
tedious committee meetings.

Again, we contribute to OSM in the way which best suits us.


Remember: OSM is not an IT project.


Tell that to the organisers/speakers at State of the Maps


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites


On 27/09/2020 19:35, Andrew Hain wrote:

Keep Right flags web links that have gone offline.


Unfortunately it doesn't really do that. After a discussion with the 
developer I found out it tests whether a server in central Europe has a 
link to the UK URLs not if the actual link is current. I was coming 
across far too many time consuming false-positives for it to be useful.


Anyone know if there's a way to at least use a UK based server or to 
conveniently ping multiple websites directly?


DaveF




--
Andrew

*From:* Philip Barnes 
*Sent:* 27 September 2020 18:49
*To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org 
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Hello world and automated change proposal: 
Add missing URL scheme on UK's Pubs websites

On Sun, 2020-09-27 at 16:28 +0100, Rodrigo Díez Villamuera wrote:

Hi all,

First of all, I would like to introduce myself on this email list and 
to thank you all for your contributions to OSM. Great work!


After some time using OSM as a user, I decided to make my first step 
as a contributor, hence this email and the proposal inside.


Please bear in mind that this is my first attempt to contribute with 
a proposal and, although I have done my best reading the community 
conventions and best practices, I am sure I have made some mistakes 
on the way. Be merciful! :P


To the point now.

I am importing a subset of nodes from UK (those tagged with 
amenity:pub) for a pet project.


When analysing the data I realised that some of these nodes contain a 
website: tag that does not contain an appropriate URL schema 
(http/https).


Ie: www.mypub.com  rather than 
http://www.mypub.com  or https://www.mypub.com


This goes in contradiction with the Wiki documentation for website. 



I created a proposal for a one-off, scoped, automated edit for these 
nodes to find the appropiate scheme for the existing URL and retag 
the nodes.


I added the proposal to the Automated edits log. You can read it here 
.


Just wanted to share the proposal with the UK community, gather your 
feedback, comments and advises on how to proceed from here


One issue I can think of with pubs and websites is that they need 
checking to ensure they are still current.


The defacto method most pubs use to communicate with customers is 
facebook.


A more general fix of urls missing http(s)://, why only pubs?.  is 
probably a maproulette quest.


Phil (trigpoint)


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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging an abandoned path?

2020-09-25 Thread Dave F via talk


Nick's description is "overgrown, unclear, prone to flooding"

These are all subjective interpretations.
There are many official PROW's in those conditions.
It doesn't mean they're "abandoned" or "disused".
It doesn't mean someone isn't prepared to wade or hack their way through.

Accurate descriptions of the path's state(s) are required. Tags 
something like: Overgrown=yes, flooding=intermittent  etc.


DaveF

On 25/09/2020 17:03, Mike Thompson wrote:

I use:
disused:highway=path/footway/etc
or
abandoned:highway=path/footway/etc

If it is totally gone, I still tend to leave the way with "note=There 
is no longer a path here, the land manager restored the area to its 
natural state sometime before ", (or whatever is appropriate) 
this provides some assurance that someone doesn't add it back to OSM 
using and old source (imagery, GPX tracks, etc).


Mike

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 9:36 AM Andy Townsend > wrote:


On 25/09/2020 16:04, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

Hi,

Wondering if there was a consensus on tagging an abandoned, no
longer very usable path (e.g. a path which has become overgrown
or is unclear and prone to flooding in wetter periods). Something
like "path=abandoned"?


My 2p:


Perhaps use "trail_visibility" through the lifecycle of the path
as it changes from "being obvious on the ground" to "not being
there at all"?


Once it's definitely disappeared, I'd have no qualms about
deleting it altogether.  Sometimes I update the tags on a path
before deleting it to something like "note=nothing on this
alignment any more".


If it's still visible on imagery, I'd be tempted to leave that
note there (without a highway tag) to stop someone retracing it.


Best Regards,


Andy


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "Limitations on mapping private information" - wiki page

2020-09-16 Thread Dave F via talk


The first two bullet points are poorly worded:

building=house is "where individual people live".

"There is no need to split residential landuse into individual plots."
if that means the actual tag landuse=residential, then I'd probably 
agree, but there is nothing wrong with this level of detail mapping:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.51352/-1.85486

The wording , as it's written currently, contradicts the last point, 
which I believe to be correct.


The other points fall under "too transient to map".

DaveF



On 16/09/2020 08:17, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Limitations_on_mapping_private_information

Do you think that this page is a good description of community consensus?

