On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 20:58 ael via Talk-GB,
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 08:30:01PM +, Neil Matthews wrote:
> > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from bridleways
> --
> > pretty sure I've seen this done in other edits -- agree that they're a
> > potential anomaly
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:14 David Woolley,
wrote:
> On 13/12/2020 19:05, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will allow
> > people who can't dismount to go around by the road.
>
> Only if it is illegal to try
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:02 Adam Snape, wrote:
> highway=steps
> ramp:bicycle=yes
>
Right. The cycle route isn't mapped at all, from what I can tell?
Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will allow
people who can't dismount to go around by the road.
> Kind regards,
>
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 10:23 Edward Bainton, wrote:
> Sorry, I joined this thread late and I see the initial query was, How to
> ensure tracks don't just pop up nowhere'. So driveway first then track
> doesn't solve the problem.
>
> That makes me say track all the way, as someone else has said.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:52 PM Martin Wynne wrote:
>
> Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned?
>
>
I don’t know the legal basis, but according to OSM there are plenty of
cycleways or roads from which pedestrians are banned in London:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:04 PM Simon Still wrote:
>
> I’d actually say *more* of an issue with OSM is paths that are marked that
> ARE NOT a legal right of way. Around Peaslake in the Surrey Hills there
> are various ‘mountain bike trails’ shown on OSM that are not rights of way
> and which the
There's landuse = mixed, but that feels like a cop out - there's no truly
mixed landuse within the planning system, it's always segregated vertically
typically with flats above offices above retail.
Overlapping land use polygons seems to work fine in practice - many towns
and villages have a
These things can be permanent – mosaic or other types of inlay. From: Mike ParfittSent: 27 April 2020 08:56To: mar...@templot.com; neal...@yahoo.co.uk; talk-gb@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Re: [Talk-GB] underfoot art There may be some merit in tagging permanent artwork on the sides of buildings.But
There's shop=chandler, and waterway=fuel.
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, 15:48 Nick Allen, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The main usage that I'm aware of is to do with the waterways network in
> the UK. Many narrowboats, and others, have solid fuel stoves on board, and
> buy from Chandler's or narrowboats that work
amenity=fuel is specifically for fuel sold for immediate use by road
vehicles (air, water and rail fuel stations have their own tags). Unless
you're running a steam car, I think you want shop=fuel.
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020, 21:27 Andy Robinson, wrote:
> Solid fuel; as in a coal merchants. Yes, still
-
> https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?spiregrain
> spiregrain_...@ksglp.org.uk
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, at 4:31 PM, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
>
> Further to this - if you want to look for barrier=kerb + highway=crossing
> nodes in your area, which may be disrupting rout
Further to this - if you want to look for barrier=kerb + highway=crossing
nodes in your area, which may be disrupting routing, the Overpass query
is node["barrier"="kerb"]["highway"="crossing"] :
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/P5Y
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:
ghway=crossing nodes) which should fixable.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:37 PM Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, David Woolley wrote:
> > On 18/12/2019 13:31, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote:
> > > That said, the same goes for cars - other than the lowest bodi
I think your new mapping is correct, as it reflects reality - which is what
most matters. You could improve it by curving the cycle path/sidewalk up to
the crossing and aligning the kerb nodes to the aerial photo, but that's
nitpicking.
That said, there's still a problem in that at least one
Some mappers use meadow for permanent pasture, on the basis that this is a
fundamentally different use of land to putting it under the plough.
Others believe that meadow should be reserved for "real" meadow, and that
permanent pasture should be distinguished from cropland by some combination
of
The documentation is for the general case, where a public bridleway is
physically a bridleway. (There are also private bridleways.) Here you
should tag highway=track horse=designated foot=designated vehicle=private
designation=public_bridleway. You may need to break the track if it
continues with
The Uffington White Horse is tagged as man_made=geoglyph, which seems
apposite and is documented (if underused).
Adding a natural=bare_rock tag to reflect the exposed bedrock underneath
(yes, chalk is a rock) would seem acceptable, and would have the definite
bonus of getting the shape to
as two cliffs, not
intersecting the creek or path beneath.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:56 PM Colin Smale wrote:
> Good point. Do you know of one? Let's have a look at how the OS deal with
> it.
>
>
>
> On 2019-07-11 22:52, Edward Catmur wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:19 PM Colin Smale wrote:
> * Where the coastline is essentially vertical (harbour walls, steep
> cliffs) MHWS and MLWS can coincide in OS data (sharing nodes but not ways),
> but of course low water can never be landward of high water.
>
Is this necessarily the case?
An Overpass query for relation["type"="route"]["operator"~"parkrun",i]
throws up 38 mapped Parkruns globally of which I'm (at least partially)
responsible for mapping four. I should probably add some more, either from
memory or via tourism (could be a good personal project...)
I think if a bus
lifeless
> spruce
> > plantation and an ancient oak wood.
> >
> > As a naturalist these precious remnants are pretty much the only places
> > where many flowers, insects and birds are likely to be seen.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 11
As a walker, the most important distinction in agricultural land (not
including orchards) is whether it is tilled or otherwise reduced to bare
earth, or whether grass is allowed to establish permanent root systems. How
long or varied the grass is allowed to get really doesn't concern me,
The "building:name" tag would seem to be appropriate here.
Some examples:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/170028507
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85945126
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25911545
An alternative could be to have two objects: the building as a way, and the
tenant either as
Wikidata (and Wikipedia) use "Best-One" :
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4896532
I would favour "Best-one", though, as that's the company name.
