Re: [Talk-GB] Closed Footpaths
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 approach to temporary closures is to use opening_hours, with closed and possibly a comment saying when the closure is likely to end. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Closed Footpaths
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 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 but we > can't just assume that they will be made (many developments just factor the > line of the path into the design and don't seem a diversion). Wherever > possible it is preferable to retain the object history by amending the way > rather than deleting and adding anew. > > Kind regards, > > Adam > > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, 16:32 Dan S, wrote: > >> 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 Caldwell > >: >> > >> > Some footpaths, some of which are rights of way, have been closed as >> part of >> > building a new residential estate >> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/339576698. The closure notice says >> they >> > will be closed until March 2019 and I suspect they will have new routes >> > when/if they are reopened. >> > >> > How should this be tagged or should I just delete them? I do not think >> they >> > exist on the ground anymore. >> > >> > Ian Caldwell >> > >> > ___ >> > Talk-GB mailing list >> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > >> >> ___ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Closed Footpaths
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. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Closed Footpaths
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 but we can't just assume that they will be made (many developments just factor the line of the path into the design and don't seem a diversion). Wherever possible it is preferable to retain the object history by amending the way rather than deleting and adding anew. Kind regards, Adam On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, 16:32 Dan S, wrote: > 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 Caldwell : > > > > Some footpaths, some of which are rights of way, have been closed as > part of > > building a new residential estate > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/339576698. The closure notice says > they > > will be closed until March 2019 and I suspect they will have new routes > > when/if they are reopened. > > > > How should this be tagged or should I just delete them? I do not think > they > > exist on the ground anymore. > > > > Ian Caldwell > > > > ___ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Closed Footpaths
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 Caldwell : > > Some footpaths, some of which are rights of way, have been closed as part of > building a new residential estate > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/339576698. The closure notice says they > will be closed until March 2019 and I suspect they will have new routes > when/if they are reopened. > > How should this be tagged or should I just delete them? I do not think they > exist on the ground anymore. > > Ian Caldwell > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Warwickshire footpaths - prow ref
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 is just a copy from Barry's rowmaps datasets. In the Warwickshire > data Barry has, it is a parish code (e.g. 214). This gives values such as > "214 SS92/1". > > A quick check of the prow map that Warwickshire CC put online (scanned map), > they only show the "SS92" part. > > In my WCC data (which I think is an earlier version that they released prior > to Robert W forcing them to make it OGL), the parishes are listed by names. > As an example, for one way I have these key=value pairs: > > ID_NO=SS92 > Type=BR > DIST_BOR=Stratford-upon-Avon District > Parish=Long Compton Having looked at the Warwickshire IDs when I was adding them to my tool, the initial letters correspond to former government districts, and the paths are then numbered uniquely within each one. Parishes do not feature in the numbering scheme, so I would regard the parish information in the GIS data as being an attribute of the path (or a section of the path) rather then being part of its ID. Accordingly I would recommend that you use the prow_ref=SS92 format, without any redundant parish information. (The prefix letters denoting the area -- SS corresponds to the former Shipstone-on-Stour Rural District for example -- take the place of the parish name or code used in other counties.) A relatively small number of Rights of Way have letter suffixes (this applies across other counties too). These correspond to separate Rights of Way, and typically come about when an original Right of Way is modified or diverted, and it's more convenient to retain an association with the original number than to use a completely new one. So please include an suffix letters in the prow_ref tag. You'll also sometimes see /1, /2 etc suffixes added in GIS data. Typically these are not part of the official PRoW numbering, but are added by the GIS software to allow each PRoW to be split into segements where-ever another PRoW connects to it. Since these aren't part of the official numbering, I would not add them to the prow_ref tag. Counties seem to vary in whether they allow the same numbered route to have multiple statuses. Some do not, in which case if part of a path got upgraded or downgraded, then they'd need to assign a different number (or suffix) to the different parts. Other Counties appear to. But then I think it's ok in OSM to just have the same prow_ref=* value with different designation=* values on different sections. (My tool doesn't quite handle the latter situation correctly. The maps are correct, but the table only lists one type for each number. I need to alter the primary key in a database able to fix this -- which will need some thought.) As far as Warwickshire is concerned, my tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/warks/ looks for prow_ref tags of the form '[area id][num][suffix]' using the regular expression /^()([A-Z][A-Z]?)()([1-9][0-9]*)([A-Za-z]?)$/, so values like "SS92" or "SS112b". Even if the reference number is not signed on the ground, I think it's definitely worthwhile adding, as it then makes it much easier for tools to check the completeness of Rights of Way mapping and highlight any errors or discrepancies. See e.g. http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/warks/stratford-on-avon/stratford-upon-avon-municipal-borough/ Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Imaginery footpaths added by user Gavaasuren