The page has
"This page is under development (May 2020). It may not yet reflect 
community consensus."
and I would like to check whatever it matches community consensus well 
or mismatches it.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Pedestrian priority and highway=cycleway

2020-09-03 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB

I think highway should be reverted to cycleway. There's a 
misunderstanding that highway=cycleway implies priority to bicycle 
riders, when it actually relates just to the number of transport modes 
which can use it. Bridleway equates to three modes: walkers, bikes & horses.


DaveF

On 03/09/2020 11:02, Robert Skedgell wrote:

Rather than reverting, I restored access and left the top-level
highway=* tag alone.

I only noticed these changes when plotting a route in Komoot and
noticing that I needed to create/drag a lot of extra waypoints in order
to get the expected behaviour. Hopefully Komoot will behave responsibly
and warn me that I'll need to dismount in a few places. Repairing
routing as quickly as possible was my priority, although it could take
weeks for some routers to restore functionality.

In this case, I think that if there is any tagging for the renderer, the
target renderer was OpenCycleMap rather than OSM Carto.

On 03/09/2020 10:40, Ken Kilfedder wrote:

These changes should be reverted in my view.

But I would note that the default map on osm.org does a poor job of 
communicating the difference between shared paths (like those in QEOP and 
elsewhere) and dedicated cycle lanes.  Both look like blue dashed lines.   They 
look indistinguishable. So an honest pedestrian mapper might easily jump to the 
wrong conclusion and make changes of the sort you've described below.

Perhaps the right way forward is to suggest changes to how osm.org displays 
shared ways - red dash for dedicated pedestrian, blue dash for dedicated 
cycleway and alternating for shared?   Maybe something to indicate priority?   
Without changes like this, I can see this sort of thing happening again.

---
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk

[...]


It also appears to be tagging for the renderer, as changing
cycleway->footway changes the path in OpenCycleMap from a blue dashed
line to a red dashed line.

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] How closely do we map lamp posts?

2020-09-02 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


I already answered your last point.
Good to see the give way is against the motor vehicles.

On 02/09/2020 22:37, Lester Caine wrote:

On 02/09/2020 19:00, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
I don't know the area. but they look like the existing posts to me. 
Has the cycle path been realigned around them to provide better 
vision splays/ stopping room to motorists?


https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7730673,-1.2396435,3a,56.4y,188.18h,85.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCSZk4LPVkVJecufviv4kzw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 

I believe it's something to do with building regs. Existing posts 
have to be one of the last items to be decommissioned, usually by 
newly installed ones. Similar happened on one of the London CS ways, 
where everyone got their knickers in a twist over it.


The fact that a neatly finished cycleway surface now has to be dug up 
so that the electric supply can be moved to a new location and the 
lamp pole moved is just another example of the complete waste of money 
many of these 'improvements' result in? Actually another question is 
just why the kerb to the footpath and the cycleway had to be moved at 
all? It no longer lines up with the next section anyway.





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

Re: [Talk-GB] How closely do we map lamp posts?

2020-09-02 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB

I don't know the area. but they look like the existing posts to me. Has 
the cycle path been realigned around them to provide better vision 
splays/ stopping room to motorists?


https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7730673,-1.2396435,3a,56.4y,188.18h,85.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCSZk4LPVkVJecufviv4kzw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I believe it's something to do with building regs. Existing posts have 
to be one of the last items to be decommissioned, usually by newly 
installed ones. Similar happened on one of the London CS ways, where 
everyone got their knickers in a twist over it.


DaveF

On 02/09/2020 18:27, Lester Caine wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-53999106
One does wonder about the competence of builders at times?




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

Re: [Talk-GB] New Forest Panorama Mapping Party - September 13th 11.00

2020-08-23 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB

If your wishing to socially distance, Sunday lunchtime/afternoon seems a
strange time to do it.

On 23/08/2020 13:43, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

Hello everyone,

Some of you are aware of this, but we (David Greenwood of TrekView and
myself) are organising a Panorama Mapping Party on September 13th
(Sunday) 11.00 meeting at Ashurst New Forest station (hourly trains
from Waterloo assuming no engineering work or other disruption).

This is a postponed event originally due to take place in May. The
idea is to capture 360 panoramic imagery of all (or as many as
possible in the time-frame) the footpaths in the Ashurst area, of
which there are many. If you have your own 360 camera or phone capable
of taking 360 photos (e.g. Photo Spheres with the Google Camera
installed) then bring it along, otherwise there will be a limited
number of 360 camera packs available to borrow for the event.

