have no idea about the status of Route 6, but Route 5 still seems to be well
signposted.
Should I add Route 5 based on the signs, or is this route being decommissioned?
If Route 6 has gone, is it safe to remove the relation for this route?
Mark P
> On 18 May 2024, at 5:36 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/5/24 00:10, Mark Pulley wrote:
>> I’ve just uploaded a changeset deleting the overlapping ways for the Grand
>> Clifftop Walk.
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151456052
> Thanks
I’ve just uploaded a changeset deleting the overlapping ways for the Grand
Clifftop Walk.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151456052
Mark P.
> On 17 May 2024, at 6:37 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 17/5/24 00:11, Mark Pulley wrote:
>>>
he mid 90s) - the track was meant to be extended
further to Sublime Point but this never happened.
Mark P.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88292947 I applied the name to some of
the paths. I recall there being wooden signs with the Great North Walk name
present, so I took this to be the name of the path.
Mark P.
> On 16 May 2024, at 9:11 PM, cleary wrote:
> A response to Tony's comment (but not neces
from Rodriguez
Pass was left alone. With Rodriguez Pass currently closed, I’m not able to
check it in-person. It was passable in 2017, with some indistinct sections, so
it’s possible that the 2020 fires and 2022 floods have finished it off. I’ve
asked a clarifying question on the changeset.
Mark
I had suggested changing to access=no, or adding a disused: prefix (mainly to
keep NPWS happy), but looking at this page, the recommendation seems to be to
keep the tags as they are now (access=discouraged, informal=yes).
Mark P.
> On 23 Feb 2024, at 7:29 pm, Tom Brennan wrote:
>
&
had been changed
incorrectly).
Mark P.
> On 19 Feb 2024, at 8:19 pm, Mark Pulley wrote:
>
> I haven’t done any reversions yet. I was planning to start from the oldest
> changeset and work forwards, however the oldest changesets don’s specify a
> source. I’ve asked
back, requesting that he either make comments on the changeset,
or discuss on the mailing list, rather than send private messages, as I don’t
want to be passing messages back and forth. (Thanks to tonyf1 who has made the
same suggestion on the changeset.)
Mark P.
> On 20 Feb 2024, at 2:13 pm, M
t comments there are welcome!
Mark P.
> On 13 Feb 2024, at 11:17 pm, Mark Pulley wrote:
>
> Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352
>
> Mark P.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Speed Data ones?
Mark P.
> On 12 Feb 2024, at 2:45 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> No objections from me. They haven't responded yet, and from everything we can
> tell they imported the data without any other cross checks and didn't follow
> the import guidelines.
>
> On Sun,
Done. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352
Mark P.
> On 12 Feb 2024, at 7:05 am, forster wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Its OK by me. The park ranger who appears to be most connected to this has
> been contacted and invited into our discussion. What more can we do? I
In that case, should I go ahead now with the revert?
Mark P.
> On 9 Feb 2024, at 6:23 am, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>
> No, nothing that I have heard.
> Tony
>
>
>> Just following up on this - has there been any further input from National
>> Parks regard
I’ve got some spare time (having caught up with the surveys from my last
holidays), so I can go through these and revert them. Any objections?
Mark P.
> On 9 Feb 2024, at 9:57 am, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> We do have permissions to use this data it's listed in
> https://wiki.opens
Just following up on this - has there been any further input from National
Parks regarding these paths?
Mark P.
> On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified himself
> as Patr
one).
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129760120
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759614
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129759603
Other changesets have been made based on this data, but I haven’t checked the
accuracy of them.
Mark P
I’ll wait a bit for him to join the discussion before I upload.
Mark P.
> On 3 Jan 2024, at 3:28 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I was able to talk to the Parks ranger for this park. He identified himself
> as Patrick and I have his calling phone number which
/ changes before I go ahead?
Mark P.
> On 18 Dec 2023, at 8:22 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> So access=discouraged may be the best answer, possibly together with a
> hazard= tag?
>
> Incidentally, I never heard back from the NPWS bloke who wanted to set-up an
>
I’m not aware of any restriction regarding staying on marked tracks only. The
map on the sign at the start of the walk doesn’t mention any restriction, and
the National Parks web site doesn’t mention any restrictions.
Mark P.
> On 16 Dec 2023, at 1:32 pm, Andrew Harvey wr
to the end.
There is a sign just south of the lookout - Google Maps street view shows the
sign (the small yellow object near the southern end of the safety rail!)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/9mDecm2GKpXxM48k6
On the left side of the sign, there’s a warning icon (exclamation mark), then
“No safety rail
/347707596/ )
Delete the viewpoint tags on the ways
Outline in the changes comments the reason for the reversion (i.e. the
mailing list discussion).
