Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?

On 6 January 2013 01:54, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: I prefer landuse areas to be darker than the default light gray background color in the Standard rendering. This makes it obvious (especially on LCD screens where lightness/luminance of colors vary depending on the viewing

Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough? Updated Proposals

On 6 January 2013 19:13, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the feedback. I have tested some other shades: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bMzVMQ1Z1SHFqcmM I think the first of the new ones under Update 1 (lighter brown; same lightness as landuse=residential)

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Isn't All That Open, Let's Change That and Drop Share-Alike

On 14 March 2014 12:01, Martin Raifer tyr@gmail.com wrote: OSM having a share-alike licence enabled us to incorporate (and otherwise use) all kinds of open data sets, which may be licensed PD/CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA or ODbL. (A lot of open government data in the EU is released under CC-BY or

Re: [OSM-talk] Adding Wikidata tags to 70k items automatically

On 27 August 2014 22:06, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: There is no license issue. No copyright-protected data is being added to OSM. No cordinates from Wikidata are being added to OSM. No text from Wikidata is being added to OSM. While there may not be a problem in this case,

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: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:22, Christoph Hormann wrote: > And what i have also said several times before is that the only way you > can consistently interpret the ODbL attribution requirement - what > Martin quoted as: > > „You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably >

Re: [OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 23:01, Kathleen Lu via talk wrote: > OSM has imported sources that are ODbL. The attribution to those sources does > not appear on the map, but rather after several clicks (usually first to the > copyright page, then the contributors page). If that's not acceptable under

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 21:56, Michal Migurski wrote: > First, the text of the ODbL is explicit about “reasonably calculated” > awareness. FB believes its maps comply with this. The ODbL does not require > that “every” person see the attribution. It requires that “any” person can. I believe that

Re: [OSM-talk] I’m running for OSMF board and I’ve set up office hours for questions

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 03:41, Michal Migurski wrote: > Facebook is in compliance with the ODbL license which requires that > attribution be “reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, > accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware” > of OSM’s

Re: [OSM-talk] When two bots go to war

Maybe there should be a general good-practice recommendation / policy that bots running in this fashion to keep things in sync should only automatically add/update/remove a tag that they've previously set if the current state/value in OSM is unchanged from the last state/value that the bot set.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] tesco store location data

On 5 November 2012 17:56, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Chris Hill wrote: So the answer, as always with this sort of question, is no we cannot use that data without written permission of the copyright holder to use this data in OSM for any purpose. I don't think that is likely

[OSM-legal-talk] Content Licence for OSM Data

My understanding of the ODbL is that it covers an overall database, but not individual contents within it. So in order to use an ODbL database you also need a license (or other permission) to use the contents. Conversely, when offering a database to others under the ODbL, if you actually want them

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Current status on UK Council footpath data

On 6 June 2013 08:11, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Just wondering what the current state of what we can do with the UK council footpath open data is? It will depend what data you are referring to. But the general rule will apply: you can only use data/information that is

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL

On 7 June 2013 01:56, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: With two State of the Map conferences coming up now and plenty of opportunities for face time, I'd like to restart our conversation around clarifying the ODbL's implications for geocoding and get to a result. Over here at MapBox we're

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Clarifying Geocoding and ODbL

On 13 June 2013 14:58, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote: Manual geocoding A person using an OSM map to find the latitude and longitude coordinates associated with a point or an area, normally by clicking, drawing or similarly marking where that point or area is on a map. As an example, the

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-GB] Using store locator as source

On 17 September 2013 08:38, OpenStreetmap HADW osmh...@gmail.com wrote: However, basic postcode centre locations are part of the OS OpenData releases. Unfortunately, CodePoint Open is the one dataset in the OS OpenData collection that hasn't been cleared for use in OSM. See

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licensing advice for a potential data source?

