Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 13/05/2019 19:01, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 11:49, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote: If Philip really wants a router to tell him where the nearest shelter (surely you can just look around you), You're joking?! No, I'm not. Another reason PT has got itself into such a mess

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

If separate signs.poles - double nodes if single sign/poles - two tags on one node DaveF On 13/05/2019 16:02, Johnparis wrote: If a platform is multimodal, highway=bus_stop fails, because the same node requires (for example) railway=tram_stop ___

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 13/05/2019 16:36, Johnparis wrote: the bus stop (platform) node allows for shelter=yes/no and bench=yes/no, so it's not really necessary to separately map them and/or group them into the stop area. If you've the time, map them separately  - it makes the database more accurate, but I still

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

I think this highlights another PT schema problem - expecting too much from a routing engine. On 13/05/2019 16:29, Philip Barnes wrote: I do, but there tend to be lots of bus stops and sometimes I want it to choose the one with the shelter if its only a short extra walk. Phil (trigpoint)

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 13/05/2019 16:14, Johnparis wrote: I don't have any particular problem with mapping an area (closed way) or a way (line segment) as a platform, Please, please only map a platform /if/ it's a physical structure. Imaginary meta-objects  don't work in OSM DaveF

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 13/05/2019 16:14, Philip Barnes wrote: I can see that when its raining I may want the router to direct me to a stop with a shelter rather than stand in the rain. Surely you need to be given the bus stop which will take you to your destination? That /is/ the point of a router. DaveF

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 13/05/2019 07:36, Tijmen Stam wrote: On 13-05-19 00:14, Jo wrote: I like to keep things simple, the best way to accomplish that, is by having a single object for each stop that holds all the details for its "lifetime". That's why I don't like the idea of 'upgrading from a node to a

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 12/05/2019 23:14, Jo wrote: About the stop_area relations, they're not needed everywhere, but they could be used to show what belongs together. Of course, that would mean all the objects related to the stop at one side of the street, not both sides. Why items "belong together"? Does a

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 12/05/2019 19:55, Tijmen Stam wrote: . No, changing of tagging, not replication. There is no need to map with highway=bus_stop anymore (save for rendering on osm_carto) No. highway=bus_stop is fully relevant as the day it was first used. It's simple, clear, comprehensible meaning far out

[Talk-transit] "more then one platform in one location"

Hi On the railway=platform wiki page there's a comment: "If there are more then one platform in one location, a relation could be used to "bind" them together. See Approved Public Transport Schema for more information."

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

For reasons I've already stated I disagree with everything in this post, but this epitomises why the public transport schema concept was a complete cock-up: I think it is suitable to go the way of unifying it as much as possible under the p_t-umbrella. * It wasn't to enable routers to

Re: [Talk-GB] TfL Cycling Infrastructure Database

This looks very interesting, well worth investigating, but could any comments be posted here please -  We get notifications, they're recorded & date sorted. I've yet to see a wiki discussion that doesn't become incoherent after a dozen posts. . DaveF On 10/05/2019 17:03, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 08/05/2019 20:56, Tijmen Stam wrote: I never understood the whole railway=platform discussion. IHMO hw=bus_stop, hw=platform and rw=platform should die, and all be replaced by public_transport=platform You fail to say why. I have updated entire public transport concessions with almost

Re: [Talk-GB] How to tag this?

if it's used for advertising look up that in the wiki. For the actual structure: disused:amenity=telephone covered=booth booth=K6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_telephone_box On 08/05/2019 12:27, Martin Wynne wrote: How should I tag this? It's a former phone box in use to advertise the

Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?

On 07/05/2019 14:38, David Woolley wrote: On 07/05/2019 13:30, Martin Wynne wrote: This idea of primary and secondary tags is new to me. There is no such distinction in the iD editor -- all applied tags are simply listed in alphabetical order. Things like name, height, and colour are

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

2019-05-06 at 13:53 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: On 2019-05-03 12:09, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote: On 30/04/2019 18:34, Stephen Sprunk wrote: A platform is where people wait to board; if they stand at a pole (typical for buses), then the pole is logically the platform. This reinforces my p

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 06/05/2019 19:53, Stephen Sprunk wrote: On 2019-05-03 12:09, Dave F via Talk-transit wrote: This reinforces my point about misappropriation of tags. A platform is a physical construction higher than the surrounding ground to allow easier boarding. It's a logical platform whether

Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?

On 07/05/2019 12:40, Martin Wynne wrote: Are we trying to create a legal reference document? Or a description of what a visitor would see on the ground? From OSM's main welcome page: "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and current"

Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/112368662 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?

On 07/05/2019 12:17, Martin Wynne wrote: On 07/05/2019 11:34, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: Your OSM example look fine to me - a single property is still where people reside. Any other details, such as garden, should be mapped individually within that area. Thanks Dave. But in that case, why

Re: [Talk-GB] What is a residential area?

