- Original Message -
From: Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com
To: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW Ref tagging when ROW is also a road
On 19 June 2012 14:07, Richard Fairhurst
On 20 June 2012 12:44, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
I like the idea of prow:ref. I think footpath:ref a bit too specific, we'd
then need bridleway:ref, not to mention boat:ref (for byways open to all
traffic) which could be just TOO confusing!
[snip]
In the UK at present there
Merging this data I see that some ways that just lead to an NCN route (but
are not actually part of the continuous route) are still marked with the
ncn=yes;ncn_ref=xx tags for the route the lead to.
What's the feeling on this? I'm a bit torn:
- On the one hand they are not the route, as in the
On 20/06/2012 14:57, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote:
Merging this data I see that some ways that just lead to an NCN route (but
are not actually part of the continuous route) are still marked with the
ncn=yes;ncn_ref=xx tags for the route the lead to.
What's the feeling on this? I'm a bit torn:
The people who collected the data tell me that the cycle lane widths were
recorded in 3 categories:
1) 1.5m
2) 1.5=x2
3) =2
So the values in the data (1.25 and 1.75 mostly) are spuriously accurate
and quite often overstated.
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing
David Earl wrote
I don't know about elsewhere in the country, but in Cambridgeshire the
council has used the parenthesis convention on such signs
That would be sensible. I think Newcastle Council must have run out of
parenthesis :)
David Earl wrote
I think we could do well to do the
On 20 June 2012 15:11, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
The people who collected the data tell me that the cycle lane widths were
recorded in 3 categories:
1) 1.5m
2) 1.5=x2
3) =2
So the values in the data (1.25 and 1.75 mostly) are spuriously accurate and
quite often
On 20 June 2012 15:21, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) gra...@dalmuti.net wrote:
David Earl wrote
I don't know about elsewhere in the country, but in Cambridgeshire the
council has used the parenthesis convention on such signs
I guess that ways signed as leading to an NCN could still use
On 18 June 2012 12:05, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
One last comment for now.
When looking at a project page, such as:
http://gravitystorm.dev.openstreetmap.org/cnxc-snapshot/projects/78/
tagged_ways
It would be good to have a link to edit a relevant area, or failing
that at least a
On 18 June 2012 10:11, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
Are there any notes I'm missing about how to access and deal with
nodes in the DfT data? e.g.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edloach/7392860104/in/photostream
Nope, you're not missing anything - it simply appears to be broken.
I'm
David Earl [mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com] wrote:
Sent: 20 June 2012 15:05
To: Graham Stewart (GrahamS)
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] England Cycling Data project: DfT cycling data now
available for merging
On 20/06/2012 14:57, Graham Stewart (GrahamS) wrote:
Thanks both Andys :)
As an example of somewhere this hasn't happened look at the current mapping
around St Peter's Basin in Newcastle. It shows and extra spur of the NCN72
along Bottlehouse Street, but actually the NCN72 runs along a parallel road
to the north (Saint Lawrence Street).
Andy Robinson wrote:
Basically any route to or deprecated braid should have a
bracketed number, though in many locations this may not have
happened yet.
There's a slight tagging ambiguity when a link route connects two numbered
routes, of course: often these will be signed as, say, '(5)' in
Sorry Richard for spamming you - one day I'll remember this replies to the
person rather than the group by default - argh!
On 20 June 2012 15:11, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com
wrote:
The people who collected the data tell me that the cycle lane widths were
recorded in 3
On 18 June 2012 10:11, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
Are there any notes I'm missing about how to access and deal with
nodes in the DfT data? e.g.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edloach/7392860104/in/photostream
Did this get an answer? I've tried, and failed, to click on the underlying
DfT
One thing I have noticed with the data is that in a number of places the
DfT data claims there is an LCN on a major road which I know has no LCN
signage (except the odd crossing) - e.g. London Road - or claims that both
the main carriageway AND the adjacent cycleway (well footpath with some
wobbly
16 matches
Mail list logo
