Re: [Talk-GB] Petrol stations again

On 8 March 2018 at 21:28, SK53 wrote: > You may not be aware of a new planned import of petrol stations by Ilya. > > The dataset is downloadable, but is large to deal with even in QGIS, and the > direct website link at the time of writing is unusable by me. I therefore >

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode Changes

On 6 March 2018 at 23:36, wrote: > I was looking at Robert Whittaker’s Postcode Stats chart today and noticed > that there seems to be an increase in Sectors with 0 or less than 5% > postcodes mapped where the community had previously got over 5% of postcodes >

[Talk-GB] New Post Office Data and Comparison Tool

Some of you may have already seen that a few weeks ago I eventually got a positive response from Post Office Ltd. (POL) to a request I made for a re-usable list of their branches, and permission to use it to help improve OpenStreetMap:

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

On 31 January 2018 at 11:13, Will Phillips wrote: > I favour using addr:parentstreet rather than addr:substreet for the > following reasons: +1 > 1. The majority of OSM data users and tools/services using OSM data don't > know that either addr:substreet or addr:parentstreet

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

On 30 January 2018 at 11:40, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote: > On 30/01/18 10:14, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: >> >> (There weren't nearly as many objects in case 2 as I thought there >> would be here based on people's comments, so it's possible I've m

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

On 27 January 2018 at 20:09, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > Following on from last quarter's post-code and addresses project, I've > been doing a bit more playing around with UK address data from OSM. > I've put together a new r

Re: [Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

On 29 January 2018 at 09:18, Lester Caine wrote: > So it ignores a simple 'name' ? which is why a lot of my streets are getting > tagged as wrong? I don't see any reason to have to add addr:street= when the > road already has name= ... The adjacent building use addr:street=

[Talk-GB] Errors in Street Names in Addresses

Following on from last quarter's post-code and addresses project, I've been doing a bit more playing around with UK address data from OSM. I've put together a new report at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/addresses/street-warnings/ which provides lists of potential issues in street names (e.g.

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

On 16 November 2017 at 20:19, Ilya Zverev wrote: > Robert, I don't have official branch numbers from Shell. Identifiers that > are being added in "ref:navads_shell" will be used for updating the data, to > skip the matching step. As I said, I don't think it's appropriate to

Re: [Talk-GB] Importing Shell fuel stations

On 15 November 2017 at 18:38, Brian Prangle wrote: > Here's a strawman to start the discussion: > > Use Harry Wood's improved visualisation as a progress checker, with a colour > change for missing filling stations to red > Get active mappers to add/amend data around their

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

On 6 November 2017 at 13:23, Mike Evans wrote: > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:46:34 + > Rob Nickerson wrote: > >> Mike wrote: >> >> > A typical code is "PB|SP29|4/1" >> >> Be warned, this is not the format that Pembrokeshire use on the pdf scans >>

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

On 6 November 2017 at 11:13, Dave F wrote: > I'm unsure why or how often "altered reference format" happens, but would be > a LA internal matter & irrelevant to OSM. I haven't looked in detail at that many Authorities, but I would guess that if you see a numeric

Re: [Talk-GB] Prow_ref format

On 4 November 2017 at 17:49, Dave F wrote: > I've started adding Prow_ref=* to the paths within my Local Authority. I've > been using the format as decided by them. > > I noticed another mapper has already added a few, but using the format by > Barry Cornelius at

Re: [Talk-GB] FHRS/OSM comparison tool now includes graphs

On 23 October 2017 at 15:52, Gregrs wrote: > Several authorities (Copeland, Middlesborough, Sedgemeoor, Portsmouth and > South Tyneside) seem to have removed geocodes for a large number of their > FHRS establishments recently, as shown by the sharp dropoff towards the end >

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

On 19 October 2017 at 13:38, Ed Loach wrote: >> For anyone else reading, we're talking about >> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postcodes/stats/ > > When I drilled down a bit I found an NG column with a * in it, e.g. > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postcodes/stats/CO/CO13/ > > In

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

On 18 October 2017 at 16:43, Brian Prangle wrote: > The latest iteration of your postcode mapping viusalisation tool is a great > QA tool for filling in gaps. However - 2 questions For anyone else reading, we're talking about http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postcodes/stats/ >

[Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Addresses and Postcodes

It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet, but this quarter's UK mapping project is to improve addresses and postcodes: https://osmuk.org/uncategorized/jump-in-to-our-quarterly-mapping-project/ I've had a go at starting a wiki page for it at

[Talk-GB] Rights of Way Data for Warwickshire

After over 2 years and two interventions from the Information Commissioner, Warwickshire County Council have finally backed down and agreed to release their Right of Way GIS data under the Open Government Licence -- so we'll shortly be able to use it in OSM. (Their email to

[Talk-GB] Queensferry Crossing

The new Queensferry Crossing opened this morning. There's an article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41081556 with people complaining that the new bridge doesn't appear in Google maps yet. Although OS says they've added it to their MasterMap database, it's not yet on e.g.

