Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 171, Issue 52

[Neil Matthews]

Apologies, I assumed this was a ongoing project that started last month, 
c.f. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/94154740#map=8/51.900/-1.599


I'm definitely not keen on seeing welly-boot mapping remapped by 
armchair mappers -- there are too many real-world issues that don't map 
easily (sorry!) to more abstract ontologies.


I do think it would be great quarterly project (if the stile's wrong -- 
a lot else might be too).


And if this is a key issue for you, then perhaps asking OSM editor 
developers to give a gentle warning for "stile" on "bridleway" might be 
a great idea -- and help reduce inadvertant problems. -- and stop them 
coming back.

(I think "block" should be ok though -- probably just there to stop cars)

Cheers,
Neil

P.S. I only raised it on talk-gb as it covered a large area -- I have no 
problem reverting smaller changesets in my locality that are incorrect.



From: Richard Fairhurst 
To: "talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)" 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

Neil Matthews wrote:

  Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from
bridleways

Um, no there hasn't?

The changeset you've pointed to (which is one of mine) has a single stile moved 
to the side of a bridleway. I've done this a handful of times in the past, too, 
usually where the stile is clearly misplaced at a footpath/bridleway junction 
node rather than off to the side on a footpath, but occasionally at an isolated 
bridleway location like this.

A barrier=stile on a long-established UK bridleway is 99.9% a mapping error. 
Bridleways are open to horses and bikes, and so stiles are forbidden - PRoW 
officers are pretty hot on this. You will sometimes see a stile placed to the 
side of a gate: in OSM this is usually mapped as a highway=footway through the 
stile and highway=bridleway through the gate, though of course there's no 
distinct public footpath PRoW in this case.

OSM is an iterative process of fixup and improvement, and shouting "mechanical edit!" 
every time someone makes a change that hasn't been surveyed in walking boots and then manually 
etched onto the hard disc platters of a server somewhere in Amsterdam is not hugely helpful. I 
mean, just change it back and say "put back pending survey" if you feel that strongly, it 
doesn't need an entire mailing list thread.

Richard
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20201214/1e3ca890/attachment-0001.htm>

--



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

[Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

[Neil Matthews]

Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from bridleways 
-- pretty sure I've seen this done in other edits -- agree that they're 
a potential anomaly but should they really be a mechanical edit (even if 
by hand)? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95739504


Cheers,
Neil


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

[Talk-GB] Lorries can't limbo

[Neil Matthews]

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/network-rail-reveals-most-bashed-bridge-in-britain-09-11-2020/

Saw this and thought it might suit a small virtual project - to 
check/add bridge heights from mapillary images or similar might be useful.


And maybe network rail have a longer list / more info?

Cheers,
Neil



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

[Talk-GB] Colouring London?

[Neil Matthews]

Is https://colouring.london/ well known? Just stumbled onto it from an
overly general web search.

Looks like it would be a great fit for OSM -- but seems to be using
Ordnance Survey?

Cheers,
Neil


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

[Talk-GB] Cheers Drive, Bristol

[Neil Matthews]

Local coverage:
https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/there-is-a-new-road-in-speedwell-called-cheers-drive/

Looks like housenumbers have the road name, even if roadsigns aren't
installed.

Cheers,
Neil



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

[Talk-GB] Presumed Vandalism

[Neil Matthews]

See edits by https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Jackgeo123

Cheers,
Neil


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Update bus stop names

[Neil Matthews]

For an example of possible name mismatch, see the edit history for node:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/485404488 which is shown at
https://flic.kr/p/2igLCco

For an example of stops being amalgamated see:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/435846038 when
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/485404491/history and
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/436185070/history were deleted. See
the changeset for discussion:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74179599

I am not the only person editting stops locally -- but none of us have
added not:name -- just tried to map what is there.

Cheers,
Neil

On 18/01/2020 18:40, Cj Malone wrote:
> Hey Neil,
>
> I don't know which nodes you are talking about, but of the ones I'm
> looking at (where "name" != name from new NaPTAN data using
> "naptan:AtcoCode"). The vast majority haven't been updated in 10 years,
> since the NaPTAN import, or one edit where "naptan:verified" was
> changed to yes.
>
> I am not doing automatic, or blind edits. It would have been helpful if
> when you changed names from NaPTAN import to surveyed you used
> "not:name", but that doesn't matter. When I make the edits I can look
> at the history of the node, and if a mapper has changed the name semi
> recently I will not change it but rather add a "fixme" describing the
> issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Cj
>
> On Sat, 2020-01-18 at 15:01 +, Neil Matthews wrote:
>> No, please don't update mismatched bus stop names "blindly".
>>
>> I've surveyed a lot locally and have updated them to the newest
>> values
>> from paper timetables -- which have newer names than on metal
>> signage.
>> They also match the names that the local council have used when
>> updating
>> OSM. A lot of names were surveyed that didn't need to be changed -- I
>> don't know how you would ensure that you didn't change them to some
>> incorrect official value. Obviously, you shouldn't be changing names
>> that weren't in the preious Naptan data -- you should at least assume
>> that they are now newer and likely to come from surveyed data.
>>
>> The best approach is either to add official_name (naptan_name?) and
>> leave "name" alone, or provide a mechanism where local mappers can
>> survey mismatches between your dataset and what is currently in OSM.
>> At
>> the very, very least you should move "name" to "old_name".
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Neil
>>
>> P.S. At least locally there are locations where several bus stops
>> have
>> been amalgamated into a single one. Also some are now
>> disused:bus_stop
>> if no services are currently stopping there.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Update bus stop names

[Neil Matthews]

No, please don't update mismatched bus stop names "blindly".

