Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 13/08/2020 15:41, Simon Still wrote:


So my understanding is that OSM normally only maps what’s actually on 
the ground rather than what might be shown on a map (and there was 
some discussion recently about this - 
https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-gb@openstreetmap.org/msg19303.html)


This is slightly untrue. Boundaries aren't marked across fields as 
dashed lines, but stored in documentation, usually electronically these 
days. As long as they're published under a compatible licence OSM can, & 
do, use them.




So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t 
it remain in OSM?


OSM should be using the most up to date data available. In this instance 
I think Sustrans saying they've decommissioned a few NCNs & publishing 
an updated map is the more accurate information. I don't think the 
relations should be deleted as they're probably to be reclassified (I 
think).


DaveF

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[John Aldridge]

On 8/13/2020 3:41 PM, Simon Still wrote:
 
Width of cycleyway is definitely useful if separated from traffic but 
some way of reflecting the comfort of the riding experience on marked 
routes would be a big step forward. Traffic Volumes,. Lane widths, 
traffic speed all contribute (as does surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad, 
smooth tarmac good)


Definitely. I have no solution to offer, but it's perhaps worth noting 
that there are several classes of user here - what's fine for a mountain 
bike may be downright uncomfortable for a racing bike, and what's fine 
for a leisurely Sunday excursion might be wholly unsuitable for a daily 
commute.


Another aspect which has a big effect on the cycling experience is the 
frequency of encountering walkers (especially dog walkers). If you 
frequently have to slow to a walking pace to get past safely, it rapidly 
spoils the experience.


Being on an NCN is definitely no guarantee: one of the least comfortable 
couple of mile's cycling I recall was on the NCN 3 at Penzance, for example.


John

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

[Nick]

I am using the UPRN data in QGIS and checking each manually on 
https://osg.scot/portal/ (e.g. UPRN: 137090388). That of course does not 
identify if it is historic and what it is assigned to (the UPRN open 
data is a point not polygon)


On 13/08/2020 15:52, Mark Goodge wrote:



On 13/08/2020 15:30, Nick wrote:
On delving deeper, it looks as if my comment is a load of rubbish. 
UPRNs that are listed do include huge numbers of adopted roads - so 
if we could have a list of these and other 'non-addressable' UPRNs, 
it would help users identify relevant ones


How are you identifying that the UPRNs in question are current (ie, 
not "historic") and are actually assigned to the street as a whole and 
not some specific artifact on it?


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

[Mark Goodge]

On 13/08/2020 15:30, Nick wrote:
On delving deeper, it looks as if my comment is a load of rubbish. UPRNs 
that are listed do include huge numbers of adopted roads - so if we 
could have a list of these and other 'non-addressable' UPRNs, it would 
help users identify relevant ones


How are you identifying that the UPRNs in question are current (ie, not 
"historic") and are actually assigned to the street as a whole and not 
some specific artifact on it?


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Simon Still]

> On 13 Aug 2020, at 11:41, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 14:49, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
>> ... However, note that the "removed"
> sections mostly won't be reflected on the ground yet. Also, the
> dataset isn't perfect, as there's at least one bit near me where the
> route Sustrans have is wrong. I think it's also likely that some of
> the small gaps that have been created are inadvertent and will quickly
> be filled back in as volunteers review the new network.
> 
> We also might need to think about our tagging, as there will now be
> more levels of routes: Full NCN routes, other promoted named routes
> that aren't on the NCN. How can we distinguish these in OSM?
> network=ncn and network=rcn are typically used for national and
> regional level routes rather than specifically the Sustrans NCN.