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire

On 23 August 2017 at 15:25, Philip Withnall <phi...@tecnocode.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 11:30 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: >> Some of you have have already come across my Public Rights of Way >> comparison tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/pr

Re: [Talk-GB] Latest OS Opendata

On 9 August 2017 at 18:13, Chris Hill wrote: > I have a rather strange explanation as to why Forestry Commission land is > not shown on the OS Open Greenspace dataset. OS Customer Services have > explained that they can't distinguish what woodland is Forestry Commission > from

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

On 4 July 2017 at 11:57, Bob Hawkins wrote: > I should be interested in further comments on prow_ref=Checkendon BR 28;Stoke > Row BR 15. That's the standard way to have multiple values for a key in OSM, and it is exactly what I use for dual-numbered PRoWs like that. My

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire

On 27 June 2017 at 11:56, Pierre Riteau wrote: > However it reports much lower mapping coverage than I expected. It > appears to be due to a mismatch of prow_ref format. I know that at least > in and around Oxford, most paths have been mapped with a prow_ref based > on

[Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way in Oxfordshire and Hampshire

Some of you have have already come across my Public Rights of Way comparison tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ which aims to help mappers trying to complete the mapping of Rights of Way in their area. I've recently added data for two additional counties: Oxfordshire and

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

On 12 May 2017 at 12:08, Adam Snape wrote: > I would be interested to add rights of way information closer to home > (Lancashire). I'm currently figuring out how best to make my tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ scale to be able to include many more

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

On 11 May 2017 at 20:24, John Aldridge wrote: > One bit of feedback, from a first try at doing this for real: footpaths > often cross parish boundaries, and at least in this area change their > reference when they do so. But your slippy map only displays geometry for a > single

Re: [Talk-GB] Proposed Import of UK Shell Filling Stations

On 11 May 2017 at 23:25, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Link to discussion so far on imports@: > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2017-May/004956.html > >> My concern would be from where to they get their geocoding. Most >> businesses, and particularly chain

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

On 11 May 2017 at 08:04, John Aldridge <j...@cantab.net> wrote: > On 11-May-17 00:20, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: >> The presence of prow_ref=* >> tags to allow matching with official data is almost non-existent.) > > So what's the best way to fix this? > >

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

After a rather long battle with Cambridgeshire County Council over the release and licensing of their Public Rights of Way GIS data, the ICO ruled in my favour again last month, and the Council have now released the data under the Open Government Licence. This means it's suitable for use in OSM.

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly project - Feedback to Food Standards Agency?

On 20 April 2017 at 15:22, Dave F wrote: > A while someone said the Food Standards Agency were aware of the FHRS > quarterly project & would welcome feedback or any errors. Did anything get > formalised? I've a file of data for my area to pass on, but obtaining a >

[Talk-GB] Cleaning Spam

Anyone got any ideas what's going on with this object: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/153803935/history ? It seems to have been spammed twice by two different US cleaning companies in the last month. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker

Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Postcode Checking

On 5 Mar 2017 7:17 pm, "Ed Loach" wrote: How sure are you that 'Old Postal Unit' isn't just that the postcode got left out of the update by mistake? It's just that checking the first two CO postcodes in the list, the businesses there still seem to be using the 'old' one on

[Talk-GB] OSM Postcode Checking

Some of you may recall that I've previously advertised a tool that checks addr:postcode tags in OSM UK against the official Code-Point Open data. There are two reports: * http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postcodes/osm-errors.html is updated daily and flags up OSM postcode values that don't exist in

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

Public Rights of Way mapping is one of my OSM hobbies, and I've done quite a bit in my local area of Norfolk and Suffolk. I've also put together a tool to compare OSM coverage with official (OGL-licensed) data from the two councils: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ . (As an aside, I'd

