Re: [Talk-GB] When is a police station not a police station?
On 31 December 2012 09:36, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: Many police services are considering providing front counter services out of post offices, cafes, supermarkets! + libraries as they have done in my town. I would suggest that we continue to use amenity=police both for police stations and for police amenities placed in other buildings (like front counters in fire stations). I am not sure that makes sense. A police admin office with no public facing services is not a police station as most people would understand it. Maybe office=police (or something similar) would be better for those locations. Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM
Hello, I have been adding to OSM for about 18 months but more active in recent weeks. I have requested the PRoW from Durham County Council, they currently have not released their data but do have it electronically, just not publicly available to download yet. Their response was more postive than I expected they were looking into it already and were hoping to have a more official response before Xmas (haven't yet). I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering how to tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed the guidelines at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would aid logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPathshttp://www.free-map.org.uk/hampshire/, if so how? The other question is do I add the footpath exactly as the Council Ordnance Survey have recorded it or amend it, if I know it is incorrect on the ground. Currently I have added it as per my own GPX tracks and local knowledge which is more accurate, but officially the PRoW isn't recorded as I have added it to OSM. Do I continue as I have, add both tagged differently or some other way? Finally should I split the path I have added if it is recorded as two separate paths on the definitive maps. I'm sure this must of been discussed somewhere before and I have missed it? *PRoW from OS:* I read Bill Chadwick's mention of hopefully one day the OS would release national paths as Open Data. I don't think that will happen soon, as part of the OS Insight program they were recently testing a new product that included all footpaths in vector format. This will be a commercial product, so unlikely they will be releasing it as Open Data themselves. Thanks Steven -- www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM
On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Steven Horner wrote: I have been adding to OSM for about 18 months but more active in recent weeks. I have requested the PRoW from Durham County Council, they currently have not released their data but do have it electronically, just not publicly available to download yet. Their response was more postive than I expected they were looking into it already and were hoping to have a more official response before Xmas (haven't yet). I've also applied to Durham County Council for their dataset containing details of their PROWs. I did this on December 6th. As you say they've been positive. They updated me on December 18th saying that they had applied for an exemption from the Ordnance Survey but they thought it possible that they would not get this before the Christmas holidays. -- Barry Cornelius http://www.northeastraces.com/ http://www.thehs2.com/ http://www.rowmaps.com/ http://www.oxonpaths.com/ http://www.barrycornelius.com/___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM
Barry: I applied on Nov 28th but contacted the PRoW team who I have some contact with, I received the below response on Dec 10th. It's good to read they have made some progress and applied for an exemption. Do you have any thoughts on how you would tag the paths if adding to OSM as I mentioned. I was just looking at the data you have up on your website when your reply came in ;-) Steven *Re: Digital PROW information*** At present we don't supply the digital information other than direct people to the online Definitive Map. We are aware of the Government's Open Data project and we (in conjunction with DCC's GIS people) are looking into the possiblility of making the data available in alternative ways. We hope to have sorted something out regarding our policy either this week or early next week. I can let you know as soon as I do. regards Leigh Coulson Access Rights of Way On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Barry Cornelius barrycorneliu...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2012, Steven Horner wrote: I have been adding to OSM for about 18 months but more active in recent weeks. I have requested the PRoW from Durham County Council, they currently have not released their data but do have it electronically, just not publicly available to download yet. Their response was more postive than I expected they were looking into it already and were hoping to have a more official response before Xmas (haven't yet). I've also applied to Durham County Council for their dataset containing details of their PROWs. I did this on December 6th. As you say they've been positive. They updated me on December 18th saying that they had applied for an exemption from the Ordnance Survey but they thought it possible that they would not get this before the Christmas holidays. -- Barry Cornelius http://www.northeastraces.com/ http://www.thehs2.com/ http://www.rowmaps.com/ http://www.oxonpaths.com/ http://www.barrycornelius.com/ -- www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner 0191 645 2265 stevenhorner ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM
Steven Horner wrote: I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering how to tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed the guidelines at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would aid logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths http://www.free-map.org.uk/hampshire/, if so how? First things first, I'd definitely go out and survey them. The OS hasn't surveyed these paths (if at all) for years, and important details such as the path surface and which side of a hedge it runs often aren't recorded. That'll create a series of ways within OSM, broken up by e.g. surface changes and whenever there's a bridge. I'd also add designation=public_footpath, of course. Previously I would have taken that designation to mean Someone has been there and can verify that there is a public footpath sign, although if people are going to import footpath information from councils without survey then perhaps we all ought to be adding source:designation as well? Personally I'm not convinced by adding reference numbers that don't exist on any signs (some, but very few, authorities put them there). If you can't refer to it anywhere, it's not exactly a reference number, is it*? I notice in taginfo that there are 10 footpath_ref and 2 source:footpath_ref already. Perhaps something would that would do? Personnaly, if I was going to add footpath_ref I'd definitely add source:footpath_ref to make it clear where it came from. The other question is do I add the footpath exactly as the Council Ordnance Survey have recorded it or amend it, if I know it is incorrect on the ground. Currently I have added it as per my own GPX tracks and local knowledge which is more accurate, but officially the PRoW isn't recorded as I have added it to OSM. Do I continue as I have, add both tagged differently or some other way? I'd definitely tag what's on the ground. If there's a path that people use, add that as highway=footway (or whatever). If there's a public footpath sign pointing down it, add designation=public_footpath. If the public footpath sign points in a different direction to the path that everyone uses, I'd tag both. Here's one I found in Leicestershire: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=52.915121lon=-0.783637zoom=18 If the local authority or the OS have some path route that isn't marked on the ground, I personnally probably wouldn't bother adding it, since it doesn't actually exist. Finally should I split the path I have added if it is recorded as two separate paths on the definitive maps. I'm sure this must of been discussed somewhere before and I have missed it? If you use something like footpath_ref then you'll have to do this, but of course you'll probably split into much smaller segments anyway when you take into account surface changes, bridges, etc. Cheers Andy * I have exactly the same issue with people adding reference numbers (from who knows where) to C roads. The only effect surely is to confuse foreign visitors. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM
Please be careful with the ™doesn't actually exist™ as the owner may not have maintained the access point in the hope that people will stop using the path. I've seen this on a number of occasions. I would investigate further and raise it with the PRoWO. I believe there is a deadline coming up for identifying all PRoWs, so it is worth checking. Dudley SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: Steven Horner wrote: I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering how to tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed the guidelines at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would aid logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPaths http://www.free-map.org.uk/hampshire/, if so how? First things first, I'd definitely go out and survey them. The OS hasn't surveyed these paths (if at all) for years, and important details such as the path surface and which side of a hedge it runs often aren't recorded. That'll create a series of ways within OSM, broken up by e.g. surface changes and whenever there's a bridge. I'd also add designation=public_footpath, of course. Previously I would have taken that designation to mean Someone has been there and can verify that there is a public footpath sign, although if people are going to import footpath information from councils without survey then perhaps we all ought to be adding source:designation as well? Personally I'm not convinced by adding reference numbers that don't exist on any signs (some, but very few, authorities put them there). If you can't refer to it anywhere, it's not exactly a reference number, is it*? I notice in taginfo that there are 10 footpath_ref and 2 source:footpath_ref already. Perhaps something would that would do? Personnaly, if I was going to add footpath_ref I'd definitely add source:footpath_ref to make it clear where it came from. The other question is do I add the footpath exactly as the Council Ordnance Survey have recorded it or amend it, if I know it is incorrect on the ground. Currently I have added it as per my own GPX tracks and local knowledge which is more accurate, but officially the PRoW isn't recorded as I have added it to OSM. Do I continue as I have, add both tagged differently or some other way? I'd definitely tag what's on the ground. If there's a path that people use, add that as highway=footway (or whatever). If there's a public footpath sign pointing down it, add designation=public_footpath. If the public footpath sign points in a different direction to the path that everyone uses, I'd tag both. Here's one I found in Leicestershire: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=52.915121lon=-0.783637zoom=18 If the local authority or the OS have some path route that isn't marked on the ground, I personnally probably wouldn't bother adding it, since it doesn't actually exist. Finally should I split the path I have added if it is recorded as two separate paths on the definitive maps. I'm sure this must of been discussed somewhere before and I have missed it? If you use something like footpath_ref then you'll have to do this, but of course you'll probably split into much smaller segments anyway when you take into account surface changes, bridges, etc. Cheers Andy * I have exactly the same issue with people adding reference numbers (from who knows where) to C roads. The only effect surely is to confuse foreign visitors. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM
David Groom wrote: Last time this was discussed on the list I think we favoured prow:ref http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-June/013424.html Yes - well remembered - there are indeed lots more of those: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=prow_ref Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM
Andy raised several good points regarding tagging and references but not sure I would agree about ignoring paths if not existing on the ground. Officially if a path exists on the Definitive map then you have the right to walk it, this is the information I was given by the PRoW team when I became a volunteer ranger years ago in County Durham. As part of that I adopted several paths I agreed to walk and report any problems. Dudley is correct regarding a deadline, a few months ago I wrote a post regarding some local footpaths and this mentions the deadline: http://stevenhorner.com/blog/2012/06/06/kittys-wood-public-rights-of-way/ I have seen lots of paths that are PRoW that have been blocked off and/or diverted usually without notifying the local Council. You can report these and I would encourage everyone to do this or you will lose them. Andy: I can see in the link you mentioned where the track isn't marked on the ground, it is marked on OS Maps, not the one around the edge. From looking at both Bing Google satellites it does look like a fainter track does exist at the location and the more obvious one skirts the edge. A more interesting example of the differences between on the ground and recorded PRoW exists here (just NE of your link): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.91864lon=-0.77876zoom=17layers=M The actual recorded PRoW (byway) as shown by OS cuts the corner slightly, but is shown as not being visible on the ground (the PRoW Byway route is not recoreded on OSM). The green lines on Explorer maps only show that a PRoW exists, it is only visible on the ground if it has black dashed lines under it. To my mind it would be good if somehow via tags OSM could do something similar. designation: public_footpath is only used if it's a PRoW, if it's not tagged as such then it's not an official PRoW. That is how I understood it to be used. The surface tag possibly shows if it exists on the ground but not very reliably because you may tag as grass but is it visible. Steven On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.comwrote: Hello, I have been adding to OSM for about 18 months but more active in recent weeks. I have requested the PRoW from Durham County Council, they currently have not released their data but do have it electronically, just not publicly available to download yet. Their response was more postive than I expected they were looking into it already and were hoping to have a more official response before Xmas (haven't yet). I have added several footpaths locally but I am often left wondering how to tag these or how to break them into sections. I have followed the guidelines at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines but should I tag the footpath with the local authority reference which would aid logging the path to the Council if problems like FixMyPathshttp://www.free-map.org.uk/hampshire/, if so how? The other question is do I add the footpath exactly as the Council Ordnance Survey have recorded it or amend it, if I know it is incorrect on the ground. Currently I have added it as per my own GPX tracks and local knowledge which is more accurate, but officially the PRoW isn't recorded as I have added it to OSM. Do I continue as I have, add both tagged differently or some other way? Finally should I split the path I have added if it is recorded as two separate paths on the definitive maps. I'm sure this must of been discussed somewhere before and I have missed it? *PRoW from OS:* I read Bill Chadwick's mention of hopefully one day the OS would release national paths as Open Data. I don't think that will happen soon, as part of the OS Insight program they were recently testing a new product that included all footpaths in vector format. This will be a commercial product, so unlikely they will be releasing it as Open Data themselves. Thanks Steven -- www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner -- www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner 0191 645 2265 stevenhorner ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM
Thanks Andy that's what I was looking for. The job of adding footpaths, bridleways and byways gets more complicated if we want it to be as accurate as possible. The prow=ref obviously isn't needed but good to have if it's known. -- www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM
Dudley Ibbett wrote: Please be careful with the ™doesn't actually exist™ as the owner may not have maintained the access point in the hope that people will stop using the path. I've seen this on a number of occasions. If there's something visible on the ground then I'd definitely map it, even if it's only a path from a road to a vandalised finger post: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/197598505 If there's really no sign of a path, and no means of access due to e.g. a hedge that someone has deliberately planted to prevent access then there's not a highway=footway to add to OSM (although there may be a designation=public_footpath, source:designation=some local council list). I would investigate further and raise it with the PRoWO. I believe there is a deadline coming up for identifying all PRoWs, so it is worth checking. As I read it, that date is 1st Jan 2026: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/section/53#text%3D2026 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/section/56#text%3D2026 but that's for identifying footpaths and bridleways currently NOT currently on the definitive map. I'm not aware that things that already are on there (even if illegally blocked on the ground) could magically lose their status just because they're still blocked on the ground in 2026. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
