On 31/07/18 16:22, Ian Caldwell wrote:
Some footpaths, some of which are rights of way, have been closed as
part of building a new residential estate
How should this be tagged or should I just delete them? I do not think
they exist on the ground anymore.
Do not delete! My personal
Yep,
I should have said add access=no and remove any conflicting access tags.
The foot=designated access tag could be added back in once pedestrian
access was once again allowed.
Kind regards,
Adam
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, 16:58 Adam Snape, wrote:
> My personal convention for temporary closures
On 31/07/2018 16:58, Adam Snape wrote:
My personal convention for temporary closures is to add access=no.
This is what I've done in the past, although some users feel access=*
isn't the top level in the hierarchy of restrictions, & is usurped by
foot=designated.
DaveF.
My personal convention for temporary closures is to add access=no. Using
access tags for these temporary orders is consistent with how we map
permanent tros.
If the line is altered upon reopening or the path is formally extinguished
then the appropriate changes can be made as and when they occur
In the past I've simply modified the ways concerned by changing
highway=footway to higway=construction & construction=footway, leaving
all the other info intact
As mentioned in the preamble here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:construction
Cheers
Dan
2018-07-31 16:22 GMT+01:00 Ian
On 7 July 2018 at 13:17, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> I'm not sure if I will add the prow_ref as I'm not so sure it has much value
> given that they are not signed on the ground. I also don't know what code to
> add. Nick has it showing the Parish name/code, then a space, then the ref. I
> think this
I have already notified tye data working group. The user was contacted, his
imaginary work was not reverted and he was not blocked, he continues to add
complete junk from his armchair. He needs to be stopped.
On 18 August 2014 10:59:22 GMT+01:00, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk
wrote:
On 18/08/14 10:59, SomeoneElse wrote:
Whilst the existance of a highway=pedestrian area that isn't connected
is an indication of something, it's usually just an indication of that
mapping in a particular area is not complete.
Considering the longer term problems:
1) There needs to be better
On 18/08/14 11:41, David Woolley wrote:
Considering the longer term problems:
1) There needs to be better guidance to routing software
developers on how to route when there are parallel
features accessible on foot;
Agreed. The things that give our routing engine problems are:
- dual
Hi David,
Most of these problems are issues for a router for interpreting OSM data,
rather than specific problems for the data.
There are plenty of examples of people building routers for people with
restricted mobility using OSM data (for instance wheelchair users, blind
people etc). Most of us
On 18/08/14 12:15, SK53 wrote:
There are plenty of examples of people building routers for people with
restricted mobility using OSM data (for instance wheelchair users, blind
people etc). Most of us will map steps on footways simply because even
one step acts as a barrier to wheelchair users or
On 7 May 2011 18:45, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.comwrote:
On 5 May 2011 18:01, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
Should we add something about permissive and private paths to this view?
If
we had that then the job to do locally would be to convert all the
On 5 May 2011 18:01, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
Should we add something about permissive and private paths to this view? If
we had that then the job to do locally would be to convert all the grey
paths and turn them into one of the colours. Currently anything that is
On 06/05/2011 08:13, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Am I right that you can embed P2 into other websites and connect it to
the live API?
Yep. See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potlatch_2/Deploying_Potlatch_2 .
cheers
Richard
___
Talk-GB mailing list
On 04/05/2011 15:57, Peter Miller wrote:
Here is a global map view showing highway=footway in blue and
highway=path in brown.
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=97
There is indeed something like an 80/20 split in the UK with noticeable
enthusiasm for 'path' in some parts of
To me, the most significant thing about that map is that it demonstrates
how vast swathes of the UK have almost no footpath data at all.
True, it shows how the paths are nicely concentrated in the south-east, the
Manchester area, and the National Parks. Time for some footpath parties, or
On Thu, 5 May 2011 11:20:45 +0100
Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
Hello Nick,
area, and the National Parks. Time for some footpath parties, or
getting people interested in (say) the southwest?
There's me, living just off Exmoor. Time limited, but I do what I can.
--
On 5 May 2011 11:41, Brad Rogers b...@fineby.me.uk wrote:
getting people interested in (say) the southwest?
area, and the National Parks. Time for some footpath parties, or
There's me, living just off Exmoor. Time limited, but I do what I can.
Ditto myself, around Torbay and on Dartmoor.
On 5 May 2011 10:45, monxton gm...@jordan-maynard.org wrote:
On 04/05/2011 15:57, Peter Miller wrote:
Here is a global map view showing highway=footway in blue and
highway=path in brown.
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=97
There is indeed something like an 80/20
Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
You may wish find the 'surfaces' view more useful for getting a general
insight into path density around the UK and elsewhere. This view does in
fact mirror the patchy nature of path data in the UK.
On 5 May 2011 15:49, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.comwrote:
Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
You may wish find the 'surfaces' view more useful for getting a general
insight into path density around the UK and elsewhere. This view does in
fact mirror the
Thanks for the suggestion. Take a look at this one which I hope does roughly
what you have asked for with the exception that I have coloured 'other
designations' with a off-yellow (as used for unrecognised values in other map
views) and I have added grey for paths with no designation. Grey
On 5 May 2011 17:03, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion. Take a look at this one which I hope does
roughly what you have asked for with the exception that I have coloured
'other designations' with a off-yellow (as used for unrecognised values in
other
On 05/05/2011 16:40, Peter Miller wrote:
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=87
First reaction - thank you - that will be _extremely_ useful.
Second reaction - have I really forgotton to add footpath and bridleway
designations from quite so many footpaths locally? Oh dear
On 5 May 2011 17:28, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
On 05/05/2011 16:40, Peter Miller wrote:
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=87
First reaction - thank you - that will be _extremely_ useful.
Second reaction - have I really forgotton to add footpath
On 5 May 2011 17:03, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
Not sure how widespread this is but I tag byways as
designation=public_byway. Might be good to show these too.
Quite widespread, judging by taginfo [1]. For the byway-related
designation=* values, we have:
645
Can do. Is this a separate value/colour or is it an alias for another value?
If
it is a separate colour then what colour would you suggest?
I use it for full byways (rather than restricted) but others might use it for
other things.
Maybe in view of what Robert said it's best they're re-tagged
On 4 May 2011, at 15:57, Peter Miller wrote:
Here is a global map view showing highway=footway in blue and highway=path in
brown.
http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=97
wow, that is awesome!
I am a little confused (I get like that). The rather amazingly wonderful
On 5 May 2011, at 23:07, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Adam Hoyle wrote:
I am a little confused (I get like that). The rather amazingly wonderful
potlatch 2 doesn't appear to put the designation stuff in when one tags
a footpath or track etc. I will still go through and fix the paths I've
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
it at the time.
Cheers
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Peter Miller [mailto:peter.mil...@itoworld.com]
Sent: 04 May 2011 3:57 PM
To: Ed Avis
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
On 4 May 2011 15:39, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Richard Fairhurst
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
On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 13:04 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
(Andy - are you interested in this BTW?)
Sorry Nick, I must have missed your original email. Yes, I can make the
16th if there is enough interest to make it feasible.
Cheers,
Andy
___
Talk-GB
45 matches
Mail list logo