Re: [Talk-GB] tag prow_ref

On 10 January 2017 at 16:02, Paul Berry wrote: > So, convinced you were talking about me :) should I change ref to prow_ref on > this and other footpaths I've tracked recently? > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464500797 I'd definitely recommend using prow_ref=* to

Re: [OSM-talk] This is an auto-generated note from MAPS.ME application:

On 9 December 2016 at 11:49, Dave F wrote: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Peter%20Mount/notes > > They are all for the same entity. > > How can we stop this annoying repetition? Can it be blocked at OSM's end, > contact individual users or, better still, get it

Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] This is an auto-generated note from MAPS.ME application:

On 9 December 2016 at 11:49, Dave F wrote: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Peter%20Mount/notes > > They are all for the same entity. > > How can we stop this annoying repetition? Can it be blocked at OSM's end, > contact individual users or, better still, get it

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcodes

On 5 December 2016 at 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

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

Is there anyone with knowledge of South Lanarkshire that could take a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43929865 and the other changesets by this user? It looks to me as if the user has added fictitious items for fun, but whether this is vandalism or just misunderstanding is not

[Talk-GB] UK Postcode Error Reports

My daily report of addr:postcode value errors at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postcodes/osm-errors.html seems to be being used by at least one other person, since the numbers of errors showing there has dropped significantly now. The page is regenerated daily, but unfortunately the data hasn't

[Talk-GB] Odd edit in Oxford

Is there anyone in/around Oxford that can check the appropriateness of this recent changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/43516570 concerning https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/99933769 and revert if necessary? Thanks, Robert. ___ Talk-GB

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly project - taginfo tracker

On 1 November 2016 at 10:14, Greg wrote: > It looks like the FSA or local authority has changed the FHRS IDs for a > large number of establishments since they were inputted into OSM. For > example Dyce Academy: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/237994869 > OSM fhrs:id:

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Postcode Analysis

On 19 October 2016 at 10:42, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > The OSM data for > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postcodes/osm-errors.html comes from > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/ and it's currently the latest > available. At the m

Re: [Talk-GB] Sat-nav maps update aims to prevent stuck lorries

On 19 October 2016 at 13:29, bivand paul wrote: > Just saw this on BBC. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37703556 > > As OS seem to scent £££, this may be an opportunity for us to help out... Looks like it's the same product as this announcement:

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Postcode Analysis

On 19 October 2016 at 10:22, Jez Nicholson wrote: > Robert...are you going to rerun it? or set it to automatically rerun? The OSM data for http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postcodes/osm-errors.html comes from http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/ and it's currently the

[Talk-GB] UK Postcode Analysis

As I've been adding quite a few new addr:postcode tags as part of the quarterly project to use the FHRS data, I began wondering what the overall state of addr:postcode tags was in the UK. I've started doing a bit of analysis, which has began by checking the OSM postcodes against the Code-Point

[Talk-GB] taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk down?

Is it just me, or is http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/ currently not working? It's been unresponsive for me for at least the last couple of days. Does anyone know who runs this instance and how to get in touch with them? Robert. -- Robert Whittaker

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly project - taginfo tracker

On 2 October 2016 at 15:38, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Which tags would you like me to set up a tag-info script for? We can then > track these throughout the quarter. Off the top of my head, I'd have thought it would be good to know about number of instances of fhrs:id=*

Re: [Talk-GB] UK OSM Community Interest Company (UK local chapter)

On 26 September 2016 at 11:35, Brian Prangle wrote: > Now that SotM has finished we should have time to concentrate on the pro > bono legal review of our Articles of Association. I'll give it a week for > folk to fnd time to look at this. If there's a deal of contention on any

Re: [Talk-GB] Summer quarterly project

On 11 September 2016 at 18:45, Brian Prangle wrote: > Only a couple of weeks left - time to start thinking about our next > quarterly project, while we see how many more farmyards we can add. What about improving the mapping of eating establishments, with the help of the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)

On 9 September 2016 at 18:19, Luis Villa wrote: > Can you elaborate on the second point, Simon? Are you referring to the > "third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license" > language? If so, I'm afraid they've merely made explicit what is implicit in > all

Re: [Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

On 9 September 2016 at 12:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I'm not enormously comfortable with highway=no - it's a bit like the justly > discouraged amenity=pub, disused=yes. The designation= tag should be enough > on its own for something that isn't actually a highway on the