Apologies that this was never added to the wiki page, but you are correct we discussed prow:ref and prow_ref. I believe tag info suggests we are converging more on prow_ref=* so will update the wiki to reflect this. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions#Public_Rights_of_Way Regards, Rob p.s. please use prow_ref for the public right of way reference number that the local council holds. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Byway between Muston and Belvoir (was Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM)
Steven Horner wrote: A more interesting example of the differences between on the ground and recorded PRoW exists here (just NE of your link): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.91864lon=-0.77876zoom=17layers=M For information I've made the GPS trace public: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/traces/1360385 It's got waypoints in it - look for those labelled sym=Boat Ramp for PROW identifiers. The actual recorded PRoW (byway) as shown by OS cuts the corner slightly, but is shown as not being visible on the ground (the PRoW Byway route is not recoreded on OSM). The green lines on Explorer maps only show that a PRoW exists, it is only visible on the ground if it has black dashed lines under it. The relevant PROW identifiers are adjacent to these OSM nodes: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/480255185 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/480255309 The one at node 480255185 just makes it clear that the byway doesn't turn northwest. The one at node 480255309 indicates south and vaguely northeast, but not so far different from the track around the edge of the field to be sure that the official right of way was definitely cutting the corner (unlike the other one by the canal bridge). At the time I was there the only transport options you could have used to cut the corner with would have been hovercraft or bog-snorkelling - even the main track was 6-inches deep in mud in most places. If we were able to incorporate PROW data from the council then in this case it would make sense to mode the designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic to the direct corner-cutting route, since the sign at node 480255309 is ambiguous, but it wouldn't make sense to mark it as a highway. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM
After 2026 a public right of way will only exist if it appears on the Local Authorities Definitive Map. This means that irrespective of what is on the ground, the legal right of way is that shown on the legal Definitive Map. What does this mean for OSM: * As noted designation=public_footpath is *only* used if it's a PRoW. Tag based on the Definitive Map (if open data), and the waymarkers on the ground. * For all other paths and all areas where the Definitive Map does not match with the real world, please use suspected:designation=public_footpath (or suspected:designation=row). You may also want to keep a written record. We can then collate this information and pass it back to the relevant Local Authority (you can of course do this now). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions Regards, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
Arg! We were converging on prow_ref when I last looked at tag info a few months back. Perhaps I should have checked before changing the wiki!! Seeing that I have now updated the wiki (and it really doesn't make a shred of difference) does anyone have an issue if I change the existing prow:ref s to prow_ref whilst we are still at low numbers of these tags? Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Byway between Muston and Belvoir (was Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM)
By Public Way Identifiers I presume you mean a public footpath or bridleway sign and the direction they point. I had an angry confrontation once with a farmer who would have would of worn my finger out if I had a bleep machine. I had walked across his field according to the map which was a couple of years old and got to the end of the field to find a padlocked gate. I returned back to the sign and it was pointing in a different direction (straight ahead) and also had 3 way markers all pointing straight ahead. I presumed the route had been changed so followed the arrow after a about 50 yards I heard various abuse from over the wall. The farmer was angry that we weren't following the map and could we read one. We explained (or tried to) but he said the gate was someone elses and that was the only way we could go. There were no visible paths on the ground in any direction. Ever since then I have never trusted signs and the direction they point. In this case we thought the path had been changed because there were so many signs and way markers all pointing a different direction to the map. Steven On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 2:15 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.ukwrote: Steven Horner wrote: A more interesting example of the differences between on the ground and recorded PRoW exists here (just NE of your link): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?**lat=52.91864lon=-0.77876** zoom=17layers=Mhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.91864lon=-0.77876zoom=17layers=M For information I've made the GPS trace public: http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/SomeoneElse/traces/**1360385http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/traces/1360385 It's got waypoints in it - look for those labelled sym=Boat Ramp for PROW identifiers. The actual recorded PRoW (byway) as shown by OS cuts the corner slightly, but is shown as not being visible on the ground (the PRoW Byway route is not recoreded on OSM). The green lines on Explorer maps only show that a PRoW exists, it is only visible on the ground if it has black dashed lines under it. The relevant PROW identifiers are adjacent to these OSM nodes: http://www.openstreetmap.org/**browse/node/480255185http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/480255185 http://www.openstreetmap.org/**browse/node/480255309http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/480255309 The one at node 480255185 just makes it clear that the byway doesn't turn northwest. The one at node 480255309 indicates south and vaguely northeast, but