Just to be clear they are not all current board members of HOT? That would be “odd”.

What lessons can you share for promoting growth (what’s worked for you)? And, what ideas do you have but so far have not tested/implemented?

How frequently do you update the heat map on the website? I’ll recheck my area when it’s next updated.

Cool idea. Perhaps we should have a map render of the month (like we have a featured image of the week on the wiki).

Good way to testing the quality of the townland mapping? Well done for finishing it all though :-)

One option is to leave it where it is now but have the editor suggest you change it if you edit that object (for example it could suggest you change “Name” to “name” if the latter does not already exist).

Rob

It’s an interesting plug-in. The bit I struggle with (other than the two competing tagging schemes which is never good for a mapper) is how did you know to that the lane split at “141 meters before the junction”? It seems difficult to get the split in the right place.

If this plug-in/proposal didn’t have this “length” element then it wouldn’t conflict so badly with the turn key. As it stands now the 2 tagging schemes conflict on the “lanes” key. This is the worst possible situation - all new proposals should ideally not break any existing scheme. Although it this case it looks like both were in development at about the same time.

This is a good case where the likes of Mapbox, Telenav, OSMAnd etc can help us. As data users they can spell out what they want/why existing schemes aren’t working from a data use point of view. We can do the same from a data production point of view and in the end we come to a better final implementation. Discussions need to be open and ideally avoid the “another ‘standard’” problem.

Rob

You can’t make any assumptions about footway and path, so a render based on surface and access tags may be worth exploring.

I would also like to see a difference in rendering between high usage paths/footways and low usage paths/footways. We have all the classifications for roads (motorway, trunk, …) but none for paths/footways but as I walk in rural areas some paths/footways are more important than others. Lesser used ones may be hard to follow as “desire lines” (e.g. trampled grass) may not be so visible.

I have been using footway for the high usage ones, path for the low usage ones (as good a reason as any for the difference between these tags).

Rob

Thanks. I thought that was the case but will mention it on talk-ie (actually are you able to post it as I’m not on that list?).

It would be good to have both as we can share learnings etc.. :-)

Andy Allan spoke about this in his recent talk at State of the Map US.

https://youtu.be/b6yRH5Ics7I?t=14m38s

Just one in the UK. Now fixed. Thanks

You could simply use the web address (url). It updates each time you move the map to give the coordinates of the centre of the map view.

It doesn’t have to be a trunk or a motorway. The point is that there is a strip of land between the lanes and as such you cannot make a u-turn. For reference both Google Maps and Bing Maps show this as two ways (I’m not copying here as that is how we had it in OpenStreetMap until a few days ago). I would recommend a revert, or at least discussing on the mailing lists before making changes like this.

A traffic calming island is something like this : http://www.ritherdon.co.uk/images/pictures/product-images/poletech-products/demountable-traffic-island-new-3-%28page-picture-large%29.jpg

I don’t agree with this change. A traffic island is a very small area, whereas this example is along the entire road. In my opinion it should be mapped as two ways (like it was before).

Also worth noting that the road no longer properly connects at it’s southern end.

Rovastar, looking on Gmaps shows that there a posts stopping easy access, and what access is maintained is signposted as no u-turn except authorised vehicles. We could debate how best to map this, but Amazed’s solution is a huge improvement over the current situation.

With every fix like this, routing in OSM will get better and better :-)

Wow. When you remap it perhaps you should remove the source tag (or change it to bing).

I forgot that I said I was going to add this to Mappa Mercia maps. Well I’ve done it on the mapnik one now as a test. We are doing seperate pages for each map so I’ve stripped out the stuff to do with multiple layers on osm.ch but my webskills are not great so I’m not sure if I got it right. I was a bit confused by the var attribs = []; and var prefixAndAttribs = []; sections.

Any chance you could take a quick look at the page source:

http://www.mappa-mercia.org/fullscreen-maps/mapnik/

Cheers, Rob

Great work. Other folks wanting to get involved may want to check out http://www.mappa-mercia.org/2015/01/fix-that-road-name.html

My top tip for OSM (or any aspect of life for that matter), is to pick your battles. Changing tags that have been around for ages and are used a lot to establish a better order/philosophy/system is too big a battle. Don’t waste your time on it as it will never change. Smaller battles are achievable - focus on those :-)