On Sun, 5 May 2019, 17:46 Mateusz Konieczny,
wrote:
>
>
>
> 5 May 2019, 18:25 by sk53@gmail.com:
>
> I think Rob is right here:
>
> My view on
There is also the temporary affix:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/temporary_(conditional)#Example_4:_Temporary_highway_bridge
I'm not entirely sure how well supported that is by routers etc though.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, 20:33 Mateusz Konieczny,
wrote:
>
> It
Great work, thanks.
I note that you've linked
https://data.gov.uk/dataset/05c61ecc-efa9-4b7f-8fe6-9911afb44e1a/database-of-registered-common-land-in-england
- as this is OGL, I assume it's suitable for incorporation into OSM? Could
we pick that up as a small OSM UK project?
On Sat, 30 Mar 2019,
And yes, I'm aware that tagging for the renderer is wrong, and that a
common isn't a park. But by making this change carto have effectively
redefined the common tag as deprecated.
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, 12:54 Edward Catmur, wrote:
> They're going to be retagged anyway to get them to ren
They're going to be retagged anyway to get them to render in the main map,
so I doubt that's a solution.
Any conclusion on how to tag them now?
Perhaps leisure=park, park=common?
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, 12:51 SK53, wrote:
> Yup, it's gone. I think the standard thing is use Andy's (SomeoneElse)
Link to tagging thread:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-March/043380.html
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019, 12:46 Dave F via Talk-GB,
wrote:
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/commit/4df96c4e4927c
>
> Plus a discussion in Tagging 05/03
>
> Unsure if this is a step
Yes, that would be fine. You might also consider breaking up the edit into
multiple uploads each with an appropriate source tag - this may be a bit
tricky depending on which editor you use, though.
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019, 22:02 Martin Wynne, wrote:
> On 10/03/2019 21:33, Edward Catmur wr
Changesets have a timestamp attached (the time when you hit upload in the
editor, I guess), so the community (other mappers and data consumers) can
usually assume that the survey date is more or less the same as the
changeset timestamp.
Adding survey date would be redundant unless it's more than
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:25 PM Jez Nicholson
wrote:
> Fuanctioning restaurants and food-related shops are listed in the FHRS
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Food_Hygiene_Rating_System
>
> As an aside, it can be useful to retain the old name of a
> restaurant/pub/takeaway so that other
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, 13:56 David Woolley On 07/01/2019 12:37, Mike Baggaley wrote:
> > I think that if an intersecting highway and waterway are mapped just as
> lines, then these represent the full width of the highway and waterway and
> it is illogical to use a line or area to represent the ford.
It would seem a bit much to map the ford as an area unless both the river
and the highway away from the ford are mapped as areas. For the same reason
I wouldn't usually map a ford as a way unless the river is mapped as an
area.
Apropos of not much, I wonder whether the ford is relevant for
I would keep railway=rail (it's still a railway), but add usage=industrial
and service=yard - this makes it clear that it is not a passenger railway.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:48 AM Jez Nicholson
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93523292 is the rail tracks used by a
> pair
There is more information at the OsmAnd feature request:
https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/3391
By my understanding, Google have blocked all navigation apps other than a
very short whitelist (Google Maps and Waze), ostensibly over concern for
liability for distracting drivers. Other
amenity=horse_dismount_block has 4 occurrences, all in the north of
England.
I might add some more that I know of.
On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, 00:11 Martin Wynne, wrote:
> I'm tempted to map these horse-mounting steps as
>
> stairway=to_heaven
>
>
If you don't like barrier=cycle_barrier, there's also barrier=chicane - I'd
consider barrier=cycle_barrier to be a subset of barrier=chicane. But then
you'd definitely need to provide comprehensive access tags.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:08 PM Edward Catmur
wrote:
>
> Oh, I'd map that as b
Oh, I'd map that as barrier=cycle_barrier without hesitation - it's even
made of the archetypal aluminium tubing.
The fact that it's across a road rather than a "path, footway, cycleway or
track" is a pretty minor point compared to construction and intent. For
prior art see e.g.
a reception desk is a
staffed information facility while a reception area is more like a waiting
room (though it may have a reception desk within or beside it)?
In which case there would be reason to use both tags when mapping the same
overall facility.
On 16-Nov-17 11:04 AM, Edward Catmur wrote:
O
How about tourism=museum (+ possibly building=no) on the grounds? The
building itself could be tagged building=museum, without the tourism tag.
It's not a hugely used combination but Overpass throws up one in Bedford, a
few in the North Pennines, a couple in Germany.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 5:23
Option 3 appears to be the only way to map an asl or to signify its (rather
their) absence. I don't think you can tag a combined (option 1) crossing
node with cycleway=asl.
It's also more consistent if nearby road junctions are mapped in detail for
standalone crossings to be mapped similarly.
On
Nah, there's definitely something else going on. If I look at
https://b.tile.openstreetmap.org/19/261975/174355.png (last rendered at Mon
Feb 27 08:55:42 2017 according to /status), then when it's served via
saphira.openstreetmap.org:3128 I get the old tile, with etag
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6809001 isn't rendering on the Standard
layer at any zoom level. It looks to be rendering OK on the Cycle and
Transport layers, but the Humanitarian layer is failing to render not only
that way but also a load of others making up the Marble Arch gyratory.
Off
44 matches
Mail list logo