Your OSM example look fine to me - a single property is still where people reside. Any other details, such as garden, should be mapped individually within that area. The mistake early in OSM's life was to use this tag to indicate a village/town/city as a whole, with a blanket polygon covering

Re: [Talk-GB] Is this a footbridge?

Given the small width of the ditch, I wouldn't bother with the separate way, but just put the ford & handrail tags on the intersecting node. The way you've mapped it the ford & handrail are 5 metres in length. On 05/05/2019 17:19, Martin Wynne wrote: Got a Link? If you're mapping linear

Re: [Talk-GB] Is this a footbridge?

On 05/05/2019 15:52, Martin Wynne wrote: n.b. the iD editor is now showing this as an error: "Stream crosses foot path", even though tagged as a ford. Got a Link? If you're mapping linear ways a node at their intersection with ford=yes is required.

Re: [Talk-GB] Is this a footbridge?

Hi I'm not convinced it's a bridge. There's no clear evidence of a raised footway. A piece of wood dropped in the stream, is probably just a piece of wood dropped in the stream. I've two similar examples close to me; one wood the other a cast iron frame. They're for the user to steady

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 04/05/2019 19:15, john whelan wrote: Unfortunately people make notes often on paper. So someone leading a mapping group will refer to their notes when repeating the exercise. Finding those notes and correcting them is not easy. Experience is what you get when you don't get what you

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 04/05/2019 16:01, John Whelan wrote: So can the proposal build on existing highway=bus_stop? I've yet to hear a reason why. On reason for this is a number of cites have imported their bus stops from Open Data which ensures completeness.  ie all the bus stops in the city are present and

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

cussion), Johan Wiklund Entur -Original Message- From: Dave F via Talk-transit Sent: fredag 3. mai 2019 19.09 To: Public transport/transit/shared taxi related topics ; selfishseaho...@gmail.com Cc: Dave F Subject: Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 28/04/2019 17:13, DC Viennablog wrote: ...But in my opinion, as it stands, for bus or tram stops, these relations do not make that much sense. As any software should be able to find those connections between stops with the same name, the stop areas are quite redundent. Agreed Using a

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 29/04/2019 16:22, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Stop areas are supposed to link stop positions to platforms, so a router knows which platform you need to take a route that only stops on a particular track.  In most cases, this can be inferred by proximity, but in some it can't, particularly at

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

On 29/04/2019 19:39, Markus wrote: On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 17:18, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Part of what seems to have started the PTv2 mess is that bus stops were sometimes mapped on the way and sometimes beside the way, and both cases were tagged the same. PTv2 tried to separate those into

Re: [Talk-transit] Ideas for a simplified public transportation scheme

Hello General points: Are Stop_Areas required? What are they for? Are they in use?/Who uses them?/Will they ever be used?* If there is a purpose for them, what should they consist of? I've seen shops, bike racks, litter bins included. Surely they're irrelevant? Remove

Re: [OSM-talk] We're erasing our history in wiki

Was this new/improvement additions or bug/maintenance fix? DaveF On 22/04/2019 11:37, Simon Poole wrote: The last functional addition to the editing API was just over a year ago, in March 2018. Implying for rhetorical purposes that "nothing has changed" is rather disingenuous. Simon Am

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

On 22/04/2019 15:34, Roger Calvert wrote: The Lake District National Park instructions to footpath surveyors recommends: "Where there are two items of furniture for the same crossing (for example, a gate and a stile alongside each other), then it is the one highest up the hierarchy .. or the

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a combined stile and gate?

If I have the patience, I split them: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.40349/-2.44502 The PROW ref should go over the stile's way even if the gate is always open - it's up the walker to decide which to use (even if the choice is obvious) DaveF On 22/04/2019 13:43, Martin Wynne

Re: [Talk-GB] Use of amenity=university within the University of Cambridge

I'm so glad this has been resurrected again. It's not only the tag mentioned, but others including leisure=pitch to represent recreation grounds. The university area requires amending to fit within accepted & agreed tagging rules. DaveF On 07/04/2019 12:28, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)

Re: [Talk-GB] RFC: Solar panel mapping in the UK

On 03/04/2019 17:23, Dan S wrote: * The tagging is already pretty well-defined. This would be a great project, however I think there's some confusion in the tagging which requires agreeing/clarifying. Most solar rural solar farms are on arable land. There's usually a boundary fence around

Re: [Talk-GB] Removal of redundant NaPTAN data

When I come across them I always delete them. To map them as polygons was nonsense. A few years ago the person who added them confessed he couldn't remember why he'd done it. If there is a desire to to be added they should be on the bus stops, similar to the fare_zones I recently added to