On 21 January 2014 18:18, Adam Williamson ad...@happyassassin.net wrote: Hi, folks! I'm a new OSM contributor in Vancouver, BC, Canada. I'm doing some manual, on-the-ground, local knowledge mapping, but I'm also looking for importable sources of important data types we're currently missing

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OpenData attributes from closed vector data

On 7 March 2014 22:40, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: I have been provided (i) original vector data and (ii) a printed map leaflet both of which include attribute data about roads - for example, whether the road is lit. The owner of the attribute data (whether the road is lit)

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Community Guidelines - Horizontal Cuts better text

On 21 May 2014 15:08, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I like the message but I am not sure if it really works, license-wise. Suppose I have my own data set with restaurant POIs, A. Now I take an OSM database with restaurant POIs, B. Now I compute the difference, B-A - all

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

On 11 July 2014 03:52, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: I just updated the Wiki with a proposed community guideline on geocoding. Please review: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline The whole point of the share-alike aspect of our licence is to stop

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] YouTube videos

On 8 August 2014 09:48, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: CC-BY is not per se compatible. We need (and I believe this is still the case with 4.0) explicit acknowledgement that the way that we provide attribution is OK and that we do not provide downstream attribution for individual sources.

[OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data

The ODbL that we now use for OSM data technically only applies to the database, and not to individual contents contained within it. For that, the ODbL says you need a separate licence [1]. I was under the impression that for OSM's data this licence was the ODC's Database Contents Licence (DbCL)

[OSM-legal-talk] Addresses from Land Registry Price Paid Data

As you may know, the UK's Land Registry makes available historical Price Paid data for residential property sales, licensed under the Open Government Licence (OGL). Along with the prices paid, this data also includes full addresses and postcodes for the properties. OGL-licensed data is regarded

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Addresses from Land Registry Price Paid Data

On 1 December 2014 at 21:51, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Am 01.12.2014 15:08, schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists): This also raises the question of whether there are any other OGL-licensed datasets out there that have been used in OSM, but which contain undocumented third-party IP

Re: [Talk-GB] Office of National Statistics data

On 30 October 2012 19:24, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: The UK Office for National Statistics has released some data [1] under the Open Government licence [2] . I've extracted the postcode data from it and created a tile overlay which can help find a postcode for a building in GB,

Re: [Talk-GB] Updates to the England Cycling Data project

On 8 November 2012 17:51, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 November 2012 11:16, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: A link from each project page to the editor would be quite helpful. Absolutely. I've been wrestling with the best way to do it for a while, since

Re: [Talk-GB] Queen Elizabeth II playing fields

On 6 December 2012 18:46, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: As such these playing fields are legally protected and as such I believe that the designation tag is suitable: * designation = King George’s Field It looks like a similar legal designation will be made for the Queen

Re: [Talk-GB] Unfit for motors - tagging for routing

On 10 December 2012 15:11, Gregory Williams greg...@gregorywilliams.me.uk wrote: I think that changing the class of the road to service isn’t the best way of recording the data. These roads will quite often legally be an unclassified highway and changing the class away from that just isn’t

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref, I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

On 1 January 2013 16:30, Craig Loftus craiglof...@gmail.com wrote: 1/ prow:ref suggests some sort of name-spacing, but we haven't actually developed any tagging scheme that makes use of a prow:* name-space. So currently prow:ref would be the only tag used. Is it wise to preclude adding more

Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=

On 31 December 2012 16:38, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Not that I'm overly bothered, but since the wiki was only changed a few hours ago, and tag info statistics seem to show a greater usage of prow:ref, I'd have thought standardising on that (and changing the wiki) would have

Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Rendering of Farmland not 'Light' enough?

