[Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

Hi all, This is my first post to this (or indeed any) mailing list. Apologies if I've made any errors. I agree with Colin that we should certainly not be assuming permissive status for paths which are not included on the definitive map. The DM is legally definitive in the rights that it shows but

[Talk-GB] Footpath Open Data is not always accurate.

"I disagree with you here, the walkable line should be mapped as the right of way whether it follows the definitive line or not. It absolutely should not be mapped as permissive, the landowner is not giving permission. If the definitive line is obstructed you have an absolute right to go around it

[Talk-GB] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

Hi, What is the current consensus about whether to use nodes or areas for places? I've always used nodes, but I have spotted a few mapped as areas. I can see the advantage of having an area, but often places don't have clear boundaries. Sometimes parish/ward boundaries do correspond with the edge

[Talk-GB] Traditional/Historic Counties

Hello, Apologies for asking two questions in quick succession. It has occurred to me that the traditional/historic UK counties aren't mapped in OSM and I wondered if it would be acceptable to add relations for these with the boundary=historic tag. I know that we have Historical OSM for long van

[Talk-GB] Traditional/Historic Counties

Hi Colin, Thanks for the reply and offer of assistance, and also thanks for your administrative boundary gpx files which have been very useful for mapping local parishes. I was aware of the mapping of ceremonial counties but they're actually based upon the post-1974 administrative counties with t

[Talk-GB] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

Thanks Phil, Our local place mapping must be quite primitive, because few place boundaries are mapped. Do you mean that both the boundary and node should carry the place=tag? Where there isn't a clear boundary to the place, should the mapper estimate it? Glad to hear I've been putting the nodes in

[Talk-GB] Should a place be tagged with a node or area?

Thanks Phil and Colin, Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense and confirms that I don't need to change my current place mapping. Kind regards, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Traditional/Historic Counties

; On 09/02/17 23:40, Adam Snape wrote: > > My view was that - like teh Irish Townlands project - there's still > > a cultural relevance to these historical units and I thought it a good > > potential use of boundary=historical, but if the consensus is that it's > >

Re: [Talk-GB] Traditional/Historic Counties

occurs, then yes. Otherwise, you might get > the following results: > > Sheffield > South Yorkshire > West Riding of Yorkshire > > or, the even worse (depending on your loyalties): > > Sheffield > South Yorkshire > Derbyshire > > etc > > I'd very mu

Re: [Talk-GB] Traditional/Historic Counties

that it wasn't buggering up Nominatim searches. Regards, Adam On 13 February 2017 at 13:17, Adam Snape wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Thanks, that's a good point. I wasn't planning on adding subdivisions such > as the Ridings (it opens the floodgates for the Sussex Rapes an

Re: [Talk-GB] Blackwall Tunnel

Also this barrier http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/88830172 Regards, Adam On 8 March 2017 at 21:51, Philip Barnes wrote: > Thank you Franz > > I will try adding an access=yes tag. > > Phil (trigpoint) > > On Wednesday, 8 March 2017, Franz v. Gordon wrote: > > Hello Phil, > > > > I found this

Re: [Talk-GB] Legally permitted vs inadvisable

"If I’m planning a walk for myself or leading a group in a rural area such as the Peak District I would always assume for an A or B road sidewalk=none as the default. Because of a lack of detail on most maps for sidewalks and verges most people out walking in rural areas are likely to plan routes

[Talk-GB] Standalone signalled pedestrian crossing tagging

Hi I recently noticed this changeset comment: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46680980 It seems that the Wiki suggests three alternative ways of mapping a pedestrian traffic-light controlled crossing: 1. Entire crossing mapped as a node: highway

Re: [Talk-GB] Standalone signalled pedestrian crossing tagging

s more verbose but not incorrect. Option 2 omits > the salient feature which is highway=crossing and so is not recommended > > Regards > > Brian > > On 9 March 2017 at 12:23, Adam Snape wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I recently noticed this changeset comment: https://

