[Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-04 Thread Adam Snape
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-04 Thread Andy Allan
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-04 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
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.

[Talk-GB] COVID-19 Department of Health uses OSM

2020-05-04 Thread Tony OSM
Hi Noticed that the government website uses OSM on which to overlay coronavirus data. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#local-authorities ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-04 Thread Andy Townsend
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

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-04 Thread nathan case
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. > are you adding prow_ref=* tags to the Rights of Way, and

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-04 Thread Tony OSM
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.

Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-04 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
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

[Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way - legal vs reality

2020-05-04 Thread nathan case
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