Re: [Talk-GB] Press opportunity

Is that the royal 'we'? DaveF On 31/03/2019 12:59, Rob Nickerson wrote: Hi all, We have been approached by the press (national newspaper/online). They are wanting to write an article in their weekend magazine on OSM as part of a series on "hidden work that makes the internet thrive". They

[OSM-talk] Fantasy mapper returns

Hi Back in Sept. '18 I posted about a fake mapper https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-September/081426.html He's just returned to repeat one of edits: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37764297#map=16/51.3711/-2.3623 Could a block be put on him before he causes more disruption

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed mechanical edit - elimination of osmarender:nameDirection - blatant tagging for the renderer

I'd say almost certainly, yes. Do you have any specific tags in mind? DaveF On 17/03/2019 21:27, Andrew Hain wrote: Is it worth mechanically removing any of the existing discardable tags from the database as well? -- Andrew From: Dave F via talk Sent: 17

Re: [OSM-talk] DJI Fly SafeGEO ZONE MAP uses OSM data... without attribution

I'm not convinced your example proves your point: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1-qZlaWwAAlJkT.png:large https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=21/38.69444/-9.29481 DaveF On 18/03/2019 23:21, Nuno Caldeira wrote: Dave, im not talking about the basemap, but about the non flying zones

Re: [OSM-talk] DJI Fly SafeGEO ZONE MAP uses OSM data... without attribution

I understand what your point is, I just disagree with it from the evidence near me, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/287865080#map=19/51.50549/-2.55795=N https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1-nAn2WwAA9QDS.png:large DaveF On 18/03/2019 23:21, Nuno Caldeira wrote: Dave, im not talking about the

Re: [OSM-talk] DJI Fly SafeGEO ZONE MAP uses OSM data... without attribution

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree - OSM is far more detailed & accurate in my locale. DaveF On 18/03/2019 22:51, Nuno Caldeira wrote: Was curious where DJI managed to get a worldwide DB of polygons of military facilities and points of prisons, triple checked with a couple of other

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed mechanical edit - elimination of osmarender:nameDirection - blatant tagging for the renderer

Mateusz There's also a few osmarender:renderName in the UK. Maybe check osmarender:* to collate all? Simon Never comprehended the reluctance to remove dead items. Does stepping the version /really/ cause any harm? Contributors, especially newbies, often copy tags from existing examples with

Re: [Talk-GB] Common Land has stopped rendering

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/commit/4df96c4e4927c Plus a discussion in Tagging 05/03 Unsure if this is a step forward. If it's being "misused", the common tags should be amended to accurately represent the areas, not deprecate the render. Seems like the tail wagging the

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

? DaveF On 15/03/2019 11:05, David Woolley wrote: On 15/03/2019 01:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: AFAIA, neither tag had any impied permissions or condition attributes. They do, and they are country specific. <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_ta

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

th would be marked 'depreciated'. On 15/03/19 00:24, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: Hi Nothing except the fact people walk along a way is implied by path or footway. The legality or ability to use it is defined with sub/adjective tags, such as width. The path tag is actively being discouraged

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

Hi Nothing except the fact people walk along a way is implied by path or footway. The legality or ability to use it is defined with sub/adjective tags, such as width. The path tag is actively being discouraged. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 OSM-Carto rendering

Re: [Talk-GB] Lake District NationalPark

On 13/03/2019 21:28, Paul Berry wrote: Relation looks OK to me but I can't see the name at any zoom level: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/287917 Yes, it takes a long time to fully render. it must be quite low down in OSM-Carto's hierarchy, & depending on a national_park's size &

Re: [OSM-talk] How to save Overpass query results to a GeoJSON file with Python?

Maybe adapt this answer: https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/115733/converting-json-to-geojson-or-csv/115736#115736 On 11/03/2019 20:00, Dave F via talk wrote: On 11/03/2019 17:54, Carlos Cámara Menoyo wrote: Thank you for the clarification, Matheus and for the link, Dave (I am afraid

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

On 10/03/2019 23:45, Martin Wynne wrote: There's clearly no evidence of 4 wheeled vehicles, so it should be marked as a bridleway, but It's advisable to check the whole length as sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get between adjacent fields. It's a public

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

highway=bridleway was, I believe, conceived to be used as a shortcut tag for the below, but if the way is a track, they should be included. DaveF On 11/03/2019 08:49, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Access tags for a bridleway in the UK or in my experience England and Wales should be

Re: [OSM-talk] How to save Overpass query results to a GeoJSON file with Python?

On 11/03/2019 17:54, Carlos Cámara Menoyo wrote: Thank you for the clarification, Matheus and for the link, Dave (I am afraid that's not what I was looking for, as it still requires to download data on osm format). You can run the api from a command line or script (such as python). Paste

Re: [OSM-talk] How to save Overpass query results to a GeoJSON file with Python?