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: Hi, User Gavaasuren has been adding a series of imaginary footpaths over the last few weeks, each with the changeset comment zwischen Fußgängerzonen und Straßen Fußweg erstellt. What they seem to be doing is joining pedestrian islands to random nearby roads in order to resolve routing errors. 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. For example, this way(1) was added to connect the pedestrian area to a random road, but in this instance the mapping of the marketplace as a pedestrian area is an approximation - what there actually are there lots of paths between market stalls, and I'm sure at some point in the future it'll get mapped properly. Adding this imaginery footpath doesn't fix the problem - it's mapped just as wrongly now as it was before (arguably more so), but it does hide the problem from QA sites. I've messaged this user 6 times over the last month and although they've replied communication does not seem to have occurred (they're still adding imaginery footpaths). I also resurveyed a relatively local one(2) to show that, following a survey, what actually exists bears little resemblance to their fixes. I've just messaged them again saying please stop!. If they continue I'll mention it to the data working group; in the meantime I'd suggest that people check their local areas for these edits and (if they're invalid) revert them, and if possible survey and map the affected areas properly. Cheers, Andy (1) http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/297892595/history (2) http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.01357/-1.35353 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb --- cheers, Chris osm user, chillly___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Imaginery footpaths added by user Gavaasuren
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 guidance to routing software developers on how to route when there are parallel features accessible on foot; 2) There needs to be a lot more mapping of barriers. Ideally, the routing rule for foot needs to be something like that, subject to access and surface quality considerations, if there is no barrier between adjacent features, you may cross at any point between them. In this case, there has probably been pressure to make life easier for the router. I think this also came up recently with regard to central reservations on non-motorways. The other difficult situation we have here is that pedestrian areas are mapped physically, as the actual area occupied, but most roads are mapped, abstractly, as an infinitely narrow line on the centre of the carriageway, so you will get a gap between the two and the router has to use some heuristics to decide whether that gap is bridgeable on foot. I have seen cases where the pedestrian area was mapped out to the centre of the road, but I considered that wrong. (In fact, mapping roads as areas will generally confuse routing software.) Another variation of this routing problem is that of where is it reasonable to cross a road. Ideally, physical barriers at the centre of the road should be mapped, and access restrictions put on any reservations that is not supposed to be used by the public, but the main consideration tends to be the level and speed of traffic and the visibility of that traffic, combined with whether or not there is a designated crossing point near enough to be used. There really isn't enough information mapped to make a decision as to whether it will be safe to cross. Also, a little old lady may not be safe crossing at an arbitrary point, whereas it will be no problem for a more able bodied person. Some people may want to avoid pedestrian subways, particularly after dark. Any mapping of crime levels in them is likely to be volatile and may even move the crime. Particularly for residential roads, you might get into the dangerous area of mapping actual maximum speeds on rat runs, as, there is a road near me with a 20mph limit, but, apart from speed bumps it is long and straight, so vehicles may get up to 40 mph between bumps, with visibility limited by parked cars. The council policy is to only use passive enforcement. Mapping that as 40 mph de facto, may encourage people to use it that way, but saying it is safe for little old ladies to cross at night, based on the 20 mph limit may also be wrong. Maybe there is a need for a verification tool that renders additional random interconnections and crossing points, so that one can see whether there is a need to add barriers, and other hints, to prevent such routings. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Imaginery footpaths added by user Gavaasuren
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 carriageways. We are limited to official crossing points. Many dual carriageways don't even have areas between carriageways, just voids. It is then worse, because the crossing point is often the road cut through, which is usually marked for foot, and actually less safe for the pedestrian than crossing onto the central verge (although I accept that you can do it right next to it). - pedestrian areas. With an infinite number of crossing routes, we pragmatically route around the edge of it. Not especially helpful or elegant in many cases, but at least we get a route. - footpaths/cycleways separated from the road. I know why these are mapped this way, but from a routing perspective they are hardly helpful (we want people to transfer from the footpath that they have walked on to the bus that is standing on the adjacent, and unconnected, road). 2) There needs to be a lot more mapping of barriers. Yes, although until there is it makes it difficult to do (1). Some things - waterways - are obvious. Others less so. Ideally, the routing rule for foot needs to be something like that, subject to access and surface quality considerations, if there is no barrier between adjacent features, you may cross at any point between them. In this case, there has probably been pressure to make life easier for the router. We do need to define what we mean as adjacent though. And that needs to be something that is understood by the wider community, not just us. I think this also came up recently with regard to central reservations on non-motorways. That was me. I decided again the suggestion of using this type of imaginary footpath, though, as I felt that there would be too many and, at the end of the day, unhelpful to the majority of routers/renderers Regards, Stuart ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Imaginery footpaths added by user Gavaasuren