Re: [Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

On 8 September 2016 at 20:56, Dudley Ibbett wrote: > If a footpath isn’t accessible by a walker then I don’t generally put it on > OSM or I will end it at the obstruction. It looks like you are treating > this as incomplete data and filling in the footpath according to

Re: [Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

On 6 September 2016 at 18:22, Dave F wrote: > As a by-product of the PROW comparison, would it be possible to create a > list (Geojson?) of paths not in OSM but in LA's definitive maps? It's I don't know if you've seen it, but I've had a go at developing a comparison

Re: [Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

On 6 September 2016 at 16:53, Dan S wrote: > Looking good! Is there a key? Would help to make sense of the various > footpath markings etc That does look really nice. I particularly like the long-distance cycling and walking routes being shown. Maybe decrease the dot

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] is legal-talk@openstreetmap.org searchable?

On 18 August 2016 at 21:12, Frederik Ramm wrote: > use your favourite search engine with something like > "site:lists.openstreetmap.org legal-talk mykeyword". Or better still "site:lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/ mykeyword", which works on at least Google.

Re: [Talk-GB] National Park extensions

On 17 August 2016 at 16:42, jc...@mail.com wrote: > I know there has been some caution against using Natural England data > directly in OSM, so I wasn't surprised that the boundaries weren't > immediately updated when the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks > were

Re: [Talk-GB] Defibrillator Mapping

mapping of Defibrillators in the East Midlands doesn't seem to be very complete yet... Robert. On 22 April 2016 at 14:43, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > It was suggested that trying to increase our mapping of public > Defibrillators would be a good

Re: [Talk-GB] OSMUK local chapter

On 7 July 2016 at 17:10, Brian Prangle wrote: > Great to see so much enthusiasm for a website and associated tools. [snip] > Where have we got to with domain name? OSMF already have openstreetmap.org.uk (http://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=openstreetmap.org.uk#whois-results).

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FYI Collective Database Guideline

On 9 June 2016 at 13:08, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Thursday 09 June 2016, Simon Poole wrote: >> >> The LWG has just forwarded the text of >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Collective_Database_Guideline to >> the OSMF board for approval and publishing as definite

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC: Semi Automatic Import of schools

On 9 June 2016 at 10:50, Christian Ledermann wrote: > I'd like to propose to use http://schools.mapthe.uk for a semi automatic > import > of Ordonance Survey Open School grounds data combined with > edubase and seed data into OpenStreetMap. > > The Tool is

Re: [Talk-GB] School's Edubase URN ID continually changing?

On 25 May 2016 at 15:06, Dave F wrote: > Some existing schools are having their URN ref updated. Is this a one off or > continuous process? What prompts the renumbering? > > If they're all going to change, it defeats the purpose of including them in > the OSM

Re: [Talk-GB] Historic England designation data

On 24 May 2016 at 13:37, Roger James wrote: > Historic England have made their designation data available as shapefile > downloads. > > https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/data-downloads/ > > These appear to be covered by the following licence which

Re: [Talk-GB] Defibrillator Mapping

On 21 May 2016 at 20:02, Dave F wrote: > Have you been in contact with this organisation? > > http://www.heartsafe.org.uk/AED-Locations No, but I had a look at their map before. At least in my local area, it had fewer public AEDs than the East Midlands Ambulance

Re: [Talk-GB] Defibrillator Mapping

On 22 April 2016 at 14:43, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > A rough and ready tool can be > found at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/defib/progress/ for any other > locals who want to use it. > [snip] > > In terms of getting more data,

[Talk-GB] Quarterly Project (Health): Pharmacies and Defibrillators

This quarter's Healthcare project doesn't seem to have got as much traction as the Schools one. Possibly due to the fact that there's isn't a single obvious data-source to employ, and there's little scope for arm-chair mapping. I posted previously about a comparison tool I built for

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Chapter Directors' Powers

On 23 April 2016 at 16:10, Rob Nickerson wrote: > To breed a culture of Member-led organisation (with Directors as figure > heads) I suggest: > > Directors have all the power > Members can direct the Directors to take/refrain from taking action via a > ORDINARY

[Talk-GB] Defibrillator Mapping

It was suggested that trying to increase our mapping of public Defibrillators would be a good think. After a bit of digging, it seems that Ambulance Services typically maintain a list of locations, with a view to informing people about them if a 999 call comes in nearby where one might be useful.