It would be nice to have a resurvey, but I wasn’t planning to go back to this
location any time soon to do one.
Mark P.
> On 2
Spatial Data.
source=survey;local knowledge;NSW Spatial Services
18/9/23 Firefishy https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141445146
Ways are deleted. (Not sure how Firefishy became involved - he's part of the
OpenStreetMap Sysadmin team)
Mark P.
___
Talk-au
ty box", or uses vending machines.
These were all added by a single user, who confirmed that "unattended"
meant "vacant". I don't see it as being a controversial change.
--
Mark
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Track” (without the
“The”)
The signs on the camp areas had “Bridle Track” at the top near the reserve
name, but “The Bridle Track” on the map on the signs.
Should I remove the “The” from the name?
Mark P.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au
work on the Hill End to
Turon River section.
There is a sign (at Hodges Road) advising the road is 4WD only, so I’ve marked
the road past there as 4wd_only=yes. I’ve left the road classifications as they
were.
Mark P.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au
Armidale, the main road then follows Handel
Street / Queen Elizabeth Drive, but the Base Map takes the road classification
across the train line and along Shambrook Avenue, a minor and narrow road.)
I’ll have a look at the new road when I can (if not this weekend, then the
weekend after), as I live
,
but it's no-longer.)
Cheers
Mark
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2022 20:10:15 +1100
From: "Phil Wyatt"
To: "OSM-Au"
Subject: [talk-au] Next tagging clean up project
Message-ID: <000401d8dbbe$f3cbf990$db63ecb0$@wyatt-family.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=&qu
changesets at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mrpulley/history
Mark P.
> On 1 Oct 2022, at 8:48 pm, Dian Ågesson wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Just an update regarding this piece of work.
>
> I was able to complete a bulk edit in Western Australia, however I found th
.
For the ‘Alternative’ routes I’ve used AU:VIC:ALT_NR, AU:WA:ALT_NR,
AU:WA:ALT_S, and tor the Alt-A2 in QLD I’ve used AU:QLD:ALT.
Mark P.
> On 20 Sep 2022, at 8:13 pm, Dian Ågesson wrote:
>
> Hello list,
>
> You may recall earlier this month the road route tagging guidelines
numbers prior to
conversion to alphanumeric routes)?
If we go ahead with this change, I’ve got some time in the next few weeks, so
am willing to volunteer to work on this.
Mark P.
> On 26 Aug 2022, at 8:00 pm, Dian Ågesson wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> Following on from
This what I was thinking about testing out if got enough detail for kurb
project..
-- Forwarded message -
From: Kevin Peat
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016, 21:36
Subject: Re: [LUG] Environment Agency Lidar Data
To:
On 2 January 2016 18:00:28 GMT+00:00, Tom wrote:
>
> Happy New Beer!
>
I remember that there a free data set available via open data rules from
government
What his can use it? Would it high enough too filter on drop kurbs? Thx ..
I think ordinate survey that can download it from..
Complete uk.dataset..
___
Zoom?
how about doing zoom meetings? or https://meet.jit.si/ if want a full
> open source webconferencing not as good as zoom but getting close to
> it depending on how many people join in..
>
> mark redditch and part of kickstart team trying to do disability kerb
>
.
It's not a named track according to Landgate, so I think it may be a poorly
executed direction sign.
Cheers
Mark
From: Mark Rattigan
Sent: Monday, 21 February 2022 1:16 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org ; Graeme Fitzpatrick
Subject: Re: Strange Street type (Pltn
My guess would be Plantation, given the pine forests in the area.
Cheers
Mark
--
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:55:32 +1000
From: Graeme Fitzpatrick
To: OSM-Au
Subject: [talk-au] Strange street type
Message-ID
digenous - none of the other already
defined flag:types really fit.
Cheers
Mark
> -Original Message-
> From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org requ...@openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Monday, 13 December 2021 3:31 PM
> To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Talk-au Diges
Hi trying too keep on top of this project and steering towards osm..
When you all having a meet up face to face,?
We still need guidance..
I am dyselix and disabled English is bad..
Do you use zoom as solution?
We can do a virtual meeting?
Mark.redditch
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021, 11:41 Andy
p too use on a mobile device to tag the kurbs on the map?
The principles of open data how too stop it getting tie too closed source
data. We want the data too.be used as much as possible.. Hopefully used in
a satnav app.
We can come too you n have this meeting
We based in Kidderminster..
Mark
e if you did so
> already, make sure you align with what HOTOSM PH previously did in
> Pampanga.