On 6 January 2013 01:54, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: I prefer landuse areas to be darker than the default light gray background color in the Standard rendering. This makes it obvious (especially on LCD screens where lightness/luminance of colors vary depending on the viewing

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode data

On 16 January 2013 13:04, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: You might like to get a volunteer to check a pilot import that's limited within a manageable area - suggest a limited range of postcodes Another useful check would be to apply your matching over the OSM database, and pull out all

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)

On 23 January 2013 19:38, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: No extra designation tag is needed in my opinion. If they are on the authorities list of streets, then they are legally exactly the same as any other road. Therefore highway=unclassified would be fine. The issue arises

Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)

On 24 January 2013 14:28, Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com wrote: Not entirely tangential question - Is there any chance that the designation tag will be rendered in the default mapnik anytime soon / ever? Or is there somewhere that already exists that renders designations? Since the

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way - LAs and OS

On 6 February 2013 21:43, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: In regards to public rights of way and the relationship between Local Authorities and Ordnance Survey, see my recent blog post: http://opendatauser.posterous.com/loacal-authorities-in-bed-with-the-ordnance-s I would be

Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way - LAs and OS

On 6 February 2013 21:43, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: In regards to public rights of way and the relationship between Local Authorities and Ordnance Survey, see my recent blog post: http://opendatauser.posterous.com/loacal-authorities-in-bed-with-the-ordnance-s I would be

[Talk-GB] New user reinstating old railways in Norfolk

New user MATTHEW NIBARI [1] has created just two changesets [2], both yesterday (17th February). The OSM History viewer views of these are as follows: http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=15065237 http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=15066769 I've been though every way listed

Re: [Talk-GB] Postcode data

On 27 February 2013 09:03, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 February 2013 22:08, Aidan McGinley aidmcgin+openstreet...@gmail.com wrote: is the actual output that would get loaded onto OSM. Please don't load this data into OpenStreetMap. It's not a good idea. 1) The source data

Re: [Talk-GB] Refs on Tertiary Unclassifed Roads in Highland

On 17 March 2013 09:54, sk53.osm sk53@gmail.com wrote: I've noticed that many minor roads in the Highland Region of Scotland have been tagged with ref=[CU] based on a PDF document from the regions transport department. I've altered a few of these where I've encountered them to

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

On 29 March 2013 15:39, Barry Cornelius barrycorneliu...@gmail.com wrote: I think this means choose either: AV3/3 or: Ashleyhay FP 3 as I think that will be what's on Derbyshire's online map. +1 Personally, I would suggest going for the Ashleyhay FP 3 format as a default for the

Re: [Talk-GB] prow_ref

On 29 March 2013 14:22, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com wrote: I have managed to get hold of a couple of maps from our Parish Council with the prow reference numbers written on them. The map itself is marked as not to be photo copied and appears to have been issued by Derbyshire County

Re: [Talk-GB] Using rights of way data

On 28 April 2013 12:06, Will Phillips wp4...@gmail.com wrote: I notice rights of way data from a number of county councils is available on the rowmaps.com site. It is stated that this is available under the 'Ordnance Survey OpenData licence'. Is there any consensus over whether it is

Re: [Talk-GB] Complaining about refs on roads again!

On 30 April 2013 11:39, sk53.osm sk53@gmail.com wrote: This adding of refs on roads is getting ridiculous. I just was geotagging some photos and I noticed this: http://osm.org/go/eu1a7D4X. A number of unclassified residential roads have been tagged in Cheshire (can't remember which one

Re: [Talk-GB] Complaining about refs on roads again!

On 1 May 2013 09:59, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Otherwise we're likely to continue with an inconsistent mixture of ref, admin_ref, official_ref, local_ref and probably others too. Yep. local_ref doesn't really explain what this putative tag would do (these refs do happen to

Re: [Talk-GB] Neighbourhood Planning - data import proposal

On 14 May 2013 16:13, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Despite the lack of any positive feedback here some sort of Neighbourhood Planning import seems to be continuing: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/16081208 Can anyone explain what is going on? I don't know

Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-legal-talk] Current status on UK Council footpath data

On 6 June 2013 08:11, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Just wondering what the current state of what we can do with the UK council footpath open data is? [ I previously posted this to legal-talk, but seeing as all the discussion is taking place here now... ] It will depend

Re: [Talk-GB] Current status on UK Council footpath data

On 6 June 2013 10:59, sk53.osm sk53@gmail.com wrote: One thing which concerns me is the 'private' release of Open Data. A number of counties have given ProW data to persistent pesterers (not meant perjoratively) apparently under a suitable license. I'd far rather see this published on the

Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-legal-talk] Current status on UK Council footpath data

On 6 June 2013 13:15, o...@k3v.eu wrote: I think you are asking a lot if individual contributors who are not lawyers should be expected to second guess councils and the licenses they choose to release data under. This is definitely a big problem for OSM, as many mappers seem to be not

Re: [Talk-GB] Notification of Rights of Way

On 30 June 2013 17:15, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Some time ago I wrote to you about the process by which notice of changes to Public Rights of Way are distributed to Ordnance Survey and other interested third parties. These third parties are listed as Prescribed

Re: [Talk-GB] Notification of Rights of Way

On 1 July 2013 11:25, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: The best way IMO to make changes to ROWs available would be fully open system with a database and public API where a map provider could receive a list of updates from given local authorities in a format such as XML or

Re: [Talk-GB] Finding Unmapped public rights of way

On 27 July 2013 13:11, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com wrote: I'm trying to make use of the row files on rowmaps for derbyshire and staffordshire and and merging these with and osm map file to then produce maps that can highlight which paths are and aren't mapped. I can put the

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData Licence update (WAS: Finding Unmapped public rights of way)

On 30 July 2013 10:49, o...@k3v.eu wrote: I agree with Rob 100% on this, it is pretty obvious that the Government intends for this data to be freely usable by businesses and projects like OSM. This has been covered to death a number of times in the past. There is a lot of external data in

Re: [Talk-GB] Finding Unmapped public rights of way

On 31 July 2013 17:36, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: A far better approach (which some contributors are following[1]) would be to ask to see the definitive statement (not the definitive map) and then ask the local authority to release the definitive statement under the unmodified

Re: [Talk-GB] iD and accidental landuse deletions

On 10 September 2013 13:20, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: That's true. What I noticed with these landuse areas is: (a) the beginnings of a pattern, suggesting a defect in the software I gave iD a try recently, and went back to using Potlatch pretty quickly afterwards. One of the main

Re: [Talk-GB] Using store locator as source

On 17 September 2013 08:38, OpenStreetmap HADW osmh...@gmail.com wrote: However, basic postcode centre locations are part of the OS OpenData releases. Unfortunately, CodePoint Open is the one dataset in the OS OpenData collection that hasn't been cleared for use in OSM. See

Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes

On 21 September 2013 00:36, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: I've noticed that locally a number of GB:nsl_single, GB:nsl_dual, and GB:motorway maxspeed:type values have been consolidated into gb:national, so that that gone from nowhere to being the second most-used value: I

Re: [Talk-GB] National speed limit changes

On 30 September 2013 08:12, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 29 September 2013 10:05, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: How about saying that 70mph can only be valid on a way tagged as one-way? In a word, I believe the answer is 'no'. I say that because the legal

Re: [Talk-GB] Advice needed for maxweight turning restriction

On 12 October 2013 21:00, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I came across an odd situation where a road is on way, except for cycles and vehicles over 13'3 high. Its a residential area of Shrewsbury which would be a useful rat run, hence the oneway. But to make it complicated, there is

Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence use of data

On 3 December 2013 02:51, wintonian m...@wintonian.net wrote: Can use this data from Hants CC ( http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps.htm )? It has been released under the 'Open Goverment License' ( http://www3.hants.gov.uk/opendata/licence.htm ). Data released under the Open Government

Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence use of data

On 4 December 2013 11:45, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Re the HCC data I have had this communication from Dan at HCC. Hi Nick, I have been in comms with my contact at OS and the feedback I have had is that ODBL and OS Open Licence can work together. As long as there is

Re: [Talk-GB] Royal Mail Parcelforce delivery offices

On 12 January 2014 11:52, John Aldridge j...@jjdash.demon.co.uk wrote: Is there a consensus on how to tag Royal Mail Parcel Force delivery offices? Are these amenity=post_office, or something else? I've generally used amenity=post_depot as a generic tag for sorting offices, delivery offices,

Re: [Talk-GB] Royal Mail Parcelforce delivery offices

On 15 January 2014 16:03, John Aldridge j...@jjdash.demon.co.uk wrote: On the one hand, there is still a fairly clear common understanding (in this country, at least) of what a Post Office is, and to use the tag amenity=post_office for anything else would perhaps seem a little perverse.