I've surveyed a lot locally and have updated them to the newest values
from paper timetables -- which have newer names than on metal signage.
They also match the names that the local council have used when updating
OSM. A lot of names were surveyed that didn't need to be changed -- I
don't know how you would ensure that you didn't change them to some
incorrect official value. Obviously, you shouldn't be changing names
that weren't in the preious Naptan data -- you should at least assume
that they are now newer and likely to come from surveyed data.

The best approach is either to add official_name (naptan_name?) and
leave "name" alone, or provide a mechanism where local mappers can
survey mismatches between your dataset and what is currently in OSM. At
the very, very least you should move "name" to "old_name".

Best regards,
Neil

P.S. At least locally there are locations where several bus stops have
been amalgamated into a single one. Also some are now disused:bus_stop
if no services are currently stopping there.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Motorway junctions where the slow lane seperates from the through lanes

[Neil Matthews]

This is a changeset that is under discussion:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79260663#map=16/51.5089/-2.5232

The disagreement is that there may be the start of an "exit lane", but
there is no physical separation where the junction has now been modified
-- see the changeset dicsussion for background info.

Local mappers would prefer that the junction were to be split where
there is a physical, rather than a logical separation,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways

Cheers,
Neil


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

[Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire

[Neil Matthews]

In light of some recent edits in South Gloucestershire -- is it ok to
import unsurveyed footpaths based simply on rowmaps data?

Thanks,
Neil

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

Re: [Talk-GB] road relations

[Neil Matthews]

Not a fan -- for the more prosaic issue of what happens when you split
the street -- I don't think any of the editors will automatically
reassign the buildings.


Neil


On 01/06/2019 11:24, Andrew Hain wrote:
> It is documented at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet
>  , the
> terracer plugin used to create it a lot but now doesn’t by default.
> The Germans have been stripping it out of the database recently [
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=65510
>  ] and I’d be
> relaxed if we did the same.
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] New Bridge Gunnislake

[Neil Matthews]

Add a note on the main OSM site - maybe with expected finish date of
road works -- might help as a reminder.

Cheers,
Neil

On 03/04/2019 20:38, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> There is also the temporary affix:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/temporary_(conditional)#Example_4:_Temporary_highway_bridge
>
> I'm not entirely sure how well supported that is by routers etc though. 
>

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Measuring building height

[Neil Matthews]

So, I just tried this and I think it has a reasonable chance of giving a
reasonable result.

Take a photo of a car outside the building. Measure number of pixels for
the car and number of pixels for the building and the height can be
approximated by:

    building_pixels / car_pixels * car_height_in_m

I reckon an average of 1.5m might be reasonable for the car height --
otherwise use something more detailed:
https://www.automobiledimension.com/ford-car-dimensions.html


Obviously, the further the car is from the building the less accurate
the measurement will be.


Cheers,

Neil


On 19/03/2019 16:23, Tony Shield wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Been figuring out how to do this for a while - my solution-
>
> rule - I used 30cm (aka 1 foot), calculator, known length of arm - in
> my case .6m, OSM map to measure distance from target.
>
> With hand holding rule vertically measure the target height against
> the rule for rule height, this is the key measurement, note the
> measurement point. From the map measure the distance from the
> measuring point to the target
>
> With this information and using proportions (which is what a tangent
> is) -
>
> target height = (rule height in metres * distance from measuring point
> to target) / length of arm in metres.
>
> Using this technique I have this morning measured known height of of a
> local landmark, and the unknown height of a building. The known height
> of 50m measured 8cm at a range of 375m. The unknown height of the
> building with 5 floors was calculated to be 20.7 metres which would on
> the face of it be realistic (from 3cm and 414m). (Botany Bay mill in
> Chorley).
>
> TonyS999
>
> On 19/03/2019 09:30, Brian Prangle wrote:
>> There are also theodolite apps for smartphones
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019, 00:17 Rob Nickerson, > > wrote:
>>
>> For building heights why not try using a laser measure? Those
>> with a Pythagoras Measurement mode should automate the
>> calculations for you.
>>
>> Price has fallen a lot over the years. Seems like even a basic
>> £30 device is sufficient.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> 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
>
> ___
> 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] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

[Neil Matthews]

Thanks for the DEFRA link - has some potential :-)

The first issue I was raising was that for convenience some (commercial)
OSM mappers were using a value like 0.75 per building level (or
something similar) so that their rendering software could deal directly
with OSM data without post-processing it. Effectively a 100 level set of
flats would be marked as building:level=75.