> Just looking at the educ insti tab, it looks like it's not aligned
> with what they did in Pampanga.
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 7:24 PM Mark Aimon Pangan
> wrote:
> >
> &
Hello, everyone!
Action for Economic Reforms (AER) is planning on conducting field mapping
as part of the COLLABDev and PH3D projects where we aim to provide tools
for more data-driven planning and decision making to our partner
municipalities.
In line with this, we have drafted a data model for
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
> > i
Wiring services directly into the map has obvious maintenance problems. Keeping
the map aligned with timetable changes clearly isn't feasible. I don't believe
this data belongs in the map proper.Using a route planner to calculate bus
routes is feasible. I did a lot of work on this. It's all in
ngle field.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
council.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
now privately owned
or is functionally derelict. But I'm not sure what would be a better
option for one that is in use but, from a CofE perspective, is
considered redundant.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https
ir tracker with them when "Beating the Bounds"?
In a canoe?
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
veway to be the way to access another roadway". If it is
the access to another roadway extending beyond it (eg, a farm track)
then it's not a driveway, it's an access road and should be tagged
accordingly.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstr
Way) does not, in fact,
have legal force. It seems to me that it's more likely to be the result
of an over-zealous highway officer getting the wrong signage installed.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstr
les-only, when in fact it can also be used on foot, will
break a lot of valid pedestrian routes.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
.
Legally, yes. Of course, if there is a separate footway then it would
obviously be wiser to use it. But you are not breaking any law by
walking in the carriageway. Unless it's a motorway or designated special
road, with signage to explicitly indicate that pedestrians are not allowed.
Mark
to that on a
.org domain, with the former being styled to match British practice.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
n existing
path rather than given a new reference.
Mark
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 14:22 SK53, wrote:
> Yes, these are not infrequent. We may have discussed some specific
> examples before, but one which comes to mind is one crossing
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/29348659#ma
Thanks. I'll go back and have a closer look. It was part of a long ride so
I didn't do much checking at the time.
Mark
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 12:30 Dave F via Talk-GB,
wrote:
>
>
> On 08/12/2020 09:36, Mark Lee via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Hello. I've just added a missing public bridle
recording, the source of the path is ultimately the definitive map? How
does that work?
Mark
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 12:19 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists), <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 09:39, Mark Lee via Talk-GB
> wrote:
> > Hello. I've just adde
to what's
actually legal. I know of a few instances where the established path runs
around field boundaries or nearby tracks and OSM is at odds to the
definitive map.
I'll aim to head back out there and have a more concerted look when I can.
Mark
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020, 10:37 Philip Barnes, wrote
.
Thanks,
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
to be using that
rather than the browser's preferred language. Maybe it's parsing the
language string back to front.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
tails.html?osmtype=N=21279378=place
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On 04.12.20 20:48, Volker via Talk-de wrote:
Hallo Tobias,
ich bin zwar kein OSMF-Mitglied. Wäre ich es, ich würde Dich wählen.
Für die anstehende Wahl ist es zwar zu spät, aber was künftige Wahlen
angeht, könntest Du ja einfach beitreten...
Beste Grüße,
Mark
There is flood_prone=yes that can be used for these roads - but only where
signposted.
Mark P.
> On 27 Nov 2020, at 8:19 pm, cleary wrote:
>
> In regard to sections of road that are subject to flooding, I think that is a
> separate issue. Sometimes lengths of road may b
On 19/11/2020 16:35, George Honeywood wrote:
Hi,
I have a feeling it might be related to OS OpenData, perhaps from
importing without deleting the original tags.
Yes, if memory serves it's from the now defunct OS 50k gazetteer.
Mark
___
Talk-GB
, though!
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
the right way
with the right USRN.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Unofficial Street Name, Officially
Described Street and Numbered Street.
Trunk roads, in particular, will have individual USRNs in each highway
authority they cross as well as an overall USRN for the entire length of
the road. There are also USRNs which form a collection of roads.
Mark
-resolution. But if we cheat a bit and go
to the location on Google Maps, then switch into street view:
https://goo.gl/maps/ojwFAP21D4HkUvX77
I have a strong hunch that UPRN 10071171668 is actually a subsurface
property (eg, a utilities conduit) accessed via that manhole cover.
Mark
ularly
comprehensive. I'm still getting my head round it!
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
mation to it, or discussions.