This imagery will be used in the Trek View project (trekview.org) and
will also be uploaded to OpenTrailView, my own 100% open-source
project to capture 360 panoramas of walking trails (see e.g.
https://www.opentrailview.org/?id=9900); source code
https://gitlab.com/nickw1/opentrailview.

In order to allow social distancing, we're looking at a max of 10-12
at the event and to split up into groups of between 1 and 3.

I myself hope to be there, but may need to travel abroad in September,
but if not, Dave will be on hand to help!

You need to book a place; see
https://campfire.trekview.org/t/new-forest-pano-party-rescheduled-sunday-13th-september/325
for more details, or email myself or David at dgreemw...@trekview.org
for more details.

Thanks,
Nick

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Roadmap for deprecation of name tags in OSM

2020-08-20 Thread Dave F via talk


Just caught up with this thread, & I'm unsure if it's a joke.

If there are any problems/disagreements with names in OSM then surely 
the same problem occurs in Wikiland?


DaveF.


On 09/08/2020 09:25, pangoSE wrote:
I suggest we create a roadmap for deprecating of storing and updating 
names in OSM for objects with a Wikidata tag.


The rationale is explained here:
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/19655

This of course affects the whole project and data consumers as well. 
Every OSM user will have to become a Wikidata user as well to edit the 
names or add name references (through the editors)


Substantial changes will have to be made:
* nominatim will need to support fetching names from wikidata somehow. 
It could probably be done on the fly.
* openstreetmap.org will need to fetch from wikidata when displaying 
any object.

* rendering the standard map will have to support fetching from wikidata.
* all editors would have to fetch and enable editing of Wikidata objects.
* maybe it no longer makes sense to have 2 separate logins? We should 
unify the logging in as much as possible. Ideas are welcome on how to 
do that. Perhaps retire signing up as OSM user on osm.org and ask 
users to create a Wikimedia account instead and log in with that?


I personally don't see any problems connecting Wikimedia and OSM 
closer than the islands they are today.


As mentioned in the ticket above data consumers like Mapbox already 
prefer Wikidata names. I'm guessing thats because they are simply 
better quality, better modeled, better referenced and better protected 
against vandalism.


WDYT?

Cheers
pangoSE
Ps I choose this list because this not only relates to tagging, but to 
the wider ecosystem.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Eat out to help out data

2020-08-20 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB

Too transient/inaccurate for me, personally. Even my local LA can't 
publish an accurate list.


Anyway, I'm too busy mapping garden fences in the hope of upsetting 
sensibilities.


DaveF

On 19/08/2020 21:10, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi all,

Anyone considered using the Eat out to Help out data that HMRC have 
published to aid with mapping efforts?


https://github.com/hmrc/eat-out-to-help-out-establishments

Prior to this, there was a scraper that collated the data:
https://github.com/svenlatham/eatout-scraper

Thank you,
*Rob*

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

2020-08-13 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


On 13/08/2020 15:41, Simon Still wrote:


So my understanding is that OSM normally only maps what’s actually on 
the ground rather than what might be shown on a map (and there was 
some discussion recently about this - 
https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-gb@openstreetmap.org/msg19303.html)


This is slightly untrue. Boundaries aren't marked across fields as 
dashed lines, but stored in documentation, usually electronically these 
days. As long as they're published under a compatible licence OSM can, & 
do, use them.




So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t 
it remain in OSM?


OSM should be using the most up to date data available. In this instance 
I think Sustrans saying they've decommissioned a few NCNs & publishing 
an updated map is the more accurate information. I don't think the 
relations should be deleted as they're probably to be reclassified (I 
think).


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

2020-08-12 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


What is it?

On 12/08/2020 16:54, SK53 wrote:
OpenRoads from the Ordnance Survey contains a field containing the 
toid for the street name. I wonder if we should include these 
alongside usrn & uprn. They may be more useful than either for 
gathering complex roads which share a name.


Experimentally I have added this 
 toid to a street in Glossop.


Jerry

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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Status of Who Did It?

2020-07-27 Thread Dave F via talk


Try this (using your user name)

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WvG

[bbox:{{bbox}}];
(
 nw(newer:"{{date:1Day}}");
-
 nw(user:UserName);
);
out meta geom({{bbox}});

It highlights individual entities instead of vague boxes.
Change nw to nwr to return relations & change the date to return older data.

DaveF

On 27/07/2020 13:57, Snusmumriken wrote:

Hello

I wondering what is the current state of the Who Did It service? I've
been using this service https://simon04.dev.openstreetmap.org/whodidit/
  for some time and it's been quite helpful. But now I only get "No
input file specified." when I try to get an RSS link.




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Removing all signposts from relations

2020-07-25 Thread Dave F via talk


Where was the discussion. Do you have a link?

I think the relation of the 'route' should be purely the ways & if 
there's an actual requirement*, the signs should be included as a part 
of a super relation https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Super-Relation


* Is there a requirement? Doesn't the route tell you where to go, & 
calculates how far to destination?


I'm slightly concerned a super relation would turn into a similar mess 
that PTv2 Stop Areas have become, where almost anything remotely near a 
transport stop is added to it.


DaveF

On 25/07/2020 17:14, pangoSE wrote:

Hi

Recently it was discussed whether to have signposts in route 
relations. I suggest we delete them from all relations by running a 
script.
I se no loss of information doing that and a benefit to data consumers 
wanting to sort and calculate the length and height profile of the 
relation which I think should only contain unclosed ways belonging to 
the route.


What do you think?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

2020-07-21 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB




On 21/07/2020 17:30, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 21/07/2020 16:57, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
Is the National Chargepoint Registry data open for OSM now? If not 
somebody should write a nice enough letter?


It is open, it's OGL now. But it's not reliable enough for an 
unfiltered bulk import; there are duplicate entries, incorrect 
coordinates and incorrect or missing addresses.


Can you post the link?

DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

2020-07-21 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


On 21/07/2020 12:10, Chris Hill wrote:
Leccy car drivers need to know if the point is working. Apps from the 
charge point suppliers and from others such as Zapmap try to keep 
drivers informed about the availability and condition of the point. 
OSM doesn't have that info and can't update it in real time. Some 
leccy cars have this live info built into their satnav.


There's nothing wrong with adding charging points. I expect people 
wanting to actually use them will look elsewhere for more info than 
OSM can reasonably supply.


That's a moot point.
That's the equivalent of saying drivers needs to know if a car park is 
full or a commuter wants to find out if the 08:12 to Oxford has been 
cancelled.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Electric vehicle charging points

2020-07-21 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


1538 nationwide.

Use this to see what other tags contributors are adding.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Wia

DaveF


On 21/07/2020 11:58, Mark Goodge wrote:

Do we map electric vehicle charging points? If not, should we?

None of the ones in my town are on OSM, at the moment. I could add 
them, but it seems a bit pointless if they're not generally mapped.


Mark

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



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

Re: [Talk-transit] bus stop name

2020-07-16 Thread Dave F via Talk-transit

The whole point of route relations is to allow multiple routes to be 
added to an individual object.


On 17/07/2020 02:15, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-transit wrote:
    In the USA bus stops (flag stops) are located for the most part at 
named intersections, that is at where the street

sign is.
   so you DO know where you are. but on the OSM standard map the bus 
stop tag depending on the
editor does not show the route number, can you have the route number 
on the tag ?

the wiki on this seems to be written for a European standard.

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] POI files of Pub/Restaurant chain

2020-07-16 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


Hi
Did you obtain them from their website? If so, could you post the link?
What's the content? Just location co-ordinates?

DaveF

On 15/07/2020 14:00, o...@poppe.dev wrote:

Hey all,

I just accidentally found that the Pub next to "curious 20602512" is operated 
by a chain with quite a few places. They provide four different POI file formats with all 
their locations.

As this data is pretty much openly accessible, I think there'd be no major 
issue with asking them if this data could be used to check all the places 
against OSM data and, if needed correct and/or create them, right?

K

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



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

Re: [Talk-GB] JOSM Plugin for the FHRS API

2020-06-26 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB


I'm getting this after selecting the Search Entry option:

https://snipboard.io/7J6Eb0.jpg

Latest JOSM version

Any ideas?

On 26/06/2020 10:45, o...@poppe.dev wrote:

Hey Tony,

as I'm from the other side of the Channel, I doubt that there's 
someone from the UK community that knows me well enough to reassure 
you about my person (I could always ask people from the German 
Telegram group to tell you I'm not a lunatic *g*)


You could always take a look at the GitHub repository ( 
https://github.com/kmpoppe/fhrsPlugin) and check what's going on in 
the code - which heavily relies on the JOSM core source.


Regards

Kai

> Hi Kai
>
> I'd like to help as its a good idea - however I don't know you, so 
could

> you get some community people who are well known to vouch for you, its
> just that I don't want strange software on my machine.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Shield
>
> TonyS999

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] JOSM Plugin for the FHRS API

2020-06-26 Thread Dave F via Talk-GB

As the OSM entity has to already contain the FHRS:ID tag it limits the 
usefulness of this plugin. Won't most have address data added when 
contributors initially add the FHRS tag? I certainly do.


