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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
30 matches
Mail list logo