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence

On 24 January 2014 07:29, Bernard Moore bcmo...@ntlworld.com wrote: Norfolk County Council offer Public Rights of Way data on this page :- http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/inspire/ (last row of the NCC block). It is issued under Open Government Licence :- http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ …

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence

On 24 January 2014 11:32, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: For the sake of clarification: Robert Whittaker's interpretation of the Ordnance Survey Open Government License is not widely accepted in the community. In the light of OS's own interpretation that the OS-ODL is incompatible with the

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence

On 24 January 2014 14:25, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: By all means say OSMf/LWG consider that OSGB OGL data can be included in OSM, but I personally avoid doing so ... But as far I I know, that would be incorrect. According to Michael Collinson's post at

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence

On 25 January 2014 18:46, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: Of course it would be much better if everything was released under plain OGL, Indeed. Coincidently, it seems that OS is currently running a survey on the future of OS OpenData. So if anyone would like to let them know that it would be

Re: [Talk-GB] Confirmation of Rights of Way tags

On 5 February 2014 10:47, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: I've just been looking at use of designation on taginfo UK and there are many not very appropriate uses. Indeed. I think many may have been caused by Potlatch previously having a designtaion box appear by default on a lot of objects,

Re: [Talk-GB] Metropolitan counties and other boundaries

On 20 February 2014 11:34, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: one thing I noticed is that there are two schools of thought regarding Metropolitan Districts. These are a subdivision of Metropolitan Counties, of which there are six: Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

On 12 August 2014 20:08, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I propose that nothing is removed, but the ref tag for tertiary and unclassified is moved to official_ref. This will retain the data and allow OSM to be used by those who can make use of this data. I know we should not tag for

[Talk-GB] Licences for Highways and PRoW data (Was: C roads again)

On 12 August 2014 20:08, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: We have discussed this subject a couple of times and have, I think, concluded that displaying the ref (generally only known to local government people) on roads that are unsigned is not helpful to the end user. Ignoring the

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

On 13 August 2014 12:19, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: On 13/08/14 11:54, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: When it comes to U-numbers for unclassified roads, I can see that they usually add unnecessary clutter to the map. So while they may be useful to see at times, I'd be in favour

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

On 13 August 2014 17:36, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I have carried out a first changeset, can anyone spot anything wrong before I continue? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24727341#map=8/52.507/-3.796 Someone's already pointed out the need to change any source:ref tags

Re: [Talk-GB] C roads again

On 13 August 2014 18:14, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 August 2014 12:38, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: I would still maintain that the benefits of having reference numbers shown to users on highway=tertiary roads (in terms of allowing

Re: [Talk-GB] OT: Ordnance Survey accused of stifling competition in open data row

On 19 November 2014 19:13, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: UK mapping agency Ordnance Survey stands accused of using £800m of government contracts to stifle competition in a row over the release of geographical information as open data.

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

On 18 February 2015 at 13:52, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: The OS OpenData Licence is also used by Local Authorities and other Public Bodies when licensing Geographic Data that's been derived from OS Products under a Public Sector Mapping Agreement

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

On 18 February 2015 at 00:04, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 February 2015 at 23:57, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: I could imagine that OGL-3 has imported OS ODL's clause on sublicensing that caused incompatibility with ODbL, which would make OGL-3

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

On 22 February 2015 at 14:55, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: I see that the old OS OpenData Licence URL now redirects to OGL version 3 ( http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf ) and as such we can safely assume that the OS consider the

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Projects Update

On 3 April 2015 at 16:49, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 01:43:35PM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: For anyone interested in mapping Royal Mail Post Boxes, or Post Office Ltd Post Office branches, you may find the tools I run at http

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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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 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] 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] 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: [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: [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

[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

  1   2   3   >