[Talk-GB] Legible London signs - tagging suggestions

2017-01-09 Thread Robert Skedgell
Does anyone have any suggestions for tagging nodes for the Legible London signs/maps (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legible_London and https:// tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs/maps-and-signs )? Perhaps: tourism=information information=map map_type=street

Re: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet

2017-01-09 Thread Warin
On 10-Jan-17 12:44 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: On 10/01/17 01:20, David Groom wrote: ... Tag info shows 579 ways tagged with crop = beet, of these 572 are in northern Italy added by 3 users, so its probably quite easy to ask what exactly they meant by "beet" , and retag these existing ways if

Re: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet

2017-01-09 Thread Craig Wallace
On 2017-01-10 01:20, David Groom wrote: Although "beet" could also refer to "sugar beet" Or "fodder beet" (aka mangelwurzel). I think it is rather similar to sugar beet, not sure if you could tell the difference in the field. It seems they are all the same species (Beta vulgaris), but

Re: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet

2017-01-09 Thread Andy Townsend
On 10/01/17 01:20, David Groom wrote: ... Tag info shows 579 ways tagged with crop = beet, of these 572 are in northern Italy added by 3 users, so its probably quite easy to ask what exactly they meant by "beet" , and retag these existing ways if they actually should be beetroot. In the UK

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-09 Thread Andy Townsend
On 09/01/17 23:56, David Groom wrote: Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the prow_ref on rendering / routing A map style rather than a "provider of OSM data", but it seemed like a good idea so I added basic support at:

Re: [Talk-GB] beetroot or beet

2017-01-09 Thread David Groom
Although "beet" could also refer to "sugar beet" I think the wiki pages may be confused The wiki page for crop in Japanese http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Key:crop does seem to have crop = beet translating as sugar beet Whereas the Polish page I think has crop = beet translating a

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-09 Thread David Groom
The prow:ref tag emerged from a discussion I started on this list about the problem of using the ref tag to refer to PROW references. The specific problem was that some highways were also designated footpaths / bridleways, and so if the ref tag was used to tag a rights of way reference it was

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-09 Thread Robert Norris
If I remember correctly the use of "prow_ref" tag is normally when the reference is taken from the Council ROW information documents that are compatible with OSM. 'ref' is used when the Reference itself is on the signed on the ground. Thus for the Isle Of Wight, it is probably recommended to

[Talk-GB] beetroot or beet

2017-01-09 Thread Warin
Hi again, another UK English question. I use beetroot .. but beet has been used on the wiki. I think beet comes from American English. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

2017-01-09 Thread David Groom
Has any one got any instances of any providers of OSM data using the prow_ref on rendering / routing I recently pointed out to a mapper that if the reference numbers he was adding to footpaths were official PROW reference numbers it was recommended to use the "prow_ref" tag rather than the

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Wolverhampton Railway Station

2017-01-09 Thread Wolves on Wheels Cycle Campaign
Hi Folks, Just to introduce myself, I'm Steve Young from Wolverhampton ( First message, very very recently joined this mailing list ) Have been involved from a cycle campaigning perspective re the Interchange project. The Interchange will be changing pretty much constantly for the next 2

Re: [Talk-GB] crop=grass or sod

2017-01-09 Thread Warin
On 10-Jan-17 08:48 AM, Paul Sladen wrote: On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, SK53 wrote: Turf has the distinct advantage of being less likely to generate sniggers. But a risk of turf wars...? Ok.. add turf to the mix My dictionary for sources says turf - Middle English (1100-1500) from Old

Re: [Talk-GB] crop=grass or sod

2017-01-09 Thread Paul Sladen
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, SK53 wrote: > Turf has the distinct advantage of being less likely to generate sniggers. But a risk of turf wars...? -Paul. Ahem. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Talk-GB] crop=grass or sod

2017-01-09 Thread SK53
Turf is more suitable gb-en, sod in this usage AFAIK is mainly us-en. In British & Irish usage a sod is more often a lump of earth or peat extracted from the ground rather than the desirable grass on top. Sod off is I believe distinctly gb-en. Turf has the distinct advantage of being less likely

Re: [Talk-GB] crop=grass or sod

2017-01-09 Thread Chris Hill
The farms near me that grow grass as a crop to transplant onto, say, a pitch sell their product as turf. I would say this is crop=turf on landuse=farmland, the turf is grown for many seasons on the same location. -- cheers Chris Hill (chillly) On 09/01/2017 21:28, Warin wrote: Hi, There

[Talk-GB] crop=grass or sod

2017-01-09 Thread Warin
Hi, There are a number of farms near me (on a flood plain) that are used to produce grass. However when I look it up on wikipedia .. I get sod. And, yes, I will know what you mean if you tell me to 'sod off' :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sod I am wondering what is 'best' GB English

