On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 19:33, Mike Baggaley via Talk-GB
wrote:
> >Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically
> >blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing
> >people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive
>
>Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically
>blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing
>people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive
>rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 11:54, Adam Snape wrote:
> I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a
> public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a
> somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's
> certainly being
On Tue, 5 May 2020, 13:26 Martin Wynne, wrote:
> Is a "public right of way" a highway?
>
> I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line.
>
> Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes
> with a physical highway, sometimes not.
>
In English/Welsh
Is a "public right of way" a highway?
I suggest not. It's a legal construct, similar to a boundary line.
Perhaps it should be mapped as a separate way, sometimes sharing nodes
with a physical highway, sometimes not.
Martin.
___
Talk-GB mailing
Hi,
Highway=no seems acceptable to me where a path is permanently physically
blocked by a building or such-like. We're not serving anyone by directing
people into wals. I do, however, disagree with its use to tag definitive
rights of way which are useable but which merely deviate from the route a
On 05/05/2020 11:53, Adam Snape wrote:
Hi Tom,
I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there
is a public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to
be a somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice.
It's certainly being suggested
Hi Tom,
I'd consider this particular proposed use of highway=no to mean "there is a
public highway here but there's no visible path on the ground" to be a
somewhat country-specific and counter-intuitive tagging practice. It's
certainly being suggested here as a solution to a country-specific
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:08:16PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote:
> Most data consumers won't be expecting this highly country-specific
> tagging of highway=no
Why do you consider "highway=no" country-specific? Taginfo suggests
it's used across Europe and occasionally elsewhere:
Hi,
I'm a bit cautious about using highway=no for rights of way. I understand
it where a definitive route is utterly impassible on the ground (eg. goes
through a building) but elsewhere it seems to be suggested as a bit of a
fudge to avoid having one right of way represented by two highways in
On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 14:13, nathan case wrote:
> > Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following
> > the definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being
> > rendered? Or
On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 14:13, nathan case wrote:
> Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following the
> definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being
> rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the fixme as Tony
> suggests.
On 04/05/2020 14:13, nathan case wrote:
Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not following the
definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two paths being
rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the fixme as Tony
suggests.
It depends on
ct: Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality
As a general principle, I think we should certainly map both (a) any physical
paths on the ground and (b) the legal Definitive Line (though not necessarily
as a highway if it isn't one). These might be separate ways if the two line
diffe
Hi Nathan
I've done some work on Chorley PROW's recently. Populated using the
style Chorley FP 1; Lancaster area uses the numbering convention in
MapThePaths eg 1-1 23. Fortunately I know the area well having lived in
the vicinity for 30 years so I can do armchair mapping with some knowledge.
As a general principle, I think we should certainly map both (a) any
physical paths on the ground and (b) the legal Definitive Line (though
not necessarily as a highway if it isn't one). These might be separate
ways if the two line differ, though they'd normally be one and the
same. It would also
Hi all,
I'm using the very helpful work Mapbox tiles (from Rob Nickerson's email on 11
Nov 2019) to map Lancashire's public rights of way (PROW) under the council's
open data licence.
Generally, any existing paths already marked on the map fit quite well with the
vector files of the PROWs. So
17 matches
Mail list logo