The second issue is how to ensure that height values used for 3D mapping
aren't just being made up (given previous behaviour) - or coming a
source that isn't appropriate for OpenStreetmap.
Unfortunately, I haven't managed to get the editors to cite the data
source they are using for building (part) heights, etc. -- but I do note
that the area isn't mapped by DEFRA lidar!

Cheers,
Neil

P.S. Any suggestions  on how I can measure buildings "on-foot" greatly
apreciated...


On 18/03/2019 15:31, SK53 wrote:
> How very useful; had completely forgotten about this!
>
> However, I don't think that is Neil's issue, which is that
> building:levels should have integer values (or just possibly steps of
> a half). Some 3D renders make assumptions about what a default height
> for a single storey (level) will be. A good example is
> here: https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=52.9755467=-1.2013530=18 (I
> accidentally typed the house number into the building:levels tag).
>
> Jerry
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 15:13, Brian Prangle  > wrote:
>
> Try this site
> 
> :
> origin of building height data is Environment Agency LIDAR data
> under OGL
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Invalid building levels and building (part) height license compatibility

[Neil Matthews]

Anyone mapping in Manchester might want to take a look for strange
fractional building:levels.

It's possible that some commercial editors found that they got better
results with open source 3D renderers by using ~0.75 per building level,
rather than the documented value of 1.
We recently had a spate of strange edits around Aztec West -- with some
1-level mobile homes being labelled as 1.5 (presumably thought they were
a "scaled" two storey house when satellite mapping).

On a similar vein, what are acceptable data sources for building:height
-- and how far should one ask for proof that these haven't come from a
source that would be problematic to OpenStreetmap?

Cheers,
Neil




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping Mobility Stockport

[Neil Matthews]

Bath Hacked (on meetup) might be useful to contact -- they organised a
round-table to consider main issues for accessibility in Bath, e.g.
https://www.meetup.com/Bath-Hacked/events/237213318/ before several
sesssions surveying and adding items to Openwheelmap.

Cheers,

Neil



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Changing highway=ford to ford=yes.

[Neil Matthews]

Presumably only those ways that have a consistent highway value for ways
joined at both ends? If there's a different highway value at ways joined
at each end, then you should at minimum add a fixme to the ford section,
or a note for local mappers to check?

Cheers,

Neil


On 05/01/2019 20:49, Dave F wrote:
> Hi
> I'm about to do a GB wide edit changing highway=ford (545) to ford=yes
> (4814). I know a few contributors like to get upset about wide area
> edits, even when they been discussed, so I thought I'd give you a
> heads up.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Changing wikipedia links

[Neil Matthews]

Thanks for the info gents - I see more information has finally been
added to the wiki - albeit a year after discussion on imports :-)

Cheers,
Neil

On 02/10/2018 08:09, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 01/10/2018 23:39, Dan S wrote:
>> Op ma 1 okt. 2018 om 23:15 schreef Neil Matthews :
>>> Looks like an automated edit - albeit a human curated one - without
>>> discussion, certainly on Talk-GB.
>> The "imports" mailing list would be the right place to discuss it, if
>> it's a bulk edit (is it?). It doesn't seem to have GB-specific
>> implications for this list IMHO (even though this particular changeset
>> is of course within gb).
>>
>
> For completeness, this sort of thing has been discussed on "imports" -
> see
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-September/thread.html#78902
> and the subsequent messages.  Quite a lot of that thread is about
> other things (as tends to happen) but it has been discussed before.
>
> In this particular case as Dan says brand:wikipedia looks like a more
> correct tag than wikipedia.

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

[Talk-GB] Changing wikipedia links

[Neil Matthews]

Looks like an automated edit - albeit a human curated one - without
discussion, certainly on Talk-GB.

Seems to be moving wikipedia links for branded stores to
brand:wikipedia, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/63071623

My concern is  changing the behaviour of a well-known tag (worldwide).

Cheers,

Neil

P.S. presumably brand:wikimedia will be next?

       





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

Re: [Talk-GB] What was the outcome of the discussion about C class roads with ref tags?

[Neil Matthews]

> If there are tertiary ways that don't meet the above criteria they
> should be listed in some form of text file for individual editing if
> appropriate.

Where does this text file live? Better to add notes to the map / fixmes
to the data.