An interesting conundrum.  I’m thinking about mapping and navigation in London 
at the moment (see blogs at 
https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/finding-your-way-on-londons-cycle-infrastructure-1
 

https://www.lcc.org.uk/articles/signage-and-wayfinding 



So my understanding is that OSM normally only maps what’s actually on the 
ground rather than what might be shown on a map (and there was some discussion 
recently about this - 
https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-gb@openstreetmap.org/msg19303.html)

So even if Sustrans declassify it, if the signs are still up shouldn’t it 
remain in OSM?  Conversely  - how do you deal with older bits of say London 
Cycle Network where signs have been removed or become unreadable. For example, 
I recently had an extended discussion about the status of the paths in 
Brockwell Park in Brixton (changeset here - 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/83547875 
 )  Maps showed routes and 
there may once have been signage but there is no longer any signage and 
supporting information says there is not a designated ‘route’ here. 

In my view there is definitely scope to look at adding more info to cycle 
routes/tracks/cycleways to give more information to routing algorithms about 
the real experience of using them.

Would welcome input on what as we’re doing more on this at the London Cycling 
Campaign. 

Width of cycleyway is definitely useful if separated from traffic but some way 
of reflecting the comfort of the riding experience on marked routes would be a 
big step forward. Traffic Volumes,. Lane widths, traffic speed all contribute 
(as does surface - gravel bad, cobbles bad, smooth tarmac good)  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

[Nick]

On delving deeper, it looks as if my comment is a load of rubbish. UPRNs 
that are listed do include huge numbers of adopted roads - so if we 
could have a list of these and other 'non-addressable' UPRNs, it would 
help users identify relevant ones


On 13/08/2020 14:08, Nick wrote:
Lester makes a very valid point - the UPRNs relating to roads/streets 
are probably not adopted (certainly the example that I cited in Fife 
is not adopted)


On 13/08/2020 11:21, Lester Caine wrote:

On 13/08/2020 10:55, SK53 wrote:
That was me too, I would have added the USRN if I'd had it 
immediately accessible. My understanding is that UPRNs do apply to 
roads, but have much to learn about them. I've added them to a 
couple of others at Cinderhill which is housing built on open fields 
so no historical properties there.


This is a case of establishing what the UPRN actually relates to in 
terms of the parcel of land covered by it. There WILL be a UPRN for 
either the parcel of land, or even for the individual fields, but 
those will be superseded by the new UPRN's for each of the subdivided 
parcels in the new development. It is MY take on things that 
publically adopted roads only have a USRN and the historic UPRN is 
simply that - an historic record. But I believe ( and stand to be 
corrected ) that private roads do require a UPRN covering the 
ownership of the land? The UPRN is in essence the reference to the 
land registration showing ownership, and it may be today that 
councils are registering the publically adopted roads as has been 
seen recently with their claiming ownership of land people thought 
was part of their gardens but which the council want to sell them ... 
even where land registry records show a different situation?




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

[Mark Goodge]

On 13/08/2020 13:34, I wrote:


The TOIDs in those datasets can then be cross-referenced against OS 
OpenNames to give the OS name for the linked USRNs. Although this isn't, 
always, the same as the official USRN name of the street, which can be 
confusing. But that's because OS (like OSM) maps what is visible, rather 
than necessarily what is documented, and if a street has a name by which 
it is commonly referred to then that's what goes on the OS maps even if 
it has a different name in the USRN.


Just as an aside to that, there are just over 92,000 USRNs in the Open 
USRN database that are linked to both a named road in OpenNames (via the 
TOIDS LID) and have a name in the NSG, but those two names are not the same.


In a lot of cases that's a simple translation difference - OpenNames is 
English-only, but the NSG uses local names (eg, in Welsh) where 
different to English. Others are relatively minor disagreements over 
spelling (eg, Aaron's Hill v Aarons Hill or Abbey Fields v Abbeyfields). 
The NSG also differentiates, in some cases, between different 
carriageways of dual carriageways, so it has, for example, both Abbey 
Hill Westbound and Abbey Hill Eastbound where OpenNames only has Abbey 
Hill. But, even after excluding these, there are still a significant 
number of streets where the OpenNames name and the NSG name are 
completely different.


