Emblemo de OpenStreetMap OpenStreetMap

How not to use OS Locator

Publikigita de chriscf je 20 julio 2011 en English.

Before:

not:name = $name
note = This is in OSSV and OSL, but I can't find any hint that it's ever existed on the ground

After:

highway = residential
name = $name
not:name = $name
note = This is in OSSV and OSL, but I can't find any hint that it's ever existed on the ground

bildsimbolo de retpoŝto bildsimbolo de Bluesky bildsimbolo de Facebook bildsimbolo de LinkedIn bildsimbolo de Mastodon bildsimbolo de Telegram bildsimbolo de X

Diskuto

Komento de stevage je 20 julio 2011 je 03:37

"it" meaning, the name, or the street? If the street never existed, how would you tag that? not:highway=residential?

Komento de chriscf je 20 julio 2011 je 04:18

"It" in this case referring to the physical roadway. There's a gap in the pavement where the junction would have been, so I presume it's not a copyright trap, but beyond is simply trees and bushes. Aerials in the location are missing the tell-tale gaps in the vegetation that would reveal a street or a driveway.

Komento de TomH je 20 julio 2011 je 07:47

Sounds like it was maybe a road that was planned (and the plan provided to OS by the council) but never actually built beyond the lowered curb.

Komento de Vincent de Phily je 20 julio 2011 je 10:14

In that case... Don't map it ? Unless you know for sure (official documents) that it's an area under construction (with a proper ETA), then you could map it as such, so that it can be easily tagged as highway=residential (or whatever) once it's constructed. Otherwise this is like the various forms of "disused" tags : not useful and more likely to cause problems than anything else.

Komento de sdoerr je 20 julio 2011 je 10:25

It's a bit of a fiddle, but a convention has arisen of coding highway=no in cases such as this.

Komento de sdoerr je 20 julio 2011 je 10:25

It's a bit of a fiddle, but a convention has arisen of coding highway=no in cases such as this.

Komento de chillly je 20 julio 2011 je 17:06

I think chriscf's point is that someone (an armchair mapper) has added the road details based on OS data without surveying it and has ignored the deliberate comments that show it doesn't exist. I agree that that is how not to use OS data. The chase to 100% completeness of agreement with OS Locator data might tempt some to cut corners.

Komento de Wynndale je 21 julio 2011 je 11:31

You might as well let the Vale of Glamorgan journey planner know.

http://www.travelfor.co.uk/Vale_of_Glamorgan/Graig_Trewyddfa/Plas_Y_Coed_Road/

Ensaluti por aldoni komenton