Neil


___
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

[Neil Matthews]

*If* there are used for looking up addresses, then there is some very
slight advantage to having them -- I still occasionally see
websites/people referring to Avon :-)

Neil

On 26/08/2018 23:49, Dave F wrote:

> 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 implication that the
>> traditional counties don't exist. It's very much arguable I guess,
>> certainly successive governments have made clear that they recognised
>> the continued existence of the traditional counties, and that
>> administrative changes neither legally abolished nor altered these
>> counties.
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 22:01 Colin Smale, > > wrote:
>>
>> Except that the "ceremonial counties" actually do exist, and
>> serve a function. They are formally called "Lieutenancy Areas"
>> and represent the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant as direct
>> representative of the monarchy. Their boundaries are maintained
>> by a different legal process to the admin areas, and on occasions
>> can diverge for a limited period until they catch up with changes
>> to admin boundaries. And then there is the Stockton-on-Tees
>> anomaly...the borough is divided between the ceremonial counties
>> of Durham and North Yorkshire.
>>
>>
>> Thanks Colin,
>>
>> Yes, I was aware of how the ceremonial counties are defined. I think
>> if we're truly honest with ourselves we don't really map them because
>> lord lieutenancies (as wonderfully arcane and obscure as they are)
>> are of any real importance, but because they provide a vaguely
>> sensible and recognisable set of geographic areas that we can call
>> counties. Certainly if administrative importance were genuinely to be
>> our criteria for mapping we would be mapping all kinds of things
>> prior to lord lieutenancies.
>>
>> In practical terms lords lieutenant are historic, honorary crown
>> appointments and little more. If we actually believed this was
>> justification for mapping we could use the same arguments for mapping
>> the areas over which the royal duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall
>> perform various honorary and historic functions (such as appointing
>> the ever-so-important-in-the-present-day lords lieutenant) and
>> exercise special rights. Incidentally their legally-defined and
>> extant boundaries are the historic/traditional boundaries of the
>> counties of Lancashire and Cornwall :)
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Bartholomews, Brighton

[Neil Matthews]

Maybe add a note on both Bartholemews / Avenue and perhaps an
alt_name="Bartholemews Avenue" on both too (doesn't seem like something
that would easily be reconstructed by Nominatim)?

Neil


On 26/07/2018 17:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>
> On 26/07/2018 16:39, Martin Wynne wrote:
>>   > And, since that also matches what's on the ground,
>>
>> What's on the ground is that a property in Avenue has a postal
>> address in East Street, so maybe Avenue is simply a part of East
>> Street and should be mapped as "East Street"?
>>
>> It is in the normal run of East Street numbers - 60 not 60A:
>>
>>   http://www.cutemedia.com/contact/
>
> It's on the corner of Avenue and East Street. So it's not surprising
> that it has an address in East Street. There are no properties which
> face solely onto Avenue. They all face onto East Street or Old Steine.
>
> Google Streetview clearly shows a name plate for "Avenue":
>
> https://goo.gl/maps/97fkMqoXCg72
>
> and at the other end:
>
> https://goo.gl/maps/siHbb4nKEFN2
>
> 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-GB] Toys R Us

[Neil Matthews]

previous_name isn't documented -- and seems a bad idea. It's unlikely to
be searchable with Nominatim, and won't be rendered.

This is the scheme some of us are using in Bristol
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Bristol#Lifecycle.



In an ideal world (!) I'd say use something like disused:name /
proposed:name.

  * disused:name / proposed:name would be searchable.
  * proposed:name and disused:name would both be rendered (at lower
priority to name) and "faintly"
  * validation support

No idea how such a Utopia might be achieved though.

Neil


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=  whichever variant of the
> Toys R us name is present; which preserves the shop amenity  with a
> change of use and preserves the "landmark" data, which I hope answers
> some of the concerns raised so far. Maintaining map data surely has to
> be a mix of automation and hand-crafted, not a zealot position of one
> to the exclusion of the other. If we know data to be inaccurate and
> there is an easy fix surely we're bounden to users of our map to make
> it the best we can. If we adopt Frederick's position(which I see,
> rightly or wrongly, as a quest for ideological purity) we put
> community  before users, when I see it has to be a balance between the
> two. What's the point of  building a map if we don't make it as
> accurate and complete as possible,/*as soon as possible*/? Otherwise
> it's in danger of becoming purely a thing of beauty hand-crafted by
> dedicated hobbyists, with  no thought for all those who have decided
> to use our map.
>
> How long should we wait for a mapper to verify something that's
> changed? Lloyds and TSB  banks demerged 5 years ago - yet we still
> have 180 branches with the old name. Likewise the Territorial Army
> changed name 6 years ago and we still have 27 instances of the old
> name. So how about  volunteers for a campaign to contact local mappers
> and gently encourage them to update the map?
>
> Regards
>
> Brian
>
>
> On 5 May 2018 at 11:57, Rob Nickerson  > wrote:
>
> And for the balance: I disagree with Frederik on this one.
>
> If we know the map is wrong we should fix it. We should not leave
> it just because it may encourage others to fix it and then go on
> to do other local edits.
>
> Frederik's view is that a crap map encourages more people to edit.
> I'm not convinced. A crap map could also put people off - "why
> bother, OSM is so far behind, I'll contribute to/just use Google
> maps instead"
>
> I agree that a *blank* map encourages new mappers, but that was 10
> years ago! Less convinced that an out of date map does. At least
> not with our current homepage or if we do get a new mapper its
> most likely to be a single edit (maybe with MapsMe) rather than a
> new prolific mapper. 
>
> So I'm happy with this mechanical edit (full removal preferred,
> but addition of disussed ok too).
>
> Rob
>
> P.s. Do we still have cases of Lloyds TSB in OSM?
>
> ___
> 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] Toys R Us

[Neil Matthews]

On 05/05/2018 16:36, Andy Townsend wrote:
> Indeed  - and in the case of named stores (open or shut) which act as
> landmarks, there are at least some people (including me) actually
> consuming that data.  Please don't remove a name until it really has
> been removed.