Re: [Talk-GB] phone boxes used for other purposes

On 18 April 2016 at 19:36, Killyfole and District Development Association wrote: > I think this would be a very worthy project for a bit of OSM'er time. I have > been working on gathering information for defibs in County Fermanagh, but it > really needs locals who

Re: [Talk-GB] phone boxes used for other purposes

On 16 April 2016 at 16:13, Jack FitzSimons wrote: > I’m sure it must have been discussed before but how do I map a K6 booth with > no phone currently used for another purpose? I visited two today intending > to get the phone numbers but discovered they were both

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project April-June 2016

On 1 April 2016 at 23:55, Dave F wrote: > If healthcare is chosen, could any validating/completion/geojson websites > created be based around local authority boundaries rather than post-code > areas. Any databases would be LA based. I think the Health datasets are

Re: [Talk-GB] Starting now: Next UK group call

On 17 March 2016 at 20:04, Rob Nickerson wrote: > It's 8pm Thursday 17th and the UK group call is just starting. Here are some comments/thoughts from me on what I think were the three main areas of the Articles of Association that were left open after the call.

Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive map edits

On 16 March 2016 at 01:29, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 15/03/2016 23:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: >> (Most of the datasets on http://www.rowmaps.com/ still say >> they're under the old OS OpenData Licence.) > > If you click throug

Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive map edits

On 15 March 2016 at 18:57, Neil Matthews wrote: > Anyone know whether "definitive maps" are suitable as sources for OSM? The actual "Definitive Map" will almost certainly be a paper printout of an OS map with Rights of Way drawn on top of it. OS's copyright applies to this,

Re: [Talk-GB] This evening: Night school

FYI, I've just updated my comparison tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/ again. We now have matches to 75% of the schools in the official data. (Though of course not all of these will be correct.) Keep up the good work everyone, Robert. On 1 March 2016 at 18:08, Rob

Re: [Talk-GB] UK group: Community Interest Company

On 17 February 2016 at 22:57, Rob Nickerson wrote: > One of the outstanding actions for the UK group is should we set up as a > regular Limited Company or a Limited Company with Community Interest Company > (CIC) special features. The special features (e.g. Asset Lock)

Re: [Talk-GB] UK group: Community Interest Company

On 17 February 2016 at 22:57, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Hi all, > > One of the outstanding actions for the UK group is should we set up as a > regular Limited Company or a Limited Company with Community Interest Company > (CIC) special features. The special features (e.g.

[Talk-GB] amenity=schools vs amenity=kindergarten

I've just done another update to the official data in my Schools tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/ , with the small change that I've excluded Edubase entries of type "LA Nursery School". Looking at a few examples I concluded that these were likely to be for pre-school-age children. My

Re: [Talk-GB] Other Routes With Public Access

On 13 February 2016 at 14:57, Dudley Ibbett wrote: > I came across a paved single lane "road" on a recent walk that was sign > posted in both directions as a "Public Road" It makes a loop between two > "unclassified" roads. > Functionally, is seems to be a service route

[Talk-GB] Schools Mapping Progress Tools

A few additional features that I've added to my tools at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/ recently: * On the maps on postcode area pages e.g. http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/IP/ , matches via ref:* tags are now distinguished from matches based on proximity. The former are

Re: [Talk-GB] Additional Tagging Suggestions for Schools

On 12 February 2016 at 09:51, Stuart Reynolds wrote: > As a side issue, does your tool currently ignore disused:amenity=* tags? If > not, can it please. Thanks. The tool only fetches amenity=school and amenity=college objects, so disused:amenity=* (and other

[Talk-GB] Additional Tagging Suggestions for Schools

A couple of areas where I think we could improve on our tagging to help data users: * I think it would be useful if we had a machine-readable way to tag an amenity=school area that is actually a site shared between two or more individual schools. In this case, while the area will probably be

[Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

Just a quick note to say that I've updated the matching used in my tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/ so that OSM objects with a ref:edubase, ref:seedcode, or ref:deniirn that matches an entry on the official list will now always be 'matched' in my tool. (Previously the match

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

On 24 January 2016 at 16:14, Dave F wrote: > Would it be possible to add the area location so we can check the ones where > we have more local knowledge? I've added the postcodes from the official data to the second table on