Re: [Talk-GB] Standalone signalled pedestrian crossing tagging

> > On 10 Mar 2017 16:40, "Brian Prangle" wrote: > >> Personally I think it's overkill >> >> On 10 March 2017 at 13:12, Adam Snape wrote: >> >>> Thanks Brian, >>> >>> That's what I'd observed to be the norm around h

[Talk-GB] Tagging adjacent barriers on a way

How should we tag a situation where there are different adjacent barriers affecting different users of a highway? These are often used where there is some public access but public vehicular use ifs restricted. To provide some examples: 1.A stile next to a locked vehicular gate (a public footpath g

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging adjacent barriers on a way

There's also children and people of limited mobility who might not be comfortable walking over the bars. Current British Standards require bypasses for pedestrians and equestrians. Point taken though, we shouldn't tag the cattle grid as foot=no. On 12 March 2017 at 12:28, Brad Rogers wrote: > On

Re: [Talk-GB] Layby restricted to abnormal loads

As bicycles are vehicles (and not all other vehicles are motorised) that can be tagged as vehicle=no hgv=yes. Given that the exclusion likely includes more than just vehicles (eg. horses) , access=no foot=yes hgv=yes is maybe a better option. Adam On 30 Mar 2017 7:29 a.m., "Warin" <61sundow...@gm

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire

I would be interested to add rights of way information closer to home (Lancashire). Dave refers to the long list of other councils that have released row information. Is this the rowmaps website or is it somewhere on osm that I'm missing? The information on rowmaps is not clear. Is all of the dat

Re: [Talk-GB] cryptic bicycle tagging/attribution on Lever Street in London

Hi, I'd go with your option 1. The cycleway:right=opposite_lane tag is incorrect as the lane is not contraflow "*It should then be assumed that cycle traffic is allowed to flow in the customary direction for traffic on that side of the road"* And on a oneway street without a contraflow both side

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW changes

Hi, One thing that springs to mind is that these organisations receive orders as they are statutory consultees who may wish to object to the order. It isn't just to keep these organisations up to date. I suspect a request by osm to be notified of changes just to keep might get the response that or

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW changes

of being up to date ceases to be a benefit when changes have not yet been effected on the ground. Hope that helps. Kind regards, Adam On 30 May 2017 at 14:13, Adam Snape wrote: > Hi, > > One thing that springs to mind is that these organisations receive orders > as they are statutory

[Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

Hi, A new mapper has added a name tag, name=Walton Summit Motorway to a local stretch of motorway: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4720086 . The motorway is officially unnamed like most motorways but this pretty unusual stretch is known amongst road enthusiasts by the descriptive name "Walton Su

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

Hi Dan, Thanks, I hadn't considered that one. Is it okay to use an alt_name tag on a road without an actual proper name? Adam On 31 May 2017 at 17:09, Dan S wrote: > alt_name? > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:alt_name > > 2017-05-31 17:01 GMT+01:00 Adam Snape : >

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

Hi "Is it signed as such?" No. No signed or official name. Adam On 31 May 2017 5:15 p.m., "Derick Rethans" wrote: > On Wed, 31 May 2017, Adam Snape wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > A new mapper has added a name tag, name=Walton Summit Motor

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

Hi, But we do.include local names which are neither official nor signed. There is at least some inconsistency in application of the verifiability criteria. Adam On 31 May 2017 6:38 p.m., "Philip Barnes" wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 18:29 +0100, Adam Snape wrote: > > Hi &g

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

The replies so far seem to favour altering the tag to alt_name or loc_name. If there are no more responses I'll go ahead and change it accordingly. The Mancunian Way is another named motorway. I've just noticed that the Preston Bypass (part of the M6) is also named in OSM. It is inarguable that wa