+1 -- helps me mapping too, especially if several adjacent shops are
disused, removing the names doesn't help me to update the new one if
there are several candidates.
Plus, you want the name rendered, and searchable (via Nominatim) for
instructions like "Meet me by the (old) Toys R Us".

Neil


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

[Talk-GB] Youth Hostels are being renamed

[Neil Matthews]

Looks like a lot of the UK Youth Hostels are being renamed, e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57638893

Changeset comment is:

"I'm in the process of standardizing the naming of Youth Hostels in
England and Wales to use the names given by the yha.org.uk website."

Copyrighted source? Lack of on the ground survey? Semi-mechanical import?

Neil



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

[Talk-GB] Geospatial User Workshop - Bristol

[Neil Matthews]

One for those in the south-west:

"Following the announcement that the UK government intends to form a
Geospatial Commission, the Cabinet Office are currently exploring how to
open up freely the OS MasterMap data to UK-based small businesses in
particular.

The cross-government team, led by Cabinet Office, are keen to engage
with small businesses, startups and other data users who can help
provide insight into the challenges faced with using MasterMap in its
current form and in its current pricing and licensing scheme

In collaboration with ODI HQ and the Cabinet Office team we are running
this workshop to help collect a diverse range of opinions and data user
needs."

tickets
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/geospatial-user-workshop-bristol-tickets-43306114755
and also signup with
https://www.meetup.com/Bristol_Open_Data/events/247987570/

Cheers,
Neil




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

[Talk-GB] Armchair mapper changing oneway constraints?

[Neil Matthews]

Might be useful to check your area for user Benitoto changing oneway
constraints: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Benitoto.

This looks like an armchair / geometry exercise -- rather than just
adding notes to request local mappers to (re)survey them.

I think some of the issues may be due to missing highways "in/under"
multi-storey car parks, whereas othes are probably because a highway
should be split into smaller pieces -- but it's not all going to be
clear without a survey.

Cheers,
Neil




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

[Talk-GB] Bing imagery round Bristol

[Neil Matthews]

I think Bing imagery round Bristol has been updated (I can see new
Metrobus works) but at it's highest level it has lost the brightness and
clarity I used to enjoy.
A quick check in Bath / London and quality seems as before.

Presume that there's no way of changing any settings/caches to access
the previous set of tiles?

As it happens the ESRI layer is almost as good as the old Bing layer --
gets a bit more pixellated and doesn't zoom in quite as far as the Bing
layer in Josm.
Is there any way to get the ESRI layer to zoom better/more/interpolate
in a smoother manner (in Josm).

Any thoughts appreciated -- I've got several months worth of
house/building surveys to add -- and I'd got used to the stunning
quality of the previous Bing imagery.

Thanks,
Neil


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OpenStreetCam or Mapillary?

[Neil Matthews]

I've tried Mapillary -- not tried OpenStreetCam yet.

Comments mostly relate to the Mapillary Android app:

  * Mapillary App drove me nuts until I worked out how to take photos
individually when walking, rather than as a continuous sequence -
more car oriented?
  * Seems to be moderately "fussy" about getting a GPS lock.
  * Takes a long while to upload images over WiFi.
  * Images are removed after loading on WiFi - so can't keep a backup,
e.g. to upload to a second site.
  * Battery life may be impacted severely.
  * Mapillary has a JOSM plugin.

Personally, I think something like running OSM tracker (or a real GPS)
and/or using naive Android photo GPS tagging might be good.
Find a good scripting mechanism to upload - without using the App?
Upload to either Mapillary / OpenStreetCam / both?
Maybe a battery pack?

There's also a thought that you might even want to pick the least
well-used site -- so that it's easier to find "your own" pictures -- you
may find a lot of less relevant shots on popular roads from others
(motorists).
It may be worth seeing how easy it is to filter them by user or
time/date on each site.

