Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

2016-12-05 Thread David Woolley
On 05/12/16 20:19, Dave Barter wrote: -addr:postal_code -addr:postcode -postal_code -postcode Used correctly, postal_code won't tell you much, as it is only basically the outbound part as used to qualify the names of streets and pillar boxes. It should never contain a full code.

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] Dec meeting

2016-12-05 Thread Rob Nickerson
Mark, It was this plug-in that is no longer maintained. I haven't yet had time to find an alternative. https://wordpress.org/support/plugin/google-analyticator/reviews/ Regards, *Rob* On 30 November 2016 at 21:36, Mark Croft Redditch Linux Mint < mark.croft@gmail.com> wrote: > sorry not

Re: [Talk-GB] Suspicious edits in Tarbrax, South Lanarkshire

2016-12-05 Thread Michael Booth
There seems to have been a number of new users editing in the West Calder area, all creating their accounts around 25th November: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/beeemm https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Agnes%20Cosgrove https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ldrin It looks like they have come

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

2016-12-05 Thread SK53
You may also not be aware of Geolytix set of postcode areas/districts & sectors which is built from the ONS data and other OS OpenData sets: https://www.geolytix.co.uk/ look in Geodata menu. You also have to process the centroids to remove very noisy data (RM Delivery centres, some local govt

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

2016-12-05 Thread Chris Hill
On 05/12/16 20:19, Dave Barter wrote: Excuse the noob question as I’ve not been on the list long. I’m doing a bit of work trying to create an open version of the OS Codepoint Polygons. To do this I need as much postcode data as possible. I’ve been looking at extracting this from OSM and as

[Talk-GB] Postcodes

2016-12-05 Thread Dave Barter
Excuse the noob question as I’ve not been on the list long. I’m doing a bit of work trying to create an open version of the OS Codepoint Polygons. To do this I need as much postcode data as possible. I’ve been looking at extracting this from OSM and as far as I can tell I’m looking for the

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

2016-12-05 Thread ael
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 04:12:22PM +, Stuart Reynolds wrote: > > At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence also > available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the roundabout > (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory glance at satellite

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

2016-12-05 Thread David Woolley
On 05/12/16 17:19, Colin Smale wrote: This reminds me of "unsuitable for HGVs" which IIRC has been the subject of debate in the past. One approach would be "hgv=unsuitable" meaning "legally yes but not advised". That seems to be exactly what we need here. Perhaps we could have "foot=unsuitable"

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

2016-12-05 Thread Colin Smale
This reminds me of "unsuitable for HGVs" which IIRC has been the subject of debate in the past. One approach would be "hgv=unsuitable" meaning "legally yes but not advised". That seems to be exactly what we need here. Perhaps we could have "foot=unsuitable" for this path? //colin On 2016-12-05

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

2016-12-05 Thread SK53
I concur with "keep it in" and help provide information for routers to identify potential warnings. There are many similar issues for pedestrians which certainly should be mapped. For instance there are still many very hazardous unsigned pedestrian crossing points on dual carriageways (typically

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

2016-12-05 Thread Stuart Reynolds
Hi Dave Don’t disagree - just wanted to see what the community thought. Are you Traveline? Yes, sorry - just took out my normal footer for some reason. Regards, Stuart Reynolds for traveline south east & anglia On 5 Dec 2016, at 16:31, Dave F

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

2016-12-05 Thread Michael Booth
In case you haven't seen it, the roundabout is on Mapillary from both a car and bike perspective: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=W8Ri1G-L6w5ytkcMy_nv1w=map=51.6437334501=-0.254655100079=17 On 05/12/2016 16:12, Stuart Reynolds wrote: Greetings At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

2016-12-05 Thread Dave F
It needs to remain. As it's clearly signed as a shared use path it's has authoritative standing. 'Dangerous' is purely subjective. Many people do 'dangerous' things such as drive too fast, take drugs or jump out of aeroplanes. OSM is not the place to quantify. Adding a 'falling rocks' sign to

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

2016-12-05 Thread Shaun McDonald
Hi Stuart, I'd keep it in, ensure other object information such as the number of lanes is included within the data. Then the routing engine can take account of the additional information, such as avoiding, but not exempting (thus creating islands that you can't walk out of) at crossing points

[Talk-GB] Mapping dangerous - but valid - routes

2016-12-05 Thread Stuart Reynolds
Greetings At Stirling Corner, on the A1 in Barnet, there is a cycle way (hence also available for pedestrians) that goes around the outside of the roundabout (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78315291). A cursory glance at satellite mapping shows it to be well defined, and marked. But it will