not so far different from the track around the edge of the field to be sure that the official right of way was definitely cutting the corner (unlike the other one by the canal bridge). At the time I was there the only transport options you could have used to cut the corner with would have been hovercraft or bog-snorkelling - even the main track was 6-inches deep in mud in most places. If we were able to incorporate PROW data from the council then in this case it would make sense to mode the designation=byway_open_to_**all_traffic to the direct corner-cutting route, since the sign at node 480255309 is ambiguous, but it wouldn't make sense to mark it as a highway. Cheers, Andy __**_ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-gbhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner 0191 645 2265 stevenhorner ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Byway between Muston and Belvoir (was Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM)
I have had similar issues, but without the abusive farmer in your part of the world? (Weardale). My old OS map said the Weardale w Way went through this field, and there was a waymark at the junction with the road, but once in the (very large!) field, there was no obvious way out - just rusty gates and barbed wire - I think the route was changed, but they didn't take down all the old waymarks, which left a lot of paths to nowhere. Can't remember how I mapped that in the end Graham. I had walked across his field according to the map which was a couple of years old and got to the end of the field to find a padlocked gate. I returned back to the sign and it was pointing in a different direction (straight ahead) and also had 3 way markers all pointing straight ahead. I presumed the route had been changed so followed the arrow after a about 50 yards I heard various abuse from over the wall. The farmer was angry that we weren't following the map and could we read one. We explained (or tried to) but he said the gate was someone elses and that was the only way we could go. There were no visible paths on the ground in any direction. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Footpath segmentation
Hi Bill, On 30 December 2012 22:52, Bill Chadwick bill.chadwi...@gmail.com wrote: I would be interested to hear how council released prow data has / has not been used within OSM to add to or replace existing contributed path data. Hants and Devon have released PROW data but sadly many of the paths in the New Forest and Dartmoor are not PROW (black dashes on the OS 1:50K). It would be good to use a blend of OSM and council data in such areas but I am unsure how to avoid duplicate paths if there are paths in OSM not tagged as PROW. Anyone who has used the OS Dartmoor maps will know that they contain rights of way across the open moor that don't actually exist as paths on the ground and I can see some of them in this data. So although the dataset may be useful I don't think anyone who doesn't know the areas concerned should just try to blindly integrate it with what we already have. I also just checked a couple of sections of the SW Coastal Path near me and the accuracy of the path in the dataset is pretty poor compared to what we already have which is disappointing. Kevin (user:devonshire) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Byway between Muston and Belvoir (was Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM)
It's a small world, the incident I described was also in Weardale near Thimbleby Hill South of Stanhope. I didn't use OSM then and checking OSM the path is not marked. A path on the opposite side of the wall where the farmer was stood is marked which is incorrect and will lead to someone else being shouted at unless I fix it. There is a massive job to add all of the paths in Weardale to OSM. I will gradually add them as I am out walking. I have GPX tracks of many previous walks and good records. Steven On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.comwrote: I have had similar issues, but without the abusive farmer in your part of the world? (Weardale). My old OS map said the Weardale w Way went through this field, and there was a waymark at the junction with the road, but once in the (very large!) field, there was no obvious way out - just rusty gates and barbed wire - I think the route was changed, but they didn't take down all the old waymarks, which left a lot of paths to nowhere. Can't remember how I mapped that in the end Graham. I had walked across his field according to the map which was a couple of years old and got to the end of the field to find a padlocked gate. I returned back to the sign and it was pointing in a different direction (straight ahead) and also had 3 way markers all pointing straight ahead. I presumed the route had been changed so followed the arrow after a about 50 yards I heard various abuse from over the wall. The farmer was angry that we weren't following the map and could we read one. We explained (or tried to) but he said the gate was someone elses and that was the only way we could go. There were no visible paths on the ground in any direction. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. -- www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner 0191 645 2265 stevenhorner ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
- Original Message - From: Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref= Arg! We were converging on prow_ref when I last looked at tag info a few months back. Perhaps I should have checked before changing the wiki!! Seeing that I have now updated the wiki (and it really doesn't make a shred of difference) does anyone have an issue if I change the existing prow:ref s to prow_ref whilst we are still at low numbers of these tags? 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 been the better option. David Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Byway between Muston and Belvoir (was Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM)