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

Hi, So that map users aren't confused by directions using non-existant names, I've changed the Walton Summit example from name to alt_name and added a note to explain. I have also changed the section of the M6 labelled "Preston By-Pass" from name to old_name. Thanks for your help, Adam On 1 Jun

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Adam Snape > wrote: > > So that map users aren't confused by directions using non-existant names, > > I've changed the Walton Summit example from name to alt_name and added a > > note to explain. I have also changed the section of

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

mouth) you may want to do a > similar check. > > Matt > > On 1 June 2017 at 13:15, Dave F wrote: > >> Hi >> Alt_name is used for an alternative *official* name, such as a different >> spelling etc. >> >> In this case loc_name appears more appropriate

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

There probably are some uncooperative mappers out there who perceive any comment as criticism and insist upon doing things their own way in defiance of convention. But, surely the starting assumption should be that people are cooperative and just unaware of the conventions? I did contact the mapp

Re: [Talk-GB] Whether to tag/best tag for an unofficial name?

Hi, Yes, it's what I did regarding the original topic of this conversation. That's all sorted now. I think Warin refers to Matt Ellery's additional query from yesterday regarding a different mapper who has been adding descriptions/details in brackets as part of the name tag. Adam On 5 June 2017

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form part of the parish boundary, with half falling in one parish and half in another. As long as we map highways as lines rather than areas, adding two values to the prow_ref tag as suggested seems the best solution where both halves are given s

Re: [Talk-GB] Shared Public Rights of Way

PS. Adding the parish boundary (if it hasn't been mapped already) and a map note would help somebody understand that the two values prow_ref values were not an error On 4 July 2017 at 12:27, Adam Snape wrote: > It's not too uncommon for the centre of a highway to form part of

Re: [Talk-GB] An old chestnut - looking for clarity for road names beginning "St ..."

Ideally nominatim etc. would recognise that St Mary's Road = St. Mary's Road = Saint Mary's Road but I do tag both if there is a difference in road signs. Church names are more problematic because they and their dedications are signed very inconsistently. I tend to use the form St Somebody's Chur

Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales

I'm not sure of Wiki-editing etiquette but I support the views expressed by Richard. The name tag should contain the primary name of an object, not multiple names. Swansea-Abertawe is no more the name of a place than Duddon Valley - Dunnerdale is. In the absence of knowledge of local usage, using t

Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales

The 'best mapping method' is somewhat subjective. If it were the sole criteria, then we would instantly create documentation to replace lots of the less than ideal tags which have developed and explicitly depreciate either the classic (highway=footway/bridleway/cycleway) or 'alternative' (highway=

Re: [Talk-GB] Are Northern Ireland, Wales & England 'states'?

Though abolished as administrative entities, the traditional counties maintain a relevance as geographic terms so the Middlesex example is a good example of how places mean different things to different people. The question is how we should define places in OSM. As Colin stated, administrative bou

Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Ordnance Survey 1st series 1:10, 560 - a complete mid 19th century map of Britain

Of interest, but - for osm purposes - don't we already have permission to use all of the National Library of Scotland's Ordnance Survey scans (which I think already include all editions of the 6-inch County Series)? Adam On 13 Sep 2017 7:33 p.m., "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > FYI, > > > From: Fæ

[Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

Hi, Over the past couple of years Fishergate, the high street in Preston, and some surrounding streets have been redeveloped and these highways are now designated as 'shared space' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space Following redeveleopment these were mapped as "highway=living_street". Ea

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

es. > > So please DO NOT consider expanding living_street to include these shared > spaces. > > //colin > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_zone > > [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shared-space > > > On 2017-10-01 15:12, Adam Snape wrote: >

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

duce speeds, and allowing > pedestrians to cross almost anyway. However I think it's marked wrongly as > a living_street in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19753268/history > - funnily enough also by Pete Owens... > > > On 01/10/2017 14:12, Adam Snape wrote: > > Hi, &