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 will map steps on footways simply because even one step acts as a barrier to wheelchair users or many older people. Fortunately barriers for pedestrians are not as common as they used to be. For places as mapped as areas a simple strategy for a routing engine is to find the centroid and build virtual paths to places on the edges. Similarly such areas can be buffered by, say 5 metres, to determine any overlaps with highways mapped as centre-lines. All such things are relatively simple post-processing steps on the data which can be easily carried out in PostGIS and do not need special tagging on OSM. Many of the members of this list routinely use OSM on a daily basis (we 'eat our own dog food') for pedestrian routing. I have used OSM for this purpose for 5 and a half years and have never encountered any problems other than missing data. My main purpose of routing is to have accurate estimates of time to get to place X (usually a bus stop or railway station) so as not to miss a public transport connection. It works very well. Jerry On 18 August 2014 11:40, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.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 guidance to routing software developers on how to route when there are parallel features accessible on foot; 2) There needs to be a lot more mapping of barriers. Ideally, the routing rule for foot needs to be something like that, subject to access and surface quality considerations, if there is no barrier between adjacent features, you may cross at any point between them. In this case, there has probably been pressure to make life easier for the router. I think this also came up recently with regard to central reservations on non-motorways. The other difficult situation we have here is that pedestrian areas are mapped physically, as the actual area occupied, but most roads are mapped, abstractly, as an infinitely narrow line on the centre of the carriageway, so you will get a gap between the two and the router has to use some heuristics to decide whether that gap is bridgeable on foot. I have seen cases where the pedestrian area was mapped out to the centre of the road, but I considered that wrong. (In fact, mapping roads as areas will generally confuse routing software.) Another variation of this routing problem is that of where is it reasonable to cross a road. Ideally, physical barriers at the centre of the road should be mapped, and access restrictions put on any reservations that is not supposed to be used by the public, but the main consideration tends to be the level and speed of traffic and the visibility of that traffic, combined with whether or not there is a designated crossing point near enough to be used. There really isn't enough information mapped to make a decision as to whether it will be safe to cross. Also, a little old lady may not be safe crossing at an arbitrary point, whereas it will be no problem for a more able bodied person. Some people may want to avoid pedestrian subways, particularly after dark. Any mapping of crime levels in them is likely to be volatile and may even move the crime. Particularly for residential roads, you might get into the dangerous area of mapping actual maximum speeds on rat runs, as, there is a road near me with a 20mph limit, but, apart from speed bumps it is long and straight, so vehicles may get up to 40 mph between bumps, with visibility limited by parked cars. The council policy is to only use passive enforcement. Mapping that as 40 mph de facto, may encourage people to use it that way, but saying it is safe for little old ladies to cross at night, based on the 20 mph limit may also be wrong. Maybe there is a need for a verification tool that renders additional random interconnections and crossing points, so that one can see whether there is a need to add barriers, and other hints, to prevent such routings. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Imaginery footpaths added by user Gavaasuren
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 many older people. In the case that I'm thinking about, the limitation wasn't physical barriers, but a combination of very slow walking and short gaps between vehicles. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 grey paths and turn them into one of the colours. Currently anything that is permissive will stay grey and the risk will be that other people will come and review the same path time and time again wasting loads of time. On paths/tracks, designation=* is only supposed to be for recording a definite legal status of the route. There's also suggested tagging for *signed* permissive routes, but I don't think we'd want to add anything for private paths (we have access=private, etc for things like that). There will be a lot of customary unsigned paths that are effectively permissive but wouldn't be signed as such (and hence we won't use the designation tag on them), and lots of paths in towns that aren't officially designated as public rights of way, but are nevertheless considered legal to use. In time it may be useful to tag them as customary if there is evidence that they have used without hindrance for a significant time without any indicate to the contrary. For now I am happy to leave them. We haven't even considered the 'access' tag which may also contain relevant information and might be worth using to indicate paths that are private in due course. We have also not looked a 'foot=* and horse=* tagging which I see as being alternative ways of indicating the same thing. It will probably be worth adding those as aliases in due course. Thus I don't think