Thanks Andy, this is opportunity for OSM to be *the* best source of HS2
rails data.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020, 17:48 Andy Robinson, wrote:
> Government issued Notice to Procced for Phase 1 today, which means the
> main contracts construction between London and Birmingham will start
> imminently so
Hi Dave,
I have been using this data for several years and it appears to be updated
around about weekly. It is probable that the review date refers to the page,
not the data that it links to, which is on an entirely different server - The
actual CSV is at
Are you sure it's upto date?:
Page last reviewed: 15 December 2016
Next review due: 15 December 2019
The 'GPs' is corrupted with Chines symbols.
On 16/04/2020 17:18, Mike Baggaley wrote:
The data at https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies looks like
an
The data at
https://data.gov.uk/dataset/e373eb6a-fffd-48e5-b306-71eb17f97af2/pharmacies
looks like an out of date copy of the NHS data to me. You can use the data at
https://www.nhs.uk/about-us/nhs-website-datasets/ which is regularly updated.
It even includes an opening hours file which can
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 15:32, Peter Neale wrote:
>
> "Anyone?" Huh? (seems to be lacking the back-story!)
Apologies; that was meant to be a quote of this email:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-April/024410.html
in which I asked:
How are we showing pharmacy
Thanks for pointing out how to import and convert the file. After a bit of
trial and error, I discovered how to get Excel to use the "¬" as the delimiter
and (as you said), the addresses are quite inconsistent, but the data all lines
up again in the Post Code Column. There are some further
>Based on this, my preference would be to standardise on the "SE4/22"
>style format for the prow_ref in Dorset, and convert any other
>instances found to this. What does everyone else think? I'll invite
>Nick Whitelegg (who developed the "map the paths" site) and also a few
>mappers who've made
"Anyone?" Huh? (seems to be lacking the back-story!)
Regards,Peter
On Thursday, 16 April 2020, 15:16:45 BST, Andy Mabbett
wrote:
Anyone?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Hi Rob
There is a very similar state in Lancashire, I can imagine the
Lancashire officer providing a very similar response to that from Dorset.
Dorset are saying that their definitive statement is listed by named
parish, status and route number.
I believe that as the public definitive
Anyone?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
I've recently been looking at increasing the coverage of my PRoW
comparison tool https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/ by adding new
counties. In particular, I've been looking at the data from Dorset.
I've hit a small issue though, in that the council uses two different
formats for their Right of
On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 12:27, Peter Neale wrote:
> I tried following the link to your proposed new source of “official” data,
> but none of the 3 links to the data worked very well for me.
>
> Link 1: (API format) led to http 404 error.
> Link 2 (CSV(TSV) format – led to http 404 error
> Link
Hi Robert,
I also don’t want to delete the objects completely; as they do exist, so we
should be able to map them.
However, I do take your point that a pharmacy which is not open to the public
is not an “amenity” in OSM. So my 2 “wholesale” pharmacies do not meet the
wiki definition of
13 matches
Mail list logo