Neil

On 21/09/2017 19:09, Brian Prangle wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> I'm in discussions with Transport for West Midlands to use their
> inspection teams'  time on the street to assist us by taking photos
> with smartphones, which will also help them with their asset
> management and not have to rely on outdated data from Google StreetView.
>
> Which one of the above is better for us? Or just plain better?
>
> 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] museum consisting of house and grounds

[Neil Matthews]

On 31/07/2017 21:18, Dave F wrote:
> Hi
>>
>> Follow the wiki and tag the building -- unless the museum exhibits
>> are in the grounds, e.g. https://museum.wales/stfagans/
>>
> Are you referring specifically to the museum wiki page? I suspect this
> has been written by someone who's understanding of a museum is of a
> single building in a large metropolis. Tags which refer to the whole
> museum (addresses etc) should be tagged onto the extreme polygon.

No tagging the entrance with the address is likely to give more precise
routing.

>> Keep the address on the building or one of its entrances.
>>
>
> What if there are multiple buildings?

Pick the one with the main entrance -- reception /  tourist information
/ ticket booth -- whatever you survey on the ground.
>> Add a relevant landuse -- if required.
> What would you suggest?

Depends on the grounds -- pedestrian, recreation ground, garden, car
park, coach park, etc.

Cheers,
Neil


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

Re: [Talk-GB] museum consisting of house and grounds

[Neil Matthews]

Follow the wiki and tag the building -- unless the museum exhibits are
in the grounds, e.g. https://museum.wales/stfagans/

Keep the address on the building or one of its entrances.

Add a relevant landuse -- if required.

Neil

On 31/07/2017 17:23, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Could I have your opinions please.
>
> Preston Park, Brighton has a small house and gardens in the corner,
> separate from the park. There is a walled garden, a lawn where they do
> outdoor cinema screenings, a house that is a museum.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/50.84254/-0.15075
>
> In 2012 it was mapped as just the building as a museum, then soon
> after I added the whole containing area as a museum in a similar style
> to schools and hospitals.
>
> All was fine until a Wheelmap user just turned the containing area
> into a car park (!). I went to revert it, but wasn't sure it was
> totally right in the first place.
>
> So, question is: I don't see any OSM Wiki discussion of 'museum = both
> house and grounds' in a schools/hospitals fashion. How would you map it?
>
> Regards,
>  Jez
>
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping archaeology in towns

[Neil Matthews]

I've recently noticed a lot of "historic" edits in Bath by user SNLA
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SNLA).

There's been some discussion on the changeset
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/49401905

What's the prevailing thought process on mapping mostly obliterated
historic buildings - abuse the layer tag to push them underground,
restrict them to OHM rather than OSM, or just delete them. One problem
seems to be they are joining other contemporary features and modifying
them when rectifying ruined buildings, etc. I always find Bath "a bit
fiddly" so it's not surprising. The other issue would be where
underlying data is from, in terms of copyright.

Maybe other large historic towns have good solutions; Londinium, Eboracum?

Cheers,

Neil



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Import Progress

[Neil Matthews]

On 21/03/2017 11:20, Andy Allan wrote (more than this):


I feel this is a politely phrased way of saying "we will continue to
ignore everyone and carry on what we're doing already".

Thanks,
Andy


My take from previous mails is that all you need to do to import data 
now is go to the pub and discuss it with local regularly active mappers.
For some values of local/regular/active (possibly even at a county-wide 
level) this just might involve me mumbling to myself in the corner of my 
local -- and bingo I've met the requirements.


I think it's a bad precedent to set.

A (non-)apology that "other mappers' expectations haven't been met", and 
some retrospective mailing list notification, etc. is probably the 
safest way to go without opening the floodgates to future arbitrary imports.


Cheers,
Neil


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Autumn Quarterly Project

[Neil Matthews]

Brilliant -- that'll make surveying a lot easier.

As an aside -- I've noticed that a lot of local establishments often 
include their address (postcode) on menus posted outside -- or on 
alcohol "licences".


Cheers,

Neil

On 09/10/2016 10:45, Greg wrote:

Hi Neil,

I've added the feature you requested. It's now possible to download
various GPX files for each district, which should allow easier surveying
on the ground.

>From tomorrow, it should also be possible to download a GPX file for OSM
entities with invalid fhrs:ids too (i.e. the ones listed in the table at
the bottom of each district page that don't match with the FHRS database).

Thanks,
Greg.


On 02/10/16 22:19, Neil Matthews wrote:

1.We have a great tool

<http://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhrs/>developed some time ago by
gregrs, whose work we should really recognise by making use of it.

Tool looks good, but is there any way to get a feature request: to
identify items in the fhrs data that don't match to OSM in a region (and
ideally get a GPX file for surveying). Maybe also sort the regions
alphabetically on the launch page?

Cheers,
Neil


___
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] Autumn Quarterly Project

[Neil Matthews]

> 1.We have a great tool 
developed some time ago by 
gregrs, whose work we should really recognise by making use of it.


Tool looks good, but is there any way to get a feature request: to 
identify items in the fhrs data that don't match to OSM in a region (and 
ideally get a GPX file for surveying). Maybe also sort the regions 
alphabetically on the launch page?


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

[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: OSM attribution

[Neil Matthews]

It would be good to get a view from legal-talk.

I mailed cartodb.com last week, but aside from an acknowledgement email 
nothing has been modified.