it's ever going to be an aim to get rid of all the grey lines. Though if we can reduce the number of unknown coloured designation values that might be good. The use of customary would reduce uncertainty and resurveying (and also the amount of grey). For now lets leave it. Here are a few suggestions for some additional values that could be given colours, which would probably make the view even more useful: 1/ As well as the various highway=* ways that you're considering, I'd probably also include highway=track, as quite a few countryside routes (especially near me) are tracks rather than paths/footways. Thanks. I have now added it to the map view. 2/ I'd give colours to the the two common permissive versions: permissive_footpath and permissive_bridleway. It would be good if their colours could be related to those for the public versions. Maybe a paler yellow and a paler blue could be used? I have adjusted public_footpath to be slightly orange and re-purposed yellow for permissive_footpath. I have also updated the key. I have added permissive_bridleway as light blue. 3/ I don't know if anyone else has been doing this, but I've been using designation=unclassified_highway for tracks that are officially public highways, but aren't really suitable for regular driving. (Hence it didn't really seem right to use highway=unclassified; but other suggestions for tagging these welcome.) These are typically marked on OS maps as Other Routes with Public Access. You can check their status by asking the local highways authority. Just like a normal road, you can legally drive, ride, or walk on these. They're pretty much like a byway_open_to_all_traffic in that respect, though there will be some subtle legal differences, hence the need for different tagging. Based on the signs that some local authorities use for these, I'd suggest colouring them in black. I have not added this on yet and suggest we leave until there is more of a consensus on the appropriate tagging. I hope those suggestions are useful. Very much so and thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming Regards, Peter Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 permissive will stay grey and the risk will be that other people will come and review the same path time and time again wasting loads of time. On paths/tracks, designation=* is only supposed to be for recording a definite legal status of the route. There's also suggested tagging for *signed* permissive routes, but I don't think we'd want to add anything for private paths (we have access=private, etc for things like that). There will be a lot of customary unsigned paths that are effectively permissive but wouldn't be signed as such (and hence we won't use the designation tag on them), and lots of paths in towns that aren't officially designated as public rights of way, but are nevertheless considered legal to use. Thus I don't think it's ever going to be an aim to get rid of all the grey lines. Though if we can reduce the number of unknown coloured designation values that might be good. Here are a few suggestions for some additional values that could be given colours, which would probably make the view even more useful: 1/ As well as the various highway=* ways that you're considering, I'd probably also include highway=track, as quite a few countryside routes (especially near me) are tracks rather than paths/footways. 2/ I'd give colours to the the two common permissive versions: permissive_footpath and permissive_bridleway. It would be good if their colours could be related to those for the public versions. Maybe a paler yellow and a paler blue could be used? 3/ I don't know if anyone else has been doing this, but I've been using designation=unclassified_highway for tracks that are officially public highways, but aren't really suitable for regular driving. (Hence it didn't really seem right to use highway=unclassified; but other suggestions for tagging these welcome.) These are typically marked on OS maps as Other Routes with Public Access. You can check their status by asking the local highways authority. Just like a normal road, you can legally drive, ride, or walk on these. They're pretty much like a byway_open_to_all_traffic in that respect, though there will be some subtle legal differences, hence the need for different tagging. Based on the signs that some local authorities use for these, I'd suggest colouring them in black. I hope those suggestions are useful. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 the country and a noticable preference for its use in the countryside over the town. In Germany the preference is stronger. This map will remain viewable but will not appear in the pull-down list of standard views so do please bookmark it if you want to come back to it. 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. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 getting people interested in (say) the southwest? Also shows how the UK, the Netherlands and the German-speaking countries appear to lead the way in Europe as a whole. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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. -- Regards _ / ) The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent We're going to hell anyway, let's travel first class Saturday Night - Kaiser Chiefs ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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. We'll have to try and get those surfer dudes up on the north coast to go out mapping when there are no waves. Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 split in the UK with noticeable enthusiasm for 'path' in some parts of the country and a noticable preference for its use in the countryside over the town. In Germany the preference is stronger. This map will remain viewable but will not appear in the pull-down list of standard views so do please bookmark it if you want to come back to it. 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. Beware that the map view above is only a comparison between 'footway' and 'path', it does not show anything for bridleway, track, cycleway or unsurfaced. 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. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=25 Do let me know if you would like us to create any additional views. Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=25 Do let me know if you would like us to create any additional views. I don't know about others, but I'd find a view of designation tags for Public Rights of Way in England and Wales very useful. This would highlight ways with the four designation=* values for the public rights of way listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation (namely: public_footpath, public_bridleway, restricted_byway, and byway_open_to_all_traffic) and give the grey unknown colour to any ways which have a different designation=* value. (It's probably too difficult to work out a set of ways that you would expect to have designation tags -- there are too many paths around that aren't public rights of way.) (If you want the highlight colours to match the usual colours of the signs used for the different rights of way, you'd use yellow for public_footpath, blue for public_bridleway, purple for restricted_byway, and red for byway_open_to_all_traffic.) Thanks, Robert -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 patchy nature of path data in the UK. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=25 Do let me know if you would like us to create any additional views. I don't know about others, but I'd find a view of designation tags for Public Rights of Way in England and Wales very useful. This would highlight ways with the four designation=* values for the public rights of way listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation (namely: public_footpath, public_bridleway, restricted_byway, and byway_open_to_all_traffic) and give the grey unknown colour to any ways which have a different designation=* value. (It's probably too difficult to work out a set of ways that you would expect to have designation tags -- there are too many paths around that aren't public rights of way.) (If you want the highlight colours to match the usual colours of the signs used for the different rights of way, you'd use yellow for public_footpath, blue for public_bridleway, purple for restricted_byway, and red for byway_open_to_all_traffic.) 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 paths include highway=path, footway, bridleway, cycleway and byway. There is a key this time. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=87 Happy to tweek it when people have taken a look. Regards, Peter Thanks, Robert -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 paths include highway=path, footway, bridleway, cycleway and byway. There is a key this time. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=87 Interesting... seems to show that us Hampshire mappers, along with those in Cheshire, are the most zealous designators. Not sure how widespread this is but I tag byways as designation=public_byway. Might be good to show these too. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 map views) and I have added grey for paths with no designation. Grey paths include highway=path, footway, bridleway, cycleway and byway. There is a key this time. http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=87http://www.itoworld.com/product/data/ito_map/main?view=87 Interesting... seems to show that us Hampshire mappers, along with those in Cheshire, are the most zealous designators. There are certainly some prolific designators in some places! My patch is particularly poor I am sorry to say. Not sure how widespread this is but I tag byways as designation=public_byway. Might be good to show these too. 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? Regards, Peter Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 - more work to do :-) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 and bridleway designations from quite so many footpaths locally? Oh dear - more work to do :-) I am glad you like it! 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 permissive will stay grey and the risk will be that other people will come and review the same path time and time again wasting loads of time. My other thought was that we could have a 'legal walking' overlay which would colour routes according to their legal walking status (private, permissive, right of way for walkers) and then similar ones for cycles, horses and the rest? Each view would not care about the other modes, so the walkers view would not distinguish between a footpath and a bridleway but the horse view would. Those views could then easily use the global tagging recommendations of horse=permissive/yes etc. Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 restricted_byway 248 byway_open_to_all_traffic 230 public_byway 65 byway 31 unknown_byway However, since there are legally only four classes of public right of way, designation=public_byway is presumably either being used to mean a Byway Open to All Traffic (in which case it would be better agree on and adopt a standard tagging) or it's being used for both types of byway (in which case it would be better to avoid using it, and be more specific). I would guess it's probably the former, ie designation=public_byway is a synonym for by designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic. If this is the case, it would be good to settle on one option as the preferred tagging, and convert any instances of the other. Personally, I'd prefer to use byway_open_to_all_traffic, partly as it's based on the full legal name (though admittedly the signs typically only say Byway), but more importantly because there's then no room for any ambiguity or confusion with Restricted Byways. (In common language, you might reasonably think that a Restricted Byway was a type of Public Byway.) Robert. [1] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/designation#values -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 as byway_open_to_all_traffic. Thanks for doing this btw - very interesting! Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 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 added, but I was wondering if there was a reason it's not in potlatch 2, and if there isn't, I wondered if the potlatch project is open source and if someone can point me towards where I can get the source and I'll attempt to make the relevant change. ttfn, Adam___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 added, but I was wondering if there was a reason it's not in potlatch 2 Thus far P2 doesn't have country-specific presets. Until it does, adding specific values for designation= would be counter-productive - people in Germany or Lithuania or Iraq or wherever would see a button and start adding designation=public_footpath without knowing what it meant, and we'd lose the usefulness of it. ah, yes - that makes sense. When we add a facility for country-specific presets then we'll do stuff like that. Of course if you'd like to get involved with the programming that'd be great. ;) well, I do speak actionscript, and with FDT it's a dream to write, so that's a distinct possibility. :-D adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 of opinion on whether highway=path should be used on decent paths/alleyways in towns; most are probably highway=footway. There are probably some people who use highway=path+access tags (bicycle=, foot= etc) on shared-use paths. But in the UK foot=yes applies to 99.99% of cycleways, so I think the norm is to simply use highway=cycleway. Richard On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Peter Oliver p.d.oli...@mavit.org.uk wrote: I'm new to Open Street Map, and in trying to map some local footpaths I pretty rapidly found myself at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Rights_of_ways_in_England_and_Wales; and the associated controversy. First, let me summarise the situation as I see it: • There's an old method of tagging ways suitable for pedestrians, and a new method. • No consensus on which method is best has/can be reached, and the two sides of the argument have effectively agreed to differ. Both tagging methods are in active use. • 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). 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 equivalent forms of footpath differently! Osmarender uses different colours, and Mapnik replaces a dotted pink line with a dashed black one. So, my question is, is there some subtle difference in meaning that I've missed between these two tagging methods, or it simply that the renders have not been updated to understand the new form of tagging? -- Peter Oliver ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 rights of way status. Freemap (free-map.org.uk) will only render paths with a designation tag in colour; all other paths are rendered as black lines - but more importantly it makes the data unambiguous. Physical surface is more contentious. My own preference is highway=path for rough, muddy countryside paths and highway=footway for paved urban paths. Opinions differ on that. foot,horse, etc are going out of fashion in the main (AFAIK) *unless* it's a permissive path. In this case you need to indicate which modes of transport have permissive access with foot, hors or bicycle = permissive. However, please note that to get the Mapnik renderer to render highway=path as red dotted lines, you need to tag it with foot=designated - not designation=public_footpath. This is tagging for the renderer, so maybe not a good idea, though I have to admit I do it ATM in addition to the designation tag. Nick -Peter Oliver p.d.oli...@mavit.org.uk wrote: - To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: Peter Oliver p.d.oli...@mavit.org.uk Date: 04/05/2011 01:23PM Subject: [Talk-GB] On footpaths I'm new to Open Street Map, and in trying to map some local footpaths I pretty rapidly found myself at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines#Rights_of_ways_in_England_and_Wales; and the associated controversy. First, let me summarise the situation as I see it: • There's an old method of tagging ways suitable for pedestrians, and a new method. • No consensus on which method is best has/can be reached, and the two sides of the argument have effectively agreed to differ. Both tagging methods are in active use. • 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). 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 equivalent forms of footpath differently! Osmarender uses different colours, and Mapnik replaces a dotted pink line with a dashed black one. So, my question is, is there some subtle difference in meaning that I've missed between these two tagging methods, or it simply that the renders have not been updated to understand the new form of tagging? -- Peter Oliver___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 differently! That's right! And it suggests that the wiki page is wrong. If nothing else, the two kinds of tagging render differently, so they are not exactly equivalent. 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). Likewise a narrow road can be tagged as highway=service or highway=track depending on how well it's surfaced. If you want to add additional surface tags, go ahead, but the footway/path distinction should be sufficient. Perhaps in other countries the convention more closely matches the wiki docs. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 users should probably just treat them both as equivalent. It's basically a mess so make your own mind up and pick a schema. Personally I favour sticking with highway=footway as I've been using it for over five years and am yet to be convinced that there's an agreed improvement in the form of highway=path with various subtags. Recently people seem to have started using highway=path for countryside paths, but I'm not about to go and find all the paths I've added across fields in Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Gwynedd and elsewhere to update to that convention. I still mostly find highway=footway when I go walking in the countryside. As Nick points out, the designation subtag can be usefully applied to either and does help data users. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 suspect that if you analysed the data in the UK countryside, you would find 80% footway, 20% path. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-On-footpaths-tp6330699p6330833.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 table that was added also makes the page pretty much illegible. The new method is not wrong, but doesn't add any more information and involves more typing. Personally, I'll record new footpaths as highway=footway, and if someone already mapped one as highway=path, foot=blah I'll leave it at that. Life's too short for edit wars. As well as echoing