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

The photo of Exhibition Rd on Wikipedia makes it look deserted. I guess it is sensible to photograph a new road layout at a quiet time. I actually walked along it not so long ago when visiting a museum and it certainly seemed to still be used by quite a lot of motor traffic. Not that I think traff

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

of as a shared space, although there are some > differences in the priorities that are implied. > > So I'd be OK with any of highway=* plus access tags; shared_space=yes; > traffic_calming=shared_space; or maybe even go for duck tagging them as > highway=shared_space? > >

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging "Shared space" roads (Preston City Centre)

Okay, To summarise the discussion so far. Most respondents thought that highway=living_street was not the correct tag for shared use. Nobody explicitly supported this usage. Most seemed to think that there should be a specific tag for shared use to be used in addition to established tags such as ac

[Talk-GB] National Cycle Network Route 55

Hi all, I noticed when plotting a route on cycle.travel that the relation for NCN 55 http://osm.org/relation/37734 was deleted, presumably by mistake, in this changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52118445. Is there a way to reinstate it without manually re-adding all the contituent par

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

I'm convinced that many such addresses are unnecessarily long (are there really multiple Weldons in the Swanscome postal area?). Nevertheless we should have a way of mapping them if they are the official address. I agree that more general guidance would aid consistency. My address mapping practice

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

n OSM object. Using associated street relations http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet might be an option but seems a bit overly complicated. On 19 October 2017 at 11:04, Lester Caine wrote: > On 19/10/17 09:35, Adam Snape wrote: > > So I'd tag Steve's

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

But Ebbsfleet is not a Post Town. The address will include Swanscombe. I should have said before that my experience (as an eBay seller) is lots of people are unaware of their correct postal address. Each postcode section eg. DA1, DA2, DA3... will have a particular post town, so I correct this which

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

Haha, fair enough, it must depend where you live and the purposes for needing an address. I apologise for the digression. On 19 October 2017 at 14:02, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 19/10/2017 13:15, Adam Snape wrote: > >> To my mind Nominatim should use postal addresses where t

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

Caine wrote: > On 19/10/17 13:15, Adam Snape wrote: > > But Ebbsfleet is not a Post Town. The address will include Swanscombe. I > > should have said before that my experience (as an eBay seller) is lots > > of people are unaware of their correct postal address. Each postcod

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

"Are you saying that anything with a postcode beginning with SW should be tagged addr:city=London and anything beginning with TW9 or TW10 should be tagged addr:city=Richmond?" I'm not saying others *should*, I am just saying how I *do *map. If others want to document how they map I'm happy to how

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

Hi, I'm of the view that using a standard format would be rather unlikely to result in confusion in correspondence with the LA, but am equally happy with using the LA's version. Some thoughts: 1. We definitely shouldn't attempt to amend the definitive map 'parish' to correspond to modern civil p

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

Hi, I agree with what Robert has said and think he has clarified many points admirably. I think we need to be clear that in many cases what we will be recording under prow_ref is a working reference used in the council's GIS system, not part of the definitive official record of rights of way. Col

Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

Most map users don't understand the distinction between primary (green) and non-primary (red) A-roads so I understand why not all maps use it. Since OSM makes this distinction anyway it makes sense to use the standard uk green/red colour scheme in the UK map. Adam On 15 Nov 2017 1:54 a.m., "Gerva

Re: [Talk-GB] The OSM UK map

Interesting, but if your interpretation of the law regarding red/green distinctions is correct, why do the majority of road road atlases on sale and most maps (both open and proprietary) supplied by Ordnance Survey maintain the red/green colouring? Incidentally, my father is red/green colour blind

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

Hi, Most of that 'strawman' suggestion seems sensible and entirely the right kind of way for the community to help companies add useful data to the map. I do however, disagree with the penultimate point. I do not belive that we should be automatically importing this kind of data. An omission is mu

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

Hi, On 16 November 2017 at 20:19, Ilya Zverev wrote: > As for the questions about license and location quality, I answered these > in May: > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2017-May/020216.html > > Not completely. I'm not convinced that the word of a third party (nothing pers

