Hi Andy,
Many thanks for taking the time to look into this.
So far, the following are my concerns with the TfLCID import:
1) Community "engagement" with talk-gb-london appears to operate in
write-only mode. Ed Whittaker from TfL's contractor Sweco has posted
twice (13/05/2022 and 14/06/2022), but has not responded beyond that.
Comments on the Github issue tracker were also invited, but pointless
without replies from the import team.
https://github.com/cyclestreets/tflcid-conversion/issues/40
2) The changeset comments do not make it clear that this is part of an
organised edit or import.
3) The TfLCID data set includes links to two photographs (PHOTO1_URL and
PHOTO2_URL) taken by TfL's surveyors. There is no excuse to add a
barrier=yes with access tags when examining the photographs would allow
a meaningful value for barrier=*. If the photographs have not been
checked, I cannot trust the access tags. These probably need to be
removed ASAP.
4) Most, if not all of Greater London has good quality Bing aerial
imagery available, which is more recent than TfL's surveys. I do not
believe that this is being checked.
4) The data also includes a survey date field (SVDATE), which might
usefully have been imported as check_date=* for comparison with more
recent imagery and use by (e.g.) StreetComplete.
5) Importing TfL's unique asset ID might have been useful. Where I have
matched assets with imagery (mostly in Newham), I have used
ref:GB:tflcid=*. The URLs of the asset photographs can be derived from
these IDs, which could perhaps be useful for navigation apps.
6) cycleway:(left|right|both) tags have been added to highway=* ways
which conflict with existing tags added my mappers who may actually have
surveyed the location more recently than TfL's surveyors.
7) Adding cycleway:*=share_busway to a highway=* way where no bus lanes
are mapped might suggest that there's a problem, particularly if it has
lanes=2, no oneway=yes tag, and consequently no room for a bus lane to
share.
8) The data for cycle lanes distinguishes between advisory cycle lanes
(CLT_ADVIS) and mandatory lanes (CLT_MANDAT). Recent changes on
enforcement of the prohibition of parking (CCTV allowed since June 2020)
and driving (TfL from this month) in mandatory lanes make this a more
useful distinction than it was a couple of years ago.
Looking at Osmose for @AyushS183's edits, there's quite a lot to check...
https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#level=1%2C2%2C3&username=AyushS183&zoom=15&lat=51.51552&lon=0.06029&item=xxxx
I'll continue to use the data in my own edits.
On 30/06/2022 14:08, Andy Townsend wrote:
Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. We've received a couple of
complaints about edits that appear to be related to this import, also
mentioned at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2022-June/006878.html
. I am assuming that https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/122632581
et al are changes associated with this import, based on the source used
in the changeset.
Based on that, this work seems to have gone ahead without any attempt to
follow https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
. Based on what I can read at
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=15976978 ,
the work performed so far also seems to be of very poor quality in that
it appears to be based on out-of-date information and the people
performing the work appear to lack the necessary skills to even know
that they are not using up-to-date information.
I have replied to the "imports" list at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/2022-June/006896.html
(including an embarrassing typo - "doesn't seem to be of poor quality"
instead of "seems to be of poor quality"!) and have asked the organiser
to engage with the community here, as talk-gb-london is a pretty
low-volume list and many people with a view on this import will not be
subscribed to that.
We (the DWG) will take advice from people familiar with the areas
affected to decide whether a revert of the data imported so far is the
best way forward.
Best Regards,
Andy (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse).
On 17/05/2022 19:17, Berrely wrote:
C/e the announcement on the -gb-london mailing list:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb-london/2022-May/000210.html
On Tue, 17 May 2022 at 18:33, Michael Booth <boot...@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't want to say "search before posting" but... :)
I found the following with a search for "talk-gb tfl":
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-August/023356.html
which confirms it is an acceptable source.
and more info at:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TfL_Cycling_Infrastructure_Database
On 17/05/2022 18:08, Jon Pennycook via Talk-GB wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I just noticed someone adding barriers and cycle parking with "tfl
> cycle database" as the source. Is this an acceptable source? I
> assume it refers to this:
>
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/terms-and-conditions/transport-data-service
>
> If so, it looks like
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#United_Kingdom
might
> need updating to meet the requirements listed on the TfL page.
>
> For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/121105391
>
> Jon
_______________________________________________
Talk-gb-london mailing list
Talk-gb-london@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-london
