Changeset: 44060982
LB Hillingdon Class III roads
Closed by SiHollett
Tags
created_by | iD 2.0.1 |
---|---|
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/id |
imagery_used | Bing aerial imagery |
locale | en-GB |
Discussion
-
Comment from trigpoint
Hi, what is the source of these reference numbers, and do you have permisson to use them?
Also I assume they are not verifiable on the ground so should be in admin_ref rather than ref. A satnav telling a driver to turn left into UX2 will be both confusing and annoying.
Cheers Phil -
Comment from SiHollett
1) source - https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media/28177/List-of-classified-roads/pdf/JW-LIST_OF_CLASSIFIED_ROADS.pdf
2) there's zero copyright on the document (and it's illegal for it's data to not be accessible to the public), though I should have sourced it
3) there's masses of unsigned roads in the UK (not mention the many other countries where its the norm to mark unsigned road numbers with ref= tags) marked with their numbers on OSM. I'm talking A and B roads, not just 'C roads'. If a satnav says 'turn left onto UX2', then its a bad product. I'm not sure why I need to spend additional time hiding information to allow commercial products to suck less, unless I'm getting paid.
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
Ahem. I'd suggest that your paragraph (2) could probably benefit from a bit of wider discussion - I'd suggest that talk-gb list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb for that - it's where youll probably find the widest audience of GB mappers.
Re (3) it's definitely worth following custom and practice in the UK, and custom and practice is _not_ to put the things in the "ref" tag that aren't usable as refs on the ground (e.g. are just internal council references). http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/official_ref has significant usage for just that.
Finally, speaking as someone who creates maps for my own satnav based on OSM data, how am I supposed to make it know which refs are signed and which not? Some (very few) C roads are signed, most not.
PS: No I am not planning to pay you anything :) -
Comment from Richard
Just because a document doesn't have a copyright notice on it doesn't mean it's uncopyrighted, I'm afraid. Quite the opposite- copyright subsists unless expressly disclaimed.
Second, a document being "accessible" has no bearing on its copyright status.
Third, as SomeoneElse explains, the consensus in the UK is that we do not add C/D/E/F/UX/etc road numbers to the ref tag, but rather to official_ref or somesuch (if they can be legally sourced). The problem with your (rather sweeping) "bad product" assertion is that OSM is an international project and it is not encouraged to unnecessarily add regional exceptions unless there's a compelling reason. ref= means the same thing the world over: let's not add a needless exception for one country.
-
Comment from SiHollett
"ref= means the same thing the world over: let's not add a needless exception for one country."
Which is to include references that aren't signed with ref= tags. Unless Hungary, Estonia, Ukraine, Russia, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Albania and all the other countries that include every road number, signed or not, have "needless exceptions" - AFAICS it's the UK that has the exception here. And, when it comes to A and B roads, every one is included, signed or not, so to not include Class III roads as they are unsigned is to be inconsistent with not only the rest of the world, but the UK's other roads."Finally, speaking as someone who creates maps for my own satnav based on OSM data, how am I supposed to make it know which refs are signed and which not?"
I don't know - those that don't fit the formulas for Motorways, A and B roads can be excluded with some code fairly easily, with very few false positives, but there's the issue that A and B roads that aren't signed but are mapped on OSM with ref= tags - which has nothing to do with me and surely a far more annoying issue. This can be mitigated somewhat by having the Satnav's instructions include road names too. If your Satnav says "turn left onto UX2" rather than "turn left onto UX2 Station Road" or "turn left onto Station Road" (filtering out the road number), then it is inherently a bad product - so my sweeping statement is perfectly justified. -
Comment from SomeoneElse
@SiHollett Your comments above seem to suggest that you believe that you and you alone have the correct answer - everyone else who disagrees with you must be wrong or somehow unenlightened. If only life was so simple - n the real world there are different views that need to be taken on board and different versions of "true" to compare (and local authorities get plenty of things wrong - just look at the list of not:names http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=not%3Aname to see that).
A previous discussion on this was at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/thread.html#17390 - there have been many others.
You made three rather sweeping statements in your first comment above and have so far provided no justification for any of them. I'd suggest that you do that, and would also suggest that the talk-gb list is the best place for that. Incidentally, if you read back through there you'll see how I personally handle the problem that you say "can be excluded with some code fairly easily".
Regards,
Andy -
Comment from SiHollett
"Your comments above seem to suggest that you believe that you and you alone have the correct answer"
Not at all - that's you guys demanding that only you have the right version of true and that I conform to it. If you actually held to the idea that there's different versions of "true", you'd have simply gone and changed my edits to match your "true", rather than berate me for having a different version of "true".I'm not attacking your *answers* or even wanting you to accept mine. I'm refusing to accept your *reasoning* for your answers: consisting of sweeping statements (add Norway and Belgium as other countries that don't conform to the 'global standards' as I've just remembered that they ref= tag all their roads too) that are easily shown not to be true, and assertions with no justification.
"you'll see how I personally handle the problem that you say "can be excluded with some code fairly easily"."
Indeed - you refuse to handle it personally, instead demanding that *I* fix *your* problem. And for no fee ;).I remain unconvinced that unsigned/paper-only routes get admin_ref= by consensus in the UK (and it certainly doesn't seem to be the case in many other countries: unlike what Richard asserted about ref= meaning the same the world over) - that the consensus is bespoke, and so poorly applied, means I had no clue that it was the case when I made my edits. But I'll use it from now on, in spite of the terrible reasons I've been given for doing so.