I haven't dug particularly deeply into this, as the NSG list of street 
names, although readily available, isn't open data so it's not a lot of 
practical use for my purposes (or, for that matter, OSM). But it is an 
illustration of how even the "official" name of something is not 
necessarily the "correct" name. The naming of roads is a difficult 
matter, it isn't just one of your armchair map games :-)


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

[Nick]

Lester makes a very valid point - the UPRNs relating to roads/streets 
are probably not adopted (certainly the example that I cited in Fife is 
not adopted)


On 13/08/2020 11:21, Lester Caine wrote:

On 13/08/2020 10:55, SK53 wrote:
That was me too, I would have added the USRN if I'd had it 
immediately accessible. My understanding is that UPRNs do apply to 
roads, but have much to learn about them. I've added them to a couple 
of others at Cinderhill which is housing built on open fields so no 
historical properties there.


This is a case of establishing what the UPRN actually relates to in 
terms of the parcel of land covered by it. There WILL be a UPRN for 
either the parcel of land, or even for the individual fields, but 
those will be superseded by the new UPRN's for each of the subdivided 
parcels in the new development. It is MY take on things that 
publically adopted roads only have a USRN and the historic UPRN is 
simply that - an historic record. But I believe ( and stand to be 
corrected ) that private roads do require a UPRN covering the 
ownership of the land? The UPRN is in essence the reference to the 
land registration showing ownership, and it may be today that councils 
are registering the publically adopted roads as has been seen recently 
with their claiming ownership of land people thought was part of their 
gardens but which the council want to sell them ... even where land 
registry records show a different situation?




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

[Mark Goodge]

On 13/08/2020 11:25, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 16:56, SK53  wrote:

OpenRoads from the Ordnance Survey contains a field containing the toid for the 
street name. I wonder if we should include these alongside usrn & uprn. They 
may be more useful than either for gathering complex roads which share a name.


I'd tend to see the TOIDs are just an internal ID used in OS MasterMap
and not something that there's much value in adding to OSM. I'd have
thought that that USRN should be a sufficient unique reference number
for highways. (Everything in OS MasterMap has a TOID, and actually I
think streets have two -- one for the centreline geometry, and one for
the bounding polygon. If we start adding TOIDs for streets, where
would we stop?)


A street will have multiple TOIDs if it has multiple names. For example, 
USRN 21, part of the A27 Shoreham By-Pass, is linked to TOIDs 
osgb400023625257 and osgb400030480763 - the first for the 
number,m the second for the name.



However, from a practical point of view, if you want to check OSM for
completeness against OS Open Roads, then having the TOID in OSM would
be useful. But perhaps a better solution would be to persuade OS that
they should be including the USRNs in OS Open Roads -- as these are
now the promoted 'gold standard' open unique identifiers for streets.


There's an Open Data Linked Identifiers (LIDS) dataset available from OS 
which links USRNs to TOIDs.


https://osdatahub.os.uk/downloads/open/LIDS

Well, actually, there's two of them, and I'm not entirely sure what the 
difference is:


Road TOID Street USRN 10
RoadLink TOID Street USRN 8

Both of them have exactly the same data format.

The TOIDs in those datasets can then be cross-referenced against OS 
OpenNames to give the OS name for the linked USRNs. Although this isn't, 
always, the same as the official USRN name of the street, which can be 
confusing. But that's because OS (like OSM) maps what is visible, rather 
than necessarily what is documented, and if a street has a name by which 
it is commonly referred to then that's what goes on the OS maps even if 
it has a different name in the USRN.


Mark

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

[SK53]

These toids are for the name rather than the physical street - I'm not
interested in toids in general. It is their potential utility in
disambiguating streets which I'm interested in (although as the Derby Road
case I cited is one I'm particularly interested in - it splits multiple
times, has dual carriageway sections, residential service roads, and even
has a residential service road with a different name
 but
addresses belong to the main road - is not split on historical boundaries
not quite as useful as I hoped). Where there is contiguity of the road
segments they can be merged on name alone, but where they are splits - not
just roundabouts - it can be harder to automatically merge the correct
elements. Other examples might be Denman Street in Radford
 & Alfred Street in St
Ann's  both split
into many sections by 1970s re-development. House numbers continue to
reflect that these were once a single street even if the individual
sections have extension names (I presume the street name toids are
different in these cases).