Neil

 Forwarded Message 

I'd like to raise an issue about OSM attribution.

It's good to see a link to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright from
https://cartodb.com/attributions

However, "Data by OpenStreetMap, under CC BY SA." seems incorrect.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright -- states:
 "OpenStreetMap® is open data, licensed under the Open Data Commons
Open Database License (ODbL) by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF).".

Also, https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright states:
 "We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”."
and
"You must also make it clear that the data is available under the
Open Database Licence,"
and
"For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the
corner of the map."

https://cartodb.com/attributions does not include any of these statements.

It would be great if you could modify your attribution details to match
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright requirements.

Many thanks,
Neil




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

[Talk-GB] Definitive map edits

[Neil Matthews]

Anyone know whether "definitive maps" are suitable as sources for OSM?

I'm seeing a lot of edits today by the same author that have comments 
about "the definitive map", e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37850221


There are URLs for the source, but they don't seem to be valid?

Cheers,
Neil

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Neil Matthews]

I'd argue all approaches can be considered correct from the wiki:
"Add a node at the centre of the pub and add amenity=pub to it. ... If 
the whole building is used for this feature and its footprint is present 
in OSM, you can apply the tags on the area if you prefer."
Area obviously applies to "the whole building" but some might read it 
differently :-)


If you're using the whole area style and there are elements, e.g. 
roads,  that don't belong to it then the whole area needs to be split 
into pieces and use a site relation -- like schools?


You also need to "layer" in landuse retail on the "site" that actually 
has the retail portion, and not the car park.


The building probably should be tagged as building=retail? Or 
building=pub? Or both?


Cheers,
Neil

P.S. Which building is the pub? 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.45246/-2.42691 / 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.45395/-2.43063


On 14/03/2016 19:51, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:

A quick query on IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this way


True, but not with a zealous committment to it "absolutely being the 
best way".  I'm open to persuasion.


Part of the reason might be that I'm probably more likely to sit in 
the beer garden than most people (as evidenced by the mapping trip to 
Consall Forge where my suggestion that we sit outside was met with 
disbelieving "are you mad?" looks from all around). Another is that 
I've tended to map the entire site of other businesses - see for 
example http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/241928696 , which is a large 
site surrounded by a fence - it's very clear what's part of the car 
dealership and what is not.


To take a deliberately problematic example 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419244 - how would you map them if 
you weren't going to map the whole area as the pub?  How would you say 
that http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419080 and 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374419082 belong to the pub? That's 
"deliberately problematic" because clearly a section of road there 
isn't owned by the pub.


Maybe if people have got better suggestions they could show how they'd 
do it by editing at 
http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.87134/-3.24177 (on the 
dev server, preferably after dragging the imagery to one side so that 
other people can also have a go)?


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)


___
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] Pubs as areas: should be map the property or the building?

[Neil Matthews]

It's not my preferred style -- I prefer to draw the building and tag 
that. I'd expect to put the name and address on the building too!


If I tag a large area, then there's a high likelihood that it'll 
adversely affect routing. Conversely tagging large areas makes the map 
look more complete.


However, if I can't rely on a rendering to help me locate a public house 
(emphasis on the house :-) accurately on a map, especially at the end of 
a long day mapping, then that doesn't rely help. And since I use mapnik 
renderings and OSMAnd+ it's important that they work well -- especially 
as that way I find other non-obvious issues.


Schools are somewhat different in that they aren't generally open to the 
public -- it's probably more important to map the entrances on the 
perimeter -- as more and more schools are fencing kids in and public out.


But maybe we should use bar to mean where you actually get served? And 
pub for the whole area.


Cheers,
Neil

On 11/03/2016 17:26, SK53 wrote:
Earlier today browsing Pascal Neis summary of changesets I noticed a 
comment about reverting a duplicate pub node, and glanced at the 
changeset .


The pub had indeed been added again (and subsequently removed). 
However what caught my attention was that the amenity=pub tag had been 
applied to the entire area of the pub grounds (car park, buildings 
etc.). A quick query on IRC and Andy (SomeoneElse) also maps pubs this 
way, however rarely with as much detail as this particular one. The 
general alternative is to map pubs as areas on the building of the pub.


The obvious advantages of mapping the entire area of the pub property 
are largely to do with the immediate association of car parks, beer 
gardens, children's playgrounds with the pub and thus ready 
interpretation of things like access tags and resolution as to which 
car park belongs to the pub. This approach is clearly less cumbersome 
than using a relation, such as associatedCarpark (invented I believe 
by Gregory Williams in Kent).