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Wales data

On 19 January 2016 at 13:17, Bogus Zaba wrote: > At the end of the day however, if Welsh schools are tagged with > ref:estyn=* but not with ref:edubase=*, am I right in thinking that they > will not be picked up as "progress" in the quarterly project? All UK ways and

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

On 18 January 2016 at 10:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Following a thread on the OSMF-talk list, I am kindly asking you to review > and improve a new wiki page that tries to give an overview about the > compatibility of common licenses with the ODbL and CT: >

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Wales data

On 18 January 2016 at 16:41, Bogus Zaba wrote: > I was however a bit surprised to see that the progress tool referenced > here : http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/ > includes Welsh postcodes but uses Edubase rather than estyn as the data > source. As far as I

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools project - update 2

On 14 January 2016 at 22:43, Rob Nickerson wrote: > 2. Matching algorithm updated > It looks like Robert W updated the matching algorithm shortly afterwards as > all percentages have seen an increase. London WC is now showing as 100% > complete but the detailed page

Re: [Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

On 7 January 2016 at 20:48, Brian Prangle wrote: > Also I'm finding that frequently I'm adding names to pre-existing school > polygons. Could Rob's progress tool also count schools with names? I've just set up another report:

Re: [Talk-GB] UKOSM or OSMUK or OSMGB proposed aims

On 3 January 2016 at 16:45, Brian Prangle wrote: > Proposed aims for UKOSM: > > The aims of (eventual name) are: > > To increase the number of data contributors;develop their skills and keep > their motivation so that new contributors become active mappers to improve > and

Re: [Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

On 2 January 2016 at 12:51, Brian Prangle wrote: > Happy New Year! (and Happy New Mapping Year!) The first Quarterly Project > for 2016 is now under way and is Schools. There are really two strands to > this project. > > The first is to remotely (armchai)r map and get an

Re: [Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

On 3 January 2016 at 19:04, Colin Smale wrote: > Any idea why it is not matching Gravesend Grammar School (at DA12 2PR) which > is in OSM with amenity=school on way > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142625579 ? I have noticed several other > schools in Gravesend and

Re: [Talk-GB] The Chilterns AONB boundary

On 16 December 2015 at 15:36, Bob Hawkins wrote: > > I am a retired cartographer who enjoys extending his connection with and love > of mapping by contributing to OpenStreetMap (OSM). My current project is to > improve Public Rights of Way (PROW) attributes and add

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

On 11 December 2015 at 21:04, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Talking with their legal people it was, or at least as far as I > understood them, their view that the the ODbL style of attribution > (where downstream don't need to provide attribution for any > incorporated or

Re: [Talk-GB] Secondary, tertiary and unclassified

On 4 November 2015 at 10:25, Mark Goodge wrote: > Unfortunately, the NSG is not Open Data, so it isn't available to OSM by > default. The nearest we can do is attempt to visually classify by > observation. That's one of the weaknesses of a crowd-sourced approach., If > that

Re: [Talk-GB] Dual Aperture Postboxes

On 2 October 2015 at 23:18, SK53 wrote: > I noted today a number of post boxes with two apertures, one for stamped > mail, the other for franked mail. Each side of the box has a separate plate > & distinct refs.I would have expected these to have been mapped as "ref=RF1 >

Re: [Talk-GB] Post Boxes no longer present

On 14 September 2015 at 16:02, SK53 wrote: > I surveyed a fair bit of the town centre of Stockport on Saturday morning & > have just been checking against Post Hoc to see if I missed any possible > postboxes so that I could recheck my photos. > > In doing so I came across a

Re: [Talk-GB] UK/GB OpenStreetMap survey results

On 6 August 2015 at 22:07, Antje map...@minoa.li wrote: Forking the map style with stronger British road colours and then getting that forked road style onto the main site once the default style goes “international”. I think a UK-specific style should be a priority for a UK OSM group as

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project - postboxes

On 13 April 2015 at 12:22, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: Came across 2 postboxes today, side-by-side, one with 1st Class and one with 2nd class. Two wall-mounted box refs so not 2 apertures on the same pillar. I couldn't see anything in the wiki on how to treat these so I tagged

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Projects Update

On 3 April 2015 at 16:57, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: Robert presumably you can give us some regular metrics along the way to see if having a quarterly project actually impacts mapping behaviour? I've got some historical progress data that I've been recording for Post Boxes and Post

<    1   2   3   >