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

Hi, I don't think we would delete a postcode found in other Open Data just on the basis of it not being in Codepoint Open; the error could lie in Codepoint Open itself. I suggest that a FIXME would be appropriate where two sources appear to contradict each other. Of course in this case we know th

Re: [Talk-GB] BT phoneboxes

On 4 January 2018 at 17:26, Andrew Black wrote: > Do we know what a proportion are going to be left. Is it going to be > close to none. > About half: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40934210 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https:

Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales

me tag uses the > name in Welsh.* > > *Examples:* > *name - Swansea* > *name:cy - Abertawe* > > *name - Caernarfon* > *name:cy - Caernarfon* > > *name - Heol Eglyws* > *name:cy - Heol Eglyws* > *name:en - Church Road* > > > > On 16 August 2017 at 14:10,

Re: [Talk-GB] Edits in Wales

I'm not sure about other countries, but one thing I did notice when living in Wales is that there did seem in many (most) cases to be a consistently preferred name. For this reason there is a problem automatically adding name:en for an English variant of a name where most English speakers would use

Re: [Talk-GB] YHA (England & Wales), Youth Hostel

ped in OSM is the relevant YHA one? Any information derived from the Google maps on the YHA site is strictly unuseable, even with YHA's permission. Kind regards, Adam Snape On 4 April 2018 at 13:08, Dan S wrote: > Hi > > "YHA (England & Wales)" would go in the "o

Re: [Talk-GB] YHA (England & Wales), Youth Hostel

. Regards, Adam On 4 April 2018 at 13:26, Adam Snape wrote: > +1 > > Permission to add something to a map is certainly not the same as > permission to release information under the ODBL, we need that explicitly > stated. > > Also, how are you going to locate the hostels

Re: [Talk-GB] Bottle Kilns

Hi, How about disused as a lifecycle prefix rather than a simple tag eg. disused:man_made=kiln tourism=museum Alternatively, how about using the historic tag to differentiate old kilns from modern ones eg. historic=kiln tourism=museum Kind regards, Adam On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 16:00 Paul Berry,

Re: [Talk-GB] Post offices that have closed

Hi, One of my local ones is currently closed with an uncertain future ("temporarily closed" according to the POL data). I've changed it to disused:amenity=post_office and opening_hours=closed with a note. Ideally the tools ought to be able to understand the disused: lifecycle prefix on post office

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM AGM and notification

all seemed fine. Keep up the good work! Kind regards, Adam Snape (ACS1986) On 14 April 2018 at 13:51, Tony Shield wrote: > Hi All > > Starting to get into OSM mapping and things OSM - so I've found this > talk-gb mail system, I've just found the website OSM UK and se

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

I'm not sure I'd call any of the national speed limits implicit. All are explicit in that they are (or should be) physically signed at least where the limit changes, so they are verifiable rather than merely implied. The only practical difference is whether small repeater signs are required to remi

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

dam On 30 April 2018 at 20:31, Adam Snape wrote: > I'm not sure I'd call any of the national speed limits implicit. All are > explicit in that they are (or should be) physically signed at least where > the limit changes, so they are verifiable rather than merely implied. The &

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

The school lights I'm aware of which refer to a maximum speed are advisory rather than mandatory. The actual legal speed limit remains the same. Adam On Wed, 2 May 2018, 11:17 Brian Prangle, wrote: > Just to further complicate matters there can also be conditional 20 mph > speed limits on roads

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

On Wed, 2 May 2018, 11:47 John Aldridge, wrote: > I believe it's DoT policy not to allow 30mph repeaters (at least, > someone told me that > This is correct on street lit where the 30mph limit would apply by default. 30mph repeaters can (and should) be used if a 30mph limit applies elsewhere. >

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

fic calming makes it hard not > to. > > On Wed, 2 May 2018 at 11:36 Adam Snape wrote: > >> The school lights I'm aware of which refer to a maximum speed are >> advisory rather than mandatory. The actual legal speed limit remains the >> same. >> >> Adam &

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

May 2018, 11:54 Jez Nicholson, wrote: > Oh, this is fun. So, correct me if i'm wrong: a "20 mph zone" doesn't > have/need repeaters because it is not actually the legal speed limit. It is > advisory to travel at that speed because traffic calming makes it hard not > t

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

Restricted Road is the correct formal term for roads where the default 30mph limit applies. That said, it is not a term that most people will recognise (unlike single/dual carriageway). Adam On Wed, 2 May 2018, 12:36 Tobias Zwick, wrote: > Also, > > 6. Did you come up with the term "restricted"

Re: [Talk-GB] Implicit speed limits: What to tag in built-up areas?

As long as we're dealing with advisory signs erected by an official body rather than a vigilante neighborhood busybody, I think the maxspeed:advisory= tag would be appropriate. Regards Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists

Re: [Talk-GB] Toys R Us

I too disagree with intentionally ignoring outdated information. However, we cannot know from our armchairs whether a store is disused but still signed, disused with all signage removed, demolished, or replaced by another business. Because if this we cannot fix the map merely by deleting the relev

Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

Hi, Just a word of warning to double check the licensing terms before use. Many councils' licensing is ambiguous in that they'll refer to the OGL then state or link to the incompatible OS Open Data attribution terms. Whilst it's a wonderful resource and I think Barry has done a great job, the row

Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

ecouncil/informationandstats/opendata/opendatasearch/publicrightsofway > > > Reason being that I'm now in a position where I may be able to do > something with this data and I'd like to use Hampshire as it's my local > county. > > > Thanks, > > Nick > > > &g

Re: [Talk-GB] Footpaths - search for the missing ones

A very interesting dataset, Just a belated comment regarding the footpaths on the c.1900 maps. We do need to be careful not to infer too much about public rights. It is only modern (1960s onwards) OS maps which have shown definitive rights of way (in OSM terms designation=public_footpath). Older O

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - new site focusing on OSM UK footpath mapping

HI Nick, Great job. It will be a really useful tool :) I echo Rob's request for a higher level of zoom if that is at all possible. I'd also suggest looking at some of the excluded 'urban' areas. Some of the unitary authorities and Metropolitan Boroughs (particularly in Pennine England) are more r

Re: [Talk-GB] Local names of bits of trunk roads

Hi, If this is to be mapped shouldn't it be as a historic feature rather than a (current) road route? By the way I tend to use loc_name for a colloquial name regardless of whether it is just used by local people. Kind regards, Adam On 25 June 2018 at 15:59, Paul Berry wrote: > Someone's h

Re: [Talk-GB] Local names of bits of trunk roads

- > Stuart Reynolds > for traveline south east & anglia > > > > > On 25 Jun 2018, at 16:38, Adam Snape wrote: > > Hi, > > If this is to be mapped shouldn't it be as a historic feature rather than > a (current) road route? > > By the way I tend to

Re: [Talk-GB] Local names of bits of trunk roads

And, to actually deal with your question, I'd do a ground survey to see where the name changes. Failing that, the OS Open Map Local roads vector layer will show where the OS thinks the road name changes. Kind regards, Adam On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, 17:01 Adam Snape, wrote: > Hi Stuart, &

Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

ommitted to proactively publish their data in the coming months. Finally, In the coming days I'll update Rob Whittaker with my progress so that his PRoW OpenData table ( http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/open-data/ ) so that it can be updated. Kind regards, Adam Snape On 1 June 201

Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2018: Paths and rights of way

Hi, Whilst I'd be honoured to be responsible for a resource as good as MapThePaths, it is Nick Whitelegg's work. I've changed the Wiki accordingly. Kind regards, Adam On 28 June 2018 at 23:01, Martyn Evans wrote: > Great project, especially now we have the excellent MapThePaths tool. One > l

Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

w). Time taken will depend on how cooperative the council is, some are much swifter than others. Kind regards, Adam On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, 08:52 Adam Snape, wrote: > Hi All, > > As the quarterly project has just been announced I thought I'd provide an > update on my progres

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

Hi, Very. very few Defiunitive statements include arcane numeric references like that. They almost always use the parish name and path number eg. Newton Footpath 1. I think we really this 'name' format as it is something we could consistently do nationally. Kind regards, Adam On 2 July 2018 at

Re: [Talk-GB] MapThePaths - updates

Sorry, I mean to say we need a way to tag this 'name format' (official_name perhaps? Or prow_name...) Kind regards, Adam On 3 July 2018 at 09:09, Adam Snape wrote: > Hi, > > Very. very few Defiunitive statements include arcane numeric references > like that. They almost

Re: [Talk-GB] Closed Footpaths

My personal convention for temporary closures is to add access=no. Using access tags for these temporary orders is consistent with how we map permanent tros. If the line is altered upon reopening or the path is formally extinguished then the appropriate changes can be made as and when they occur b

Re: [Talk-GB] Closed Footpaths

Yep, I should have said add access=no and remove any conflicting access tags. The foot=designated access tag could be added back in once pedestrian access was once again allowed. Kind regards, Adam On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, 16:58 Adam Snape, wrote: > My personal convention for temporary closu

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

I think there's certainly an argument for including the traditional boundaries. There's certainly enough people arguing the pros for us to say that there's no clear consensus against it. As you say, there is a certain culture of tolerance within OSM that would be at odds with removal. I do, howeve

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Hi, I don't think it's for those who have mapped something in OSM to demonstrate majority support for its retention. I think it is for those seeking to have others' contributions removed to demonstrate a clear consensus in favour of deletion. Kind regards, Adam On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 16:38 Andrew

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, 21:20 Mark Goodge, wrote: > > I think it's slightly unfortunate that OSM uses the tag 'historic' for > something that's different to what we are discussing here. As well as > being potentially ambiguous, it may also encourage people to add > boundaries that are "historic" in

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

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 legal

Re: [Talk-GB] Road refs

Hi Tony, Please do read the conversation, but I think it's important to stress that no one is changing the standard tagging here. It has never been standard to map unsigned references for tertiary/unclassified roads under the ref tag; indeed there has long been a consensus against doing so. The

Re: [Talk-GB] GB does not include Northern Ireland

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018, 22:26 Martin Wynne, wrote: > > > Even in these days of Brexit, I don't think there's any movement for > > Northern Ireland to leave GB. You've been misinformed! > > Hi Toby, > > Northern Ireland is part of the UK but it's not part of GB. > > GB is England, Scotland and Wales

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

His, I think I said earlier in the thread but I've never viewed OSM as a strict majority rule, more a do-ocracy or rule by consensus. Certainly, I think anybody proposing the deletion of others' mapping ought to be sure of clear community consensus, not just a mere majority opinion. Future mappers

Re: [Talk-GB] 'historic' county boundaries added to the database

Hi, I think this needs discussing on its own merits, because the argument being made here is different to the usual argument for adding historical features. The OP and others have made clear that the motivation lies not in recording now-disappeared historical features, but in mapping traditional g

Re: [Talk-GB] 1947 Boundaries

Hi Rob, Contemporary OS maps showed the borough and district boundaries. The 1" New Popular Series dates from around that time. The 6" and 25" maps are more detailed but many didn't receive a post-war revision until the 50s. A good selection of OS maps is on the National Library of Scotland websit

Re: [Talk-GB] 1947 Boundaries

asis under the 'boundary maps' tab on http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/ (licence is cc-by-sa 4.0). Adam On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 23:51 Adam Snape, wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Contemporary OS maps showed the borough and district boundaries. The 1" > New Popular Series dates

  1   2   >