What would be useful is a way to search the LA's database for retailers 
which don't have a FHRS tag.


DaveF.

On 26/06/2020 05:58, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:

Good morning everyone,

I built a plugin for JOSM that allows you to merge data from the FHRS
API into OSM with a few clicks. I'd love to find some people that would
be willing to test the 0.1.2 version and report bugs they found and/or
comment on the user experience.

Just throw me a line at o...@poppe.dev and I'll send you the download link.

Thanks in advance!

Kai


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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] river - stream

2020-06-13 Thread Dave F via talk

Could you please reply to the forum list not just the sender. I assume 
you're the OP. Difficult to tell when you use different email addresses.

>then why is the picture on top of the bridge when bridge is added.

You appear to be confusing the ID editor with actual renderings of the 
map. How it appears i iD when in edit mode is irrelevant. We map & tag 
so renderers can produce detailed maps.

On 06/06/2020 01:57, John D. wrote:
tunnel looks better than bridge, water is still visible under the 
layer of bridge, or area, does not hide water.

tunnel hides water.

Friday, June 5, 2020 8:43 AM -05:00 from Dave F via talk
:
On 05/06/2020 13:45, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote:
>
> when the river stream comes to the bridge can you split and add
tunnel ?

There can't be both a tunnel and bridge. It's one or the other. This
goes for all scenarios, including roads.

DaveF

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Could/should editors detect/disallow huge changeset bboxes?




On 12/06/2020 15:32, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote:

I am confused,
are you telling me being in chicago, where i can go to the place i am 
editing, not relying on satellite view
which is behind by at least 7 month or more here, i should be messing 
around in London.


If you have information which you think is substantive enough & improves 
the quality of the OSM database, then why not?


Frederik's claim OSM is restricted to "local knowledge" is false, & 
frankly I'm surprised he claimed it.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Could/should editors detect/disallow huge changeset bboxes?




On 12/06/2020 23:00, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote:


Friday, June 12, 2020 10:20 AM -05:00 from James
:
No they shouldn't, mapping roads in northern Canada, your bbox can
become quite large quickly as mapping logging roads/dirt roads is
quick and easy, but span over multiple kms

If the satellite view (imagery) in my local area is 7 mouths old +, 
why would anybody want me to edit in theirs backyard ?




If *you* think the source data isn't accurate enough, then *you* should 
decide not use that data.


DaveF
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Could/should editors detect/disallow huge changeset bboxes?


On 12/06/2020 14:44, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 12.06.20 15:22, Dave F via talk wrote:

There is a lot of negativity about large changsets, but assessment of
them should be based on quality, not quantity.

Yes, we're not discussing a popup that says "You dumbass, why did you
create a world-spanning changeset?" ;)


I'm not convinced that's true. Already in this thread someone is blaming 
large changesets purely because the verifying software they're using 
isn't capable of dealing with them. Judge on quality not quantity.



The way in which editors deal with that would likely differ; in JOSM it
might be a popup that says "are you sure?" and in ID it might be a
floating warning somewhere.

Your example of a world-wide spelling fix as an acceptable edit does not
agree with me; these edits often have unwanted side effects. See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org ("if someone has described a 'horse' as a
'kow' correcting the spelling to 'cow' does not make the description
correct").


Tenuous & assumptive.
It was just one "example".


OSM is a project of local knowlege.


Just because you believe that, it doesn't make it so.
Knowledge which effects OSM comes from many sources:
A walk though town where a new shop has opened, or BBC world news which 
reports how a Far Eastern bridge building project has been cancelled & 
the proposed data requires removing.



World-spanning changesets compatible
with that idea are not impossible but rare; and erroneous or even
rule-violating changesets


These rules require amending as they're based purely on size & the 
criticism is usually in the form of " "You dumbass, why did you create a 
world-spanning changeset?". Judge on quality not quantity.



  are much more frequent among world-spanning
changesets than among everyday small bbox changesets.
I'm not convinced. This perception only occurs because changesets over 
large areas stand out.


Cheers
DaveF

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Could/should editors detect/disallow huge changeset bboxes?




Yes please - I am using Osmcha to look at changesets around me and i
have a high number of changesets which span half Europe and thus
intersect with the area i am looking at.

Changeset envelopes which span more than 100s of km² are broken.


In which case, isn't it really OSMCha which is 'broken'?
Maybe there's a way to split the dataset into smaller chunks & load in 
series.


DaveF

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Could/should editors detect/disallow huge changeset bboxes?