Anyone else fancy signing up to this event which takes place this Saturday
in Norwich?
I will be highlighting all the lovely data in OSM and will be doing some
more local mapping during the day of historic buildings or whatever.
http://rewiredstatenorfolk.neontribe.co.uk/developers.html
The renderers don't entirely agree with the new tagging, and
probably won't any time soon.
Basically there's agreement that highway=path can be used for scruffy
paths in the countryside, though some prefer to use highway=footway,
especially if it's an official Public Footpath. There's a diversity
Hello Peter,
I would say the most important thing with official rights of way is to tag them
with designation=public_footpath, public_bridleway, public_byway or
restricted_byway (as appropriate). The designation tag is AFAIK generally
regarded these days as the most definitive indication of
Peter Oliver p.d.oliver@... writes:
• Tagging a way highway=footway is equivalent to tagging it highway=path;
foot=... (plus, in either case, additional tags to indicate the legal status
of
the route).
However, both Mapnik and Osmarender display these two
supposedly equivalent forms of footpath
On 4 May 2011 13:57, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
The renderers don't entirely agree with the new tagging, and
probably won't any time soon.
Indeed, because there is no agreement that the new tagging should replace,
or should be preferred to, the old tagging. Data
Ed Avis wrote:
The general practice in this country is to use footway for paved paths in
cities and path for muddier countryside ones (or, perhaps, through city
parks).
Um, no it isn't. There is absolutely no consensus for using =path in the
countryside rather than =footway. I strongly
On 04/05/2011 13:22, Peter Oliver wrote:
• There's an old method of tagging ways suitable for pedestrians,
and a new method.
I'd ignore the new method as documented there. It was added by a
wikifiddler a couple of months ago and bears no resemblance to common
usage in the UK. The huge
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Ed Avis wrote:
The general practice in this country is to use footway for paved paths in
cities and path for muddier countryside ones (or, perhaps, through city
parks).
Um, no it isn't. There is absolutely no
Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes:
The general practice in this country is to use footway for paved paths in
cities and path for muddier countryside ones (or, perhaps, through city
parks).
Um, no it isn't. There is absolutely no consensus for using =path in the
countryside rather than
On 4 May 2011 15:39, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Richard Fairhurst richard@... writes:
The general practice in this country is to use footway for paved paths in
cities and path for muddier countryside ones (or, perhaps, through city
parks).
Um, no it isn't. There is absolutely no
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Peter Oliver p.d.oli...@mavit.org.uk wrote:
It seems like I'm now armed with enough knowledge to get stuck in and start
mapping some footpaths, using whichever tagging method I happen to prefer.
However, both Mapnik and Osmarender display these two supposedly
This is a very interesting discussion. I've been walking and then adding
footpaths north of High Wycombe / south of Wendover and surrounding areas for a
couple of years, but for various felt-too-much-like-work reasons I've only just
joined this mailing list in the last few weeks.
Fwiw I had
On 04/05/2011 14:13, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Hello Peter,
I would say the most important thing with official rights of way is to
tag them with designation=public_footpath, public_bridleway,
public_byway or restricted_byway (as appropriate). The designation tag
is AFAIK generally regarded these
Peter, thanks for reminding me of the link. It's useful to get a picture of
what's going on here.
To add my few words on the subject matter to respond to Peter Oliver's
original question Since I came up with the old way I guess I should
expand on my original thinking. When considering all
Adam Hoyle [mailto:adam.li...@dotankstudios.com] wrote:
Sent: 04 May 2011 6:07 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
This is a very interesting discussion. I've been walking and then adding
footpaths north of High Wycombe / south of Wendover and surrounding
areas
-Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com wrote: -
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
From: Adam Hoyle adam.li...@dotankstudios.com
Date: 04/05/2011 06:07PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
This is a very interesting discussion. I've been walking and then adding
footpaths north of High
16 matches
Mail list logo