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
> you refuse to handle it personally,
No - go back and read it again. -
Comment from SiHollett
"Finally, speaking as someone who creates maps for my own satnav based on OSM data, how am I supposed to make it know which refs are signed and which not?"
This reads like 'I, personally, don't deal with it as I'm clueless and must get other people to do that for me, relying on them to tag stuff that is obviously unsigned to tag it in a way that shows that'. ;)
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
Seriously - when you've got three people suggesting that you might want to reconsider what you're doing, just how unable-to-consider-alternate-points-of-view do you have to be to think "I'm right; evereyone else is wrong".
If you'd actually read the links I provided above you'd understand how I've been handling the "everyone agrees this is the road ref / name, but there's no sign" problem locally to me. The problem with internal council rnumbers that you are adding is that the consensus is that they are _not_ useful references (because you can't, er, _refer_ to them at all). Note that this is a _consensus_ (it wasn't intiially my view, for example) but it makes sense that we all map the same things in the same way. -
Comment from SiHollett
"Seriously - when you've got three people suggesting that you might want to reconsider what you're doing, just how unable-to-consider-alternate-points-of-view do you have to be to think "I'm right; evereyone else is wrong"."
So, hang on, so beyond having not one, not two, but *three* people berate me for not holding to a poorly-applied and bespoke consensus (that I have now accepted) that I didn't know about. And beyond you continuing to berate me for thinking differently (rather than addressing my arguments) as the reasons given (here - elsewhere there were some decent ones) for the consensus were not only rubbish, but demonstrably so, you now are so unable-to-consider-alternative-points-of-view that you are claiming that I'm wrong about what I think I'm thinking? The mind boggles at this aggressive arrogance of yours, that you presume to not only read my mind as saying something different to what I'm saying, but that I am wrong about it!!!!
"If you'd actually read the links I provided above"
If you'd actually read my post, you wouldn't be attacking me for thought crimes that I'm not committing."The problem with internal council rnumbers that you are adding is that the consensus is that they are _not_ useful references (because you can't, er, _refer_ to them at all)."
At last a decent argument for the consensus in this thread! This is massively different to the generic unsigned one you were making earlier that was tosh. -
Comment from Mike Baggaley
Looking at Lees Road (way 23111785 and adjoining), the U prefix reference suggests this is a tertiary road, but the highway tag has secondary in it, so either the ref tag or the highway tag is incorrect. Can you please either put a B road ref or change highway to tertiary?
Thanks,
Mike -
Comment from SomeoneElse
@Mike Baggaley - I think you mean https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4275498 (I keep doing that too!)
-
Comment from SiHollett
Mike, any reason why you couldn't do it? surely it would have taken less time for you to do it than to ask me to?
also, why am I responsible, when someone else erroneously made it secondary, rather than tertiary?
Anyway, I've changed it, though I have no idea why I'm being so nice. I even changed the ref= tags on that road to official_ref= while I was at it.
-
Comment from Mike Baggaley
Thanks for that, Si. I am not local to the area so don't know anything about the road, other than that it failed my check of secondary roads with a ref beginning with something other than a B, so I had no way of knowing which tag was incorrect. As the last change to the road was to set its ref, it seemed likely that whoever made that change had some knowledge of the road and would be the best person to be in a position to correct it. This is normal practice in the OSM community. There have been several occasions where a newly added ref turned out to be a previous ref to a road that has been downgraded, so blindly changing the the highway tag to match the ref is not a good idea (I have made that mistake before).
Best wishes,
Mike -
Comment from SiHollett
OK, thanks Mike, that makes sense
-
Comment from EdLoach
I just stumbled across UX6 and wondered why ref has been used in place of official_ref - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:official_ref but see there has been discussion already. It looks like we're being left to correct them as we find them?
- Thorney Mill Road (456784149), v1
- 456784154, v1
- Kingshill Avenue (456784166), v1
- 456784173, v1
- Cornwall Road (456784180), v1
- Eastcote Road (456784181), v1
- 456784182, v1
- Coppermill Lane (456784183), v1
- 296090022, v3
- Thorney Mill Road (117450609), v6
- Thorney Mill Road (43931114), v5
- Thorney Mill Road (43931115), v4
- Thorney Mill Road (43931116), v4
- Thorney Mill Road (43931117), v3
- Mill Road (25078547), v7
- The Green (50486341), v6
- Swan Road (23505799), v7
- Harmondsworth Road (431652947), v2
- Harmondsworth Road (50486425), v7
- Harmondsworth Road (431652946), v2
Relations (19)
- 6422556, v2
- South Bucks (2347277), v43
- London (65606), v226
- Iver CP (3686718), v8
- South East (151304), v671
- Metropolitan Police (4001858), v13
- Buckinghamshire (172710), v211
- Buckinghamshire (87460), v292
- London Borough of Hillingdon (183779), v38
- Greater London (175342), v120
- Thames Valley (4001795), v111
- Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire (3820628), v141
- South East (3820651), v200
- 90 (2963696), v33
- London Borough of Ealing (181321), v15
- H13 (3189287), v13
- LCN+ link 86 (97257), v20
- London Borough of Harrow (181292), v17
- London Loop (Section 12) (3685851), v5
Nodes (4)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |