[Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

The significant (and massive) disused railway viaduct near Thrapston: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264894970 does not render on our default map: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3914/-0.5433 despite being a significant and very visible landmark: https://www.flickr.com/phot

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

On 13 July 2015 at 09:53, Andy Mabbett wrote: > I don't want fudge things to just "tag for the renderer", but is there > a relevant tag missing, or should we change the rendering styles to > show such objects? You might be interested in this PR which is currently under review: https://github.com

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

Bridges and other significant remaining infrastructure of railways tagged as railway=abandoned ceased to be rendered on the Standard rendering some time ago. There was a degree of dissension with this decision: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542. Certainly I recall a few

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

Hockley Viaduct near Winchester does get rendered: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108241777#map=18/51.03628/-1.32230 but probably because there is a path on it. Would that be a workaround for you Andy? Thomas On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 10:25 AM, SK53 wrote: > Bridges and other significant rema

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

Ah, that's a bit annoying. This is also a significant structure: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38331305 Not least as a tourist attraction for fans of the film 'The Titfield Thunderbolt' which was made along this stretch of line. It can't be too hard to the carto scheme to check railway=aba

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

On 13 July 2015 at 10:37, thomas van der veen wrote: > Hockley Viaduct near Winchester does get rendered: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108241777#map=18/51.03628/-1.32230 > > but probably because there is a path on it. Would that be a workaround for > you Andy? Thank you; I have no idea w

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

You say there's no neutrality, but there's no option to disagree with the whole proposal. On 11/07/2015 21:19, Rob Nickerson wrote: Dear UK/GB OpenStreetMappers, From time to time we talk about the potential of setting up a "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group" (name yet to be decided) but we never qui

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

…and what does “support the development of OSM tools and apps” mean in this context? Support in the sense that we think its great and will promote / aid / assist, or support in the sense that we hand over a sum of money towards development? And in that case, where does it come from? The membersh

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 10:25 +0100, SK53 wrote: > Bridges and other significant remaining infrastructure of railways > tagged as railway=abandoned ceased to be rendered on the Standard > rendering some time ago. There was a degree of dissension with this > decision: > https://github.com/gravitystorm

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

Thanks Rob, I have filled this in today. More than happy to offer assistance if needed. Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, De

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 08:53:57AM +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote: > The significant (and massive) disused railway viaduct near Thrapston: > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264894970 > > does not render on our default map: > >http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.3914/-0.5433 > > despit

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 13:40:26 +0100 ael wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 08:53:57AM +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > The significant (and massive) disused railway viaduct near Thrapston: > > > >https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264894970 > > > > does not render on our default map: > > > >

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

On 13 July 2015 at 14:13, Philip Barnes wrote: > I think this, and blue motorways, is a good argument for why we need a > UK render of the map. I agree a UK-specific rendering would be very useful, especially now the Default style is getting less and less UK-centric. -- Matthijs ___

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

On 13/07/15 16:09, Matthijs Melissen wrote: >> I think this, and blue motorways, is a good argument for why we need a >> > UK render of the map. > I agree a UK-specific rendering would be very useful, especially now > the Default style is getting less and less UK-centric. Seconded ... While the m

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

It’s easy to disagree with a proposal. You simply ignore it. J From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] Sent: 13 July 2015 12:40 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"? You say there's no neutrality, but there's no option to disagree

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > On 13 July 2015 at 14:13, Philip Barnes wrote: > > I think this, and blue motorways, > I agree a UK-specific rendering would be very useful, I fear that there is a risk the original discussion heading o

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

On 13 July 2015 at 14:34, Mike Evans wrote: > It seems to me that the viaduct and the railway are two separate entities and > should mapped as such. Just because an abandoned railway happens to run on > the top of the viaduct is irrelevant in my opinion. Exactly. If there was a massive viaduct

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

That doesn't get recorded. On 13/07/2015 17:18, Andy Robinson wrote: It’s easy to disagree with a proposal. You simply ignore it. J *From:*Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] *Sent:* 13 July 2015 12:40 *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

Find out first if people want it, rather than ask how they think it should be implemented. On 13/07/2015 14:03, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 13 July 2015 at 12:39, Dave F. > wrote: there's no option to disagree with the whole proposal What else do you suppose the

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

Dave, I don't think anyone has a veto. Why would it harm you if this went ahead? On 13 July 2015 19:00:56 GMT+01:00, "Dave F." wrote: >Find out first if people want it, rather than ask how they think it >should be implemented. > >On 13/07/2015 14:03, Andy Mabbett wrote: >> On 13 July 2015 at 12:

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

Hi all, As I'm not signed up to all mailing lists, can I please have volunteers to forward this to talk-gb-london, talk-gb-midanglia, talk-gb-thenorth and talk-scotland? Thanks, Rob On 11 July 2015 at 21:19, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Dear UK/GB OpenStreetMappers, > > From time to time we talk abo

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

On 13 July 2015 at 19:00, Dave F. wrote: > Find out first if people want it That they do is already evident. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.o

Re: [Talk-GB] Survey: A "UK/GB OpenStreetMap group"?

Hi, On 07/13/2015 08:08 PM, Chris Hill wrote: > I don't think anyone has a veto. Why would it harm you if this went ahead? I think I can see why Dave F might have an issue with the whole thing. Rob has phrased it as a question: "A UK/GB group?" and also in his message he says "... should a group

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

On Mon Jul 13 19:07:35 2015 GMT+0100, Dave F. wrote: > Curious: Why don't you think blue for motorways is acceptable? > Blue is the correct colour for motorways, I was referring to the coming carto change where they will become orange. Phil (trigpoint ) > > On 13/07/2015 13:13, Philip Barnes

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

On 13/07/2015 17:46, Paul Sladen wrote: Any UK-specific rendering is not going to solve the core issue: that large numbers of perfectly extent bridges and tunnels are not rendered; Most of these old tunnels in Nottingham are not rendered: "Relation: Tunnels of Nottingham" http://www.op

Re: [Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

Andy Townsend wrote: > OSM's "standard" map is currently trying to be "the primary > feedback mechanism to mappers" but also have "clear > design" (1). I genuinely don't believe that you can do both > well in one map style. I think you can, but it requires serious cartographical chops, and - i