[Talk-GB] Tracker: Waterway with npe/NPE

2017-01-09 Thread Rob Nickerson
All, I have set up a taginfo script to monitor waterway=* with source=npe or source=NPE features: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G9KXfp4Ho3fVROO9MxotcYTydl9CEXB_fi5ko2pM5Kc/edit#gid=2116033898 Happy mapping *Rob* ___ Talk-GB mailing list

Re: [Talk-GB] Monitoring OSM changes (was Re: natural=heath)

2017-01-09 Thread Dave F
On 09/01/2017 14:55, Adrian McEwen wrote: Ah. I probably did fall foul of that. That's good to know for the future. In the meantime I have reset my login, so can now confirm (what everyone else probably already knew :-) that it's OSM Mapper that I've been using for that. Would still be

Re: [Talk-GB] Monitoring OSM changes (was Re: natural=heath)

2017-01-09 Thread Adrian McEwen
On 09/01/17 14:44, Ed Loach wrote: Adrian wrote: I did set up some changes-in-a-given-area RSS feeds from ITOworld years ago (I'd explain what they are better, but while the feeds still work I've forgotten my login to go and get the tool's name :-D) You might not have forgotten your ITO world

Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath

2017-01-09 Thread David Groom
I have came across a similar issue where areas of mainly grass, but with some gorse bushes, on chalk downland had been changed to natural=heath, when I contacted the mapper about it he said something along the lines of, "well I've seen it done like that elsewhere" David -- Original

Re: [Talk-GB] Monitoring OSM changes (was Re: natural=heath)

2017-01-09 Thread Ed Loach
Adrian wrote: > I did set up some changes-in-a-given-area RSS feeds from ITOworld > years > ago (I'd explain what they are better, but while the feeds still work > I've forgotten my login to go and get the tool's name :-D) You might not have forgotten your ITO world login - if you have an RSS

[Talk-GB] Monitoring OSM changes (was Re: natural=heath)

2017-01-09 Thread Adrian McEwen
On 09/01/17 12:50, Andy Townsend wrote: More seriously, edits are public, and feeds such as Pascal Neis's, Whodidit and OsmCha allow monitoring of changes in an area, so if you see something that "looks wrong" please do investigate and contact the user about it. Is there a good introduction

Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath

2017-01-09 Thread SK53
No-one has solved conflation in OSM, so there is no mechanism for re-merging branches (I suspect that it's fundamentally very hard for geo data). If there were usable common conflation techniques there would be many fewer problems with imports. A more viable approach is a post-processed version

Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath

2017-01-09 Thread Dan S
2017-01-09 12:40 GMT+00:00 Jez Nicholson : > has there ever been discussion about code branching in OSM? In git terms, we > are all making changes direct to master. I'm wondering whether small changes > could be automatically approved and large changes would require peer

Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath

2017-01-09 Thread Andy Townsend
On 09/01/2017 12:40, Jez Nicholson wrote: ... so maybe a bot that auto-challenges large/sweeping changes? I can just see it - "Clippy for OSM" - "It looks as if you are crayoning in some landuse? May I suggest you leave your chair and map what is outside your door?" :) More seriously,

Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath

2017-01-09 Thread Jez Nicholson
has there ever been discussion about code branching in OSM? In git terms, we are all making changes direct to master. I'm wondering whether small changes could be automatically approved and large changes would require peer review first. I know that this is a huge change to the base

Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath

2017-01-09 Thread Andy Townsend
On 09/01/2017 12:28, ael wrote: When I contacted one of the main offenders; I didn't get a very helpful response. It's a shame that this happens, but please do keep trying to contact other mappers where there's a problem like this. If for no other reason, it exposes the problem on

Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath

2017-01-09 Thread Andy Townsend
On 09/01/2017 11:53, SK53 wrote: Somehow I have been oblivious to the fact that large numbers of polygons tagged natural=heath have been added over the past few months to OSM. I think what's happening here is one mapper "colouring in" without any particular knowledge of the area. Whilst

Re: [Talk-GB] natural=heath

2017-01-09 Thread ael
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:53:51AM +, SK53 wrote: > Somehow I have been oblivious to the fact that large numbers of polygons > tagged natural=heath have been added over the past few months to OSM. I too have encountered at least one armchair mapper who (in my view) incorrectly tagged large

[Talk-GB] natural=heath

2017-01-09 Thread SK53
Somehow I have been oblivious to the fact that large numbers of polygons tagged natural=heath have been added over the past few months to OSM. I only noticed these when looking at old traces on the new GPX trace overlay. Specifically I noticed them on the Snowdon range extending beyond Moel