The disadvantages, at least to my mind, are:

  * Non-intuitive. Certainly I have never thought of mapping pubs this
way, although I can see the point. I doubt that a newcomer to OSM
would find this the straightforwardly obvious approach.
  * Pubs are licensed premises. The premises licensed usually relate
to the building.
  * Where do we place tags associated with the pub premises which may
apply also to other parts of the pub property (an obvious one
would be opening_hours).
  * Peculiar rendering. In this case a pub icon in a car park. Even if
we fully accept "not tagging for the renderer", let's consider how
we can tell renderers to improve icon placement. Andy suggested on
IRC a label node, but this implies a relation: do we want to
replace a simple node &/or area tag with a node, an area & a
relation? And then ask the Carto-CSS team to deal with it? It
seems to me that this pushes the bar too high not just for
inexperienced mappers but also those of us who have been at it for
a while. In the meantime the CartoCSS rendering will look rather
daft in such cases.
  * Consistency. In general pubs will get mapped initially as nodes
over the pub building, and attributes on a node easily transfer to
a building outline + (usually) building=pub. In particular the
node & area centroid will tend to be very close. Thus the two
different ways of mapping relate to each other in a clear way.

This issue of course is more general than pubs. For instance we map 
schools, colleges, universities and hospitals as areas and place all 
the relevant tags on the area. Churches & other places of worship, on 
the other hand, tend to have the amenity tag placed on the building. 
(This makes sense as in many cases it is the building which is the 
place of worship not the grounds). Also, I certainly will map a 
supermarket as the building rather than the whole area including car 
parks, petrol stations etc.


Obviously I prefer for supermarkets, places of worship and pubs that 
the area mapped should be the building. However I can equally see that 
there are certain issues which are otherwise intractable where mapping 
the whole area offers some advantages.


One approach which would reflect my own mapping approach would be to 
tag the complete area associated with the pub as landuse=retail, with 
a tag such as retail=pub. This would require no more additional OSM 
elements than used at the moment, and would provide for the 
identification of associations with car parks etc (and would work fine 
with multipolygons for pubs where the car park is across the road or 
otherwise removed from the pub.


This is an example of how as more stuff gets mapped different styles 
evolve. Neither is specifically wrong or right, but it would be nice 
if we could find a consistent style which satisfies most needs.


Cheers,

Jerry

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM with Wikidata: now covers UK and Ireland

[Neil Matthews]

Had a look at Bristol -- seems fine...
...except:

Q4968836 — Bristol Castle — 2 matches found
@ Bristol

Sometimes known as "At Bristol" -- a science-themed museum/attraction -- 
an odd match to a ruined castle?


Cheers,
Neil

On 10/03/2016 17:57, Edward Betts wrote:

I've extended my search for matches between OSM and Wikidata again. It now
covers all of the UK and Ireland.

I used map data from http://download.geofabrik.de/europe/british-isles.html

The results are grouped by region or county as well as by category.

http://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/gb-ie/

I'm going to figure out how to upload these matches to OSM. I've registered an
account with the username Wikidata to use for the uploads.

There will be one changeset per county + category for any category with 10 or
more matches in that county. Categories with less than 10 matches in the
county will be combined into a single changeset.

OSM objects with an existing wikidata tag won't be changed.



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

Re: [Talk-GB] [Imports] OSM with Wikidata: 27232 matches found in England

[Neil Matthews]

I had a look at your Bristol matches -- most are reasonable, a few issues:

Q5015771 — Cabot Circus — Cabot Circus (way, distance: 165 m) building=yes
Matched to parking not the shopping area -- OSM updated, was a 
suburb place


University of Bristol
one of three matches is to operator UWE Bristol -- OSM updated 
should be UWE


Stoke Park
should probably match to Stoke Park Estate -- remove duplicating 
node from OSM


Brislington West (ward)
matched to Saint Annes -- probably needs checking further?

Cheers,
Neil

P.S. Might be fun to see the items for Bristol that couldn't be matched :-)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Birmingham New Street station re-opens

[Neil Matthews]

I want to flag up a couple of "historical edits" in Bristol:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34126960
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34147883

it might be wise to check other edits from this user.

Many thanks,
Neil (ndm)

P.S. Unfortunately, the "whodidit" service isn't operating 100% -- this 
makes it harder to pick up problems.


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

[Talk-GB] Disclaimer

[Neil Matthews]

Do we need an OSM disclaimer -- I've just had a mail from a gentleman 
enquiring why an underground powerline 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/127968407/history#map=17/51.50283/-2.55462 
was drawn on OSM -- as he didn't want to buy a house on top of it and 
Western Power told him the powerline couldn't be there! I think he 
joined OSM just to message me?!?


As it happens I think I may have modified one end to change the overhead 
route adjacent to it -- and when I checked the history I can see that I 
didn't draw in the original version of the underground powerline.


I was very tempted to reply with the following disclaimer:
Caveat emptor; the presence/absence of any or all of the following items 
on OpenStreetmap should not be considered definitive: power lines, 
plague pits, mines, flood planes, mobile phone masts -- but all 
contributions on these and other topics to OpenStreetmap are warmly 
welcomed.


Unfortunately, I took the easy way out and merely referred him to his 
solicitor and surveyer :-(


I suspect he might have been more upset if he was selling...

Cheers,
Neil (ndm)


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