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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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 (
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