Even smaller - I am pretty sure the problem I had was just to the North of Stanhope You are right, there are plenty of opportunities to add footpaths to Weardale. I concentrated on the Weardale Way (which you can see on Lonvia's Hiking Map if you are interested ( http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=11lat=54.72073lon=-1.8885)). When we met a branching footpath I tried to record a short stub to show it is there, but we have not followed most of them.There is also a marked 'Mineral Valley's Walk' through the area that we will probably try to follow during 2013but there are huge numbers of 'normal' public footpaths too.my challenge is trying to incorporate these into a nice walk, as we don't tend to go 'mapping' - we go for a walk, and I take my GPX receiver with me! Cheers Graham. On 31 December 2012 16:20, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote: It's a small world, the incident I described was also in Weardale near Thimbleby Hill South of Stanhope. I didn't use OSM then and checking OSM the path is not marked. A path on the opposite side of the wall where the farmer was stood is marked which is incorrect and will lead to someone else being shouted at unless I fix it. There is a massive job to add all of the paths in Weardale to OSM. I will gradually add them as I am out walking. I have GPX tracks of many previous walks and good records. Steven On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.comwrote: I have had similar issues, but without the abusive farmer in your part of the world? (Weardale). My old OS map said the Weardale w Way went through this field, and there was a waymark at the junction with the road, but once in the (very large!) field, there was no obvious way out - just rusty gates and barbed wire - I think the route was changed, but they didn't take down all the old waymarks, which left a lot of paths to nowhere. Can't remember how I mapped that in the end Graham. I had walked across his field according to the map which was a couple of years old and got to the end of the field to find a padlocked gate. I returned back to the sign and it was pointing in a different direction (straight ahead) and also had 3 way markers all pointing straight ahead. I presumed the route had been changed so followed the arrow after a about 50 yards I heard various abuse from over the wall. The farmer was angry that we weren't following the map and could we read one. We explained (or tried to) but he said the gate was someone elses and that was the only way we could go. There were no visible paths on the ground in any direction. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. -- www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner 0191 645 2265 stevenhorner -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Byway between Muston and Belvoir (was Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM)
I find that quite often it helps to pull up the historic map layers. Here is a screenshot showing the route of the road as shown on OS 25k 1st series map: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6J5ZA1hu93bOXEtZE1XY01zcEE (I'll try to keep this up online for a few months) The local authority would simply have used this existing route diagonally across the field. The farmer on the other hand drives his tractor in paths parallel to the northern hedge, and hence the diagonal route is no longer visible on the ground. In this example, it is up to you what you do. I would: * recognise that the diversion is not that long, and that the original road will likely have been ploughed up anyway * therefore accept the farmers change and write to the Local Authority suggesting that they update their records with the new route. Regards, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Byway between Muston and Belvoir (was Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM)
I tried searching on Weardale but there doesn't appear to be a POI marking the Dale! For those that know this area where would make a good base for walking and also have a Pub with wifi for updating OSM in the evening? Thanks Dudley Sent from my iPad On 31 Dec 2012, at 16:47, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: Even smaller - I am pretty sure the problem I had was just to the North of Stanhope You are right, there are plenty of opportunities to add footpaths to Weardale. I concentrated on the Weardale Way (which you can see on Lonvia's Hiking Map if you are interested (http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=11lat=54.72073lon=-1.8885)). When we met a branching footpath I tried to record a short stub to show it is there, but we have not followed most of them.There is also a marked 'Mineral Valley's Walk' through the area that we will probably try to follow during 2013but there are huge numbers of 'normal' public footpaths too.my challenge is trying to incorporate these into a nice walk, as we don't tend to go 'mapping' - we go for a walk, and I take my GPX receiver with me! Cheers Graham. On 31 December 2012 16:20, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote: It's a small world, the incident I described was also in Weardale near Thimbleby Hill South of Stanhope. I didn't use OSM then and checking OSM the path is not marked. A path on the opposite side of the wall where the farmer was stood is marked which is incorrect and will lead to someone else being shouted at unless I fix it. There is a massive job to add all of the paths in Weardale to OSM. I will gradually add them as I am out walking. I have GPX tracks of many previous walks and good records. Steven On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: I have had similar issues, but without the abusive farmer in your part of the world? (Weardale). My old OS map said the Weardale w Way went through this field, and there was a waymark at the junction with the road, but once in the (very large!) field, there was no obvious way out - just rusty gates and barbed wire - I think the route was changed, but they didn't take down all the old waymarks, which left a lot of paths to nowhere. Can't remember how I mapped that in the end Graham. I had walked across his field according to the map which was a couple of years old and got to the end of the field to find a padlocked gate. I returned back to the sign and it was pointing in a different direction (straight ahead) and also had 3 way markers all pointing straight ahead. I presumed the route had been changed so followed the arrow after a about 50 yards I heard various abuse from over the wall. The farmer was angry that we weren't following the map and could we read one. We explained (or tried to) but he said the gate was someone elses and that was the only way we could go. There were no visible paths on the ground in any direction. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. -- www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner 0191 645 2265 stevenhorner -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Byway between Muston and Belvoir (was Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM)
Fair point - I'm not really sure what I would tag it as though! Frosterley and Stanhopehttp://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=12lat=54.74591lon=-2.0121 are fairly major places with pubs - not sure about wifi though. Graham. On 31 December 2012 18:56, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com wrote: I tried searching on Weardale but there doesn't appear to be a POI marking the Dale! For those that know this area where would make a good base for walking and also have a Pub with wifi for updating OSM in the evening? Thanks Dudley Sent from my iPad On 31 Dec 2012, at 16:47, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: Even smaller - I am pretty sure the problem I had was just to the North of Stanhope You are right, there are plenty of opportunities to add footpaths to Weardale. I concentrated on the Weardale Way (which you can see on Lonvia's Hiking Map if you are interested ( http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=11lat=54.72073lon=-1.8885)). When we met a branching footpath I tried to record a short stub to show it is there, but we have not followed most of them.There is also a marked 'Mineral Valley's Walk' through the area that we will probably try to follow during 2013but there are huge numbers of 'normal' public footpaths too.my challenge is trying to incorporate these into a nice walk, as we don't tend to go 'mapping' - we go for a walk, and I take my GPX receiver with me! Cheers Graham. On 31 December 2012 16:20, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote: It's a small world, the incident I described was also in Weardale near Thimbleby Hill South of Stanhope. I didn't use OSM then and checking OSM the path is not marked. A path on the opposite side of the wall where the farmer was stood is marked which is incorrect and will lead to someone else being shouted at unless I fix it. There is a massive job to add all of the paths in Weardale to OSM. I will gradually add them as I am out walking. I have GPX tracks of many previous walks and good records. Steven On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.comwrote: I have had similar issues, but without the abusive farmer in your part of the world? (Weardale). My old OS map said the Weardale w Way went through this field, and there was a waymark at the junction with the road, but once in the (very large!) field, there was no obvious way out - just rusty gates and barbed wire - I think the route was changed, but they didn't take down all the old waymarks, which left a lot of paths to nowhere. Can't remember how I mapped that in the end Graham. I had walked across his field according to the map which was a couple of years old and got to the end of the field to find a padlocked gate. I returned back to the sign and it was pointing in a different direction (straight ahead) and also had 3 way markers all pointing straight ahead. I presumed the route had been changed so followed the arrow after a about 50 yards I heard various abuse from over the wall. The farmer was angry that we weren't following the map and could we read one. We explained (or tried to) but he said the gate was someone elses and that was the only way we could go. There were no visible paths on the ground in any direction. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. -- www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner 0191 645 2265 stevenhorner -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Byway between Muston and Belvoir (was Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM)
Weardale is a bit hard to define. It is generally thought of as starting at Wolsingham and running up to the edge of the County Boundary at the high point above Killhope before dropping down to Nenthead and Cumbria. The North and South are bounded by the hills above the valley with the exception running up to Rookhope. As for staying I would generally say Wolsingham, Frosterley or Stanhope. All of which have pubs but unsure about which have WiFi. I have used a Cafe WiFi in Wolsingham before. On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.comwrote: I tried searching on Weardale but there doesn't appear to be a POI marking the Dale! For those that know this area where would make a good base for walking and also have a Pub with wifi for updating OSM in the evening? Thanks Dudley Sent from my iPad On 31 Dec 2012, at 16:47, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote: Even smaller - I am pretty sure the problem I had was just to the North of Stanhope You are right, there are plenty of opportunities to add footpaths to Weardale. I concentrated on the Weardale Way (which you can see on Lonvia's Hiking Map if you are interested ( http://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=11lat=54.72073lon=-1.8885)). When we met a branching footpath I tried to record a short stub to show it is there, but we have not followed most of them.There is also a marked 'Mineral Valley's Walk' through the area that we will probably try to follow during 2013but there are huge numbers of 'normal' public footpaths too.my challenge is trying to incorporate these into a nice walk, as we don't tend to go 'mapping' - we go for a walk, and I take my GPX receiver with me! Cheers Graham. On 31 December 2012 16:20, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote: It's a small world, the incident I described was also in Weardale near Thimbleby Hill South of Stanhope. I didn't use OSM then and checking OSM the path is not marked. A path on the opposite side of the wall where the farmer was stood is marked which is incorrect and will lead to someone else being shouted at unless I fix it. There is a massive job to add all of the paths in Weardale to OSM. I will gradually add them as I am out walking. I have GPX tracks of many previous walks and good records. Steven On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.comwrote: I have had similar issues, but without the abusive farmer in your part of the world? (Weardale). My old OS map said the Weardale w Way went through this field, and there was a waymark at the junction with the road, but once in the (very large!) field, there was no obvious way out - just rusty gates and barbed wire - I think the route was changed, but they didn't take down all the old waymarks, which left a lot of paths to nowhere. Can't remember how I mapped that in the end Graham. I had walked across his field according to the map which was a couple of years old and got to the end of the field to find a padlocked gate. I returned back to the sign and it was pointing in a different direction (straight ahead) and also had 3 way markers all pointing straight ahead. I presumed the route had been changed so followed the arrow after a about 50 yards I heard various abuse from over the wall. The farmer was angry that we weren't following the map and could we read one. We explained (or tried to) but he said the gate was someone elses and that was the only way we could go. There were no visible paths on the ground in any direction. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. -- www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner 0191 645 2265 stevenhorner -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- www.stevenhorner.com http://www.stevenhorner.com @stevenhorner http://twitter.com/stevenhorner 0191 645 2265 stevenhorner ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Personally I would love to see fields (landuse) and the walls/fences that make this up marked on OSM but as per the Wiki this is a complicated area: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Land_use_and_areas_of_natural_land I mapped a small area with landuse and some fences months ago but refrained from doing anymore because not many others appear to be doing it. You can see what I did here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.72508907318115lon=-1.7569917440414429zoom=17 Some of this I need to fix, it was my early days of OSM editing. I would love to use OSM one day as a replacement for Explorer (25K) maps but until things like walls/fences are shown it would be hard to do. My idea was to use the OSM to produce some walking guides in printed or static form but they would need this data added for those areas. I know everyones view is different but do others on here use the landuse and barrier=fence tags in the same way or does it make it look too complicated. Steven ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
I would like to see field boundaries and land uses in OSM, for the same reason as you. I think the main reason that there are not many in there, is that they are very difficult to survey. I have just added them from memory when I have been able to remember enough - it is more realistic to add them now that we have high resolution Bing imagery for countryside areas, but it is a lot of work, even from an armchair. Graham. On 31 December 2012 21:17, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote: Personally I would love to see fields (landuse) and the walls/fences that make this up marked on OSM but as per the Wiki this is a complicated area: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Land_use_and_areas_of_natural_land I mapped a small area with landuse and some fences months ago but refrained from doing anymore because not many others appear to be doing it. You can see what I did here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.72508907318115lon=-1.7569917440414429zoom=17 Some of this I need to fix, it was my early days of OSM editing. I would love to use OSM one day as a replacement for Explorer (25K) maps but until things like walls/fences are shown it would be hard to do. My idea was to use the OSM to produce some walking guides in printed or static form but they would need this data added for those areas. I know everyones view is different but do others on here use the landuse and barrier=fence tags in the same way or does it make it look too complicated. Steven ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Marking landuse and field boundaries
Steven, On 31 Dec 2012 21:19, Steven Horner ste...@stevenhorner.com wrote: I mapped a small area with landuse and some fences months ago but refrained from doing anymore because not many others appear to be doing it. You can see what I did here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.72508907318115lon=-1.7569917440414429zoom=17 From just a quick glance your fields look okay but the names of the roads and woods should be capitalised (not sure if you mapped those as well). If you enjoy adding fields keep doing so. There may not be many now but I expect more people will add them in the future when their areas are complete for roads, buildings, etc. Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
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 been the better option. Setting aside the issues of popularity, my preference would be for prow_ref rather than prow:ref for a few reasons: 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. 2/ source:prow_ref doesn't have the ambiguity / ugliness that source:prow:ref has. (Ssince the reference numbers aren't often recorded on the ground, it's probably useful to record the source.) 3/ prow_ref mirrors other ref types in use, such as bridge_ref, route_ref, ncn_ref, and local_ref, which are generally used rather than the alternative colon separated versions. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