Wrt to UPRNs not referring to streets. This location
 on Robert's site
shows several UPRNs on streets:

   - 10009154384 on Averton Square
   - 10009156248 at start of Longore Square
   - 10009156248 at E end of Fairham Drive

The other non-building UPRNs are the substation in Orston Spinney (verified
as also present in the Asset Register open data) and the secret allotments
(possibly disused or sold as no-longer in the Asset Register) behind
Averton Square.

The land was in medieval times part of the open field system of Sutton
Passeys, a village deserted by the 16th century. It was emparked by the
Willoughby family around 1580 when Wollaton Hall was built, and enclosed by
a wall by Lord Middleton early in the 19th century (part of his defences
against Luddites & others). The land was acquired by Nottingham Council in
the early 1920s
 when
they built the current housing estate. There is an Elizabethan mining adit
or sough built to drain the Willoughby collieries

at Wollaton running somewhere in the vicinity, but other than that no
historical properties in the lifetime of the Ordnance Survey.

I therefore think these UPRNs must refer to the roads.

Jerry



On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 11:26, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 16:56, SK53  wrote:
> > OpenRoads from the Ordnance Survey contains a field containing the toid
> for the street name. I wonder if we should include these alongside usrn &
> uprn. They may be more useful than either for gathering complex roads which
> share a name.
>
> I'd tend to see the TOIDs are just an internal ID used in OS MasterMap
> and not something that there's much value in adding to OSM. I'd have
> thought that that USRN should be a sufficient unique reference number
> for highways. (Everything in OS MasterMap has a TOID, and actually I
> think streets have two -- one for the centreline geometry, and one for
> the bounding polygon. If we start adding TOIDs for streets, where
> would we stop?)
>
> However, from a practical point of view, if you want to check OSM for
> completeness against OS Open Roads, then having the TOID in OSM would
> be useful. But perhaps a better solution would be to persuade OS that
> they should be including the USRNs in OS Open Roads -- as these are
> now the promoted 'gold standard' open unique identifiers for streets.
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] National Cycle Network removal/reclassification

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 14:49, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> Sustrans' own website mapping has just been updated to take account of this, 
> which you can see at https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn . The dashed 
> lines are reclassified, while some sections have been removed entirely.
>
> It's not currently released under an open licence so not suitable for direct 
> inclusion into OSM. I will see if I can get permission for the data to be 
> used.

Sustrans' NCN data is available from
http://livingatlas-dcdev.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/54a66fa3c15d4e118e085fbd9b141aae
as vector tiles under the ODbL. However, note that the "removed"
sections mostly won't be reflected on the ground yet. Also, the
dataset isn't perfect, as there's at least one bit near me where the
route Sustrans have is wrong. I think it's also likely that some of
the small gaps that have been created are inadvertent and will quickly
be filled back in as volunteers review the new network.

We also might need to think about our tagging, as there will now be
more levels of routes: Full NCN routes, other promoted named routes
that aren't on the NCN. How can we distinguish these in OSM?
network=ncn and network=rcn are typically used for national and
regional level routes rather than specifically the Sustrans NCN.

For anyone interested in working with the data, I'm wondering if
vector tiles is the most convenient format? Would a shapefile be
better for example? I was at Sustrans volunteer webinar last night,
and there was concern about getting various OSM-based maps and routers
updated. So if there's a more convenient data format for OSM mappers,
I think there's a good chance Sustrans would look in to it for us.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-08-13 12:25, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 16:56, SK53  wrote: 
> 
>> OpenRoads from the Ordnance Survey contains a field containing the toid for 
>> the street name. I wonder if we should include these alongside usrn & uprn. 
>> They may be more useful than either for gathering complex roads which share 
>> a name.
> 
> I'd tend to see the TOIDs are just an internal ID used in OS MasterMap
> and not something that there's much value in adding to OSM.