One minor point on that. UPRNs aren't necessarily 12 digits. They're an
unsigned integer of (currently) up to 12 digits. UPRNs of 999
and below aren't zero-padded. They do, in fact, go all the way down to
UPRN 1.
that for Caernarvon.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On 30/10/2020 20:10, ipswichmapper--- via Talk-GB wrote:
Also, the messages by "Mark Goodge" and "Ken Kilfedder" (spiregrain)
didn't show up in my email. Why is this? (Is it because their "reply
all" didn't include my address by mistake?) I'm still getting used
can, and sometimes do, change, particularly when streets
are renamed or rebuilt. So you can't be 100% certain that a house number
in the 1950s is the same number it is now, even if the building is still
the same.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
T
I've checked the latest topo maps from the US Forestry Service website - the
trail number annotations remain but the "Pack" annotation is gone, so will
delete those annotations.
I've noticed that the US Topo Maps are way out of date before - whole rivers
have shifted since the version that
k building, be mapped as a single
polygon? Or should they be mapped as three adjacent, but separate,
polygons? Is there a standard way of approaching situations like this?
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstr
Greetings folks,
Just mapping some of the trails in the Cabinet Mountains in the Idaho
panhandle, from the US Topo Maps. Noticed that the trails have numbers. What
should I put in the "ref" for the route relation? Also, some of the trails are
marked as Pack Trails but there is no documented
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.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
The problem with "suburb" is like the problem with "football": there
are two meanings, and a very large population that doesn't know about
the other meaning. That guarantees widespread misuse.
--
Mark
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 11:55:55 -0400
Brian Stromberg wrote:
>
pretty clear in our minds
about which companies were our trade competitors and which were our
consumer competitors).
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
- you can see that
the "Bristol Deep" channel passes between the two islands and leads into
the harbour:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0278/1529/products/OCB-1179.jpg
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap
ies within
Welsh water.
See also this rather oddly shaped map of the Bristol North West
constituency:
https://members.parliament.uk/constituency/3368/location
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/lis
identifying that the UPRNs in question are current (ie, not
"historic") and are actually assigned to the street as a whole and not
some specific artifact on it?
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstr
open data so it's not a lot of
practical use for my purposes (or, for that matter, OSM). But it is an
illustration of how even the "official" name of something is not
necessarily the "correct" name. The naming of roads is a difficult
matter, it isn't just one of your armchair
only referred to then that's what goes on the OS maps even if
it has a different name in the USRN.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
that
had been cleared for redevelopment.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
re are a few multi-story apartment buildings where the address
points don't correspond to the actual locations of the units.
* I think you'll want to build street names off the "StreetName",
"St_PreMod", "St_PreDir", "St_PreType", "St_PosDir"
o notice "Marked Cycle Crossing" (highway=cycleway,
cycleway=crossing, crossing=marked) as the fourth.
--
Mark
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
est means of compliance.
(I appreciate that this is going a bit off topic for OSM, so I think
I'll leave it there unless there's anything else directly
mapping-related, but it's worth noting that this change has already been
mentioned on social media and I suspect it's an issue which wil
, then the variables will be
numbered 0 to 9.
I'm pretty certain this is deliberate, in order to stop people using
their site as a way to look up addresses from a UPRN. And I suspect it's
part of the same attempts by GeoPlace to deliberately minimise the
utility of the Open U
ds to be re-written.
(I think it's also likely to crash as soon as it encounters some of the
messes that make up real-world OSM data.)
--
Mark
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
ich
focusses on hiking, biking, etc.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
lett Road:
https://uprn.uk/usrn/2704593
I think that what you've found, therefore, is simply an[other] error in
the USRN database.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
the curtilage. Some of the data for monuments includes a
polygon, but not all, and you can't tell from the website which does and
which doesn't - you have to download and convert the shapefiles.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https
On 21/07/2020 21:27, ael wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 05:30:25PM +0100, 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
On 21/07/2020 20:56, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
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
/operator/network) can be updated
automatically.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
certainly make a point of adding the ones I know about locally.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
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
"grade 4", despite
the track ballast (grade 2) still being present and visible in aerial
imagery.
* Two adjacent sections of track being tagged as "grade 2" and "grade
4" not because of any difference in road surface, but because one has
a line of grass betwe
the time when the entire
estate was built. But the council may no longer have those records, as
it is some time ago.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
the moment, we're still stuck as far as
directly reusing names from the NSG is concerned.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
On 11/07/2020 07:47, Steve Doerr wrote:
On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
So, it seems that Fairfield [Road] isn't known to either OS or Google.
It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at that zoom
level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps rather than
whether that's acceptable for ODbL or not. There's a lot of
data that can be released under FOI that can't be reused because it
contains proprietary information. This may come under that category.
Mark
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB
1 - 100 of 895 matches
Mail list logo