Unsure, but would OSMtoGeojson be of use? https://github.com/tyrasd/osmtogeojson DaveF On 11/03/2019 10:18, Carlos Cámara Menoyo via talk wrote: Dear colleagues, I have just started to use Python and I would like to make a query to Overpass and store the results in a geospatial format (e.g.

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

On 10/03/2019 23:19, Warin wrote: Is there evidence of bridleway use? The title of the thread is "Bridleway *or* track?" but It's advisable to check the whole length as sections can be used by vehicles such as agricultural ones to get between adjacent fields. Then the sections will have

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

On 10/03/2019 22:37, Martin Wynne wrote: Thanks for the comments. I'm surprised some folks can be so dogmatic, A surprising comment considering on your 'rarity' claim. Changing the subject a little, is it still a track if wide enough for a vehicle, but the landowner has physically blocked

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of Argos stores

This is the full list of name=Argos, shop=* Catalogue by far the most popular, but I wondering if there any specialised Argos outlets selling just furniture or electrical? catalogue,152 department_store,90 ,60 yes,55 variety_store,39 general,21 supermarket,8 gift,5 convenience,4 houseware,4

Re: [OSM-talk] KeepRight might do that already | Re: HTTPS all the Things (Automated Edit)

Keepright returns far too many false positives (in the UK) to be useful. I'm not an expert, but it seems the further (ie another country) you are away from the server storing the website the less likely Keepright will find it. It makes me wonder if Bryce's script, running from the US, will

Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Road name contradictions in the UK

On 08/03/2019 10:15, Andy Townsend wrote: OS Locator is/was a good source of those missing names, as shown in "Musical Chairs" here: There's also: http://product.itoworld.com/product/data/osm_analysis/ Although don't be deceived by the 'Last Updated' date - It's not being updated. When I

Re: [Talk-GB] How to map new housing?

Hi Welcome to OSM. Mapping new developments is trickier without aerial imagery, but there's quite a bit you can do to make it more accurate than guesswork. * if you're mapping the roads use the GPS to walk down their centre, if it's safe to do so, of course) * Takes *lots* of photos.

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

On 03/03/2019 22:54, Warin wrote: If a field is used for a helicopter landing .. should you tag it as a heliport? If a one off, no, but if occasional then Helipad is appropriate in that case. My answer is - what is it regularly used for and is suitable for that use? Not what it could be

Re: [Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

I use evidence on the ground - is it wide enough for any type of four wheel vehicle & are there signs of wheel tracks. I would disagree that bridleways only wide enough for a horse are rare. If a track is designated as a public_bridleway by signage or definitive statement then there is right

Re: [Talk-GB] BT phoneboxes

Hi disused:amenity=telephone Many that have already been decommissioned are being reused: Filled with flowers: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5281048654. Tagged similar to above for emergency=defibrillator & amenity=public_bookcase Cheers DaveF On 25/02/2019 09:47, Jez Nicholson

Re: [Talk-GB] Know any nonprofits that have relocated from UK to elsewhere?

Would you care to state the reasons? On 20/02/2019 19:43, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, even before the whole Brexit brouhaha, the OSMF occasionally thought about perhaps moving the organisation elsewhere (most likely to another EU country but all options are open in theory). Brexit might give us

Re: [Talk-GB] Notes (Was: We're missing changes...)

s teaching users how to use OSM software. Cheers DaveF On 11/02/2019 15:14, ael via Talk-GB wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:40:23PM +0000, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: I think we should be encouraging those who add notes to contribute directly to the do-ocracy that is OSM. Quite a few notes tak

Re: [Talk-GB] Notes (Was: We're missing changes...)

I think we should be encouraging those who add notes to contribute directly to the do-ocracy that is OSM. Quite a few notes take longer to type than actually editing the problem they are highlighting. If anybody (even anonymously) can add notes then users should be able to delete notes to

Re: [Talk-GB] We're missing changes to M1 Junction 36 which have apparently been in place for a year.

On 11/02/2019 11:06, Paul Berry wrote: OK, I'll give that a try this week and see how the GPS traces come out. Drive around it a few times, if possible. GPS isn't the most accurate when taking tight bends/roundabouts. Having multiple traces provides a more accurate average. Do you have a

Re: [Talk-GB] Possible Unattributed Map on Labrokes Website

On 07/02/2019 20:52, Chris Hill wrote: On 07/02/2019 18:25, Philip Barnes wrote: On Thu, 2019-02-07 at 17:59 +, talk...@manet-computer.co.uk wrote: Hi All, Not sure if this is the right place to ask but is there anyone who can look at https://thegrid.ladbrokes.com/en/shoplocator to

<    1   2   3