That is apparently not how OS are positioning TOIDs, according to
Wikipedia 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOID 

TOIDs are intended to be persistent, and aimed at integration between
databases. OSM would be one such database, wouldn't it?___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 16:56, SK53  wrote:
> OpenRoads from the Ordnance Survey contains a field containing the toid for 
> the street name. I wonder if we should include these alongside usrn & uprn. 
> They may be more useful than either for gathering complex roads which share a 
> name.

I'd tend to see the TOIDs are just an internal ID used in OS MasterMap
and not something that there's much value in adding to OSM. I'd have
thought that that USRN should be a sufficient unique reference number
for highways. (Everything in OS MasterMap has a TOID, and actually I
think streets have two -- one for the centreline geometry, and one for
the bounding polygon. If we start adding TOIDs for streets, where
would we stop?)

However, from a practical point of view, if you want to check OSM for
completeness against OS Open Roads, then having the TOID in OSM would
be useful. But perhaps a better solution would be to persuade OS that
they should be including the USRNs in OS Open Roads -- as these are
now the promoted 'gold standard' open unique identifiers for streets.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

[Lester Caine]

On 13/08/2020 10:55, SK53 wrote:
That was me too, I would have added the USRN if I'd had it immediately 
accessible. My understanding is that UPRNs do apply to roads, but have 
much to learn about them. I've added them to a couple of others at 
Cinderhill which is housing built on open fields so no historical 
properties there.


This is a case of establishing what the UPRN actually relates to in 
terms of the parcel of land covered by it. There WILL be a UPRN for 
either the parcel of land, or even for the individual fields, but those 
will be superseded by the new UPRN's for each of the subdivided parcels 
in the new development. It is MY take on things that publically adopted 
roads only have a USRN and the historic UPRN is simply that - an 
historic record. But I believe ( and stand to be corrected ) that 
private roads do require a UPRN covering the ownership of the land? The 
UPRN is in essence the reference to the land registration showing 
ownership, and it may be today that councils are registering the 
publically adopted roads as has been seen recently with their claiming 
ownership of land people thought was part of their gardens but which the 
council want to sell them ... even where land registry records show a 
different situation?


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Street-name toids

[SK53]

That was me too, I would have added the USRN if I'd had it immediately
accessible. My understanding is that UPRNs do apply to roads, but have much
to learn about them. I've added them to a couple of others at Cinderhill
which is housing built on open fields so no historical properties there.

Jerry

On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 20:37, Mark Goodge  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/08/2020 16:54, SK53 wrote:
> > OpenRoads from the Ordnance Survey contains a field containing the toid
> > for the street name. I wonder if we should include these alongside usrn
> > & uprn. They may be more useful than either for gathering complex roads
> > which share a name.
> >
> > Experimentally I have added this
> >  toid to a street in
> Glossop.
>
> I think adding toids is worth it, if we can unambiguously link them.
>
> However, I'm a little concerned that someone has added a UPRN to that
> way. UPRNs are not, generally, applied to streets, and looking at the
> ESRI satellite view I suspect that that's actually a legacy UPRN which
> applied to the property before it was redeveloped for housing.
>
> The street does have a USRN, which is 17326392. If you compare this:
>
> https://uprn.uk/usrn/17326392
>
> which is Foundry Close, with this:
>
> https://uprn.uk/usrn/17301086
>
> which is Surrey Street (that Foundry Close connects to), you'll see on
> the latter a single UPRN on top of Foundry Close. But switch to the
> satellite view on that page and you'll see that it's appears to be the
> UPRN of what was, at the time the image was taken, some empty land that
> had been cleared for redevelopment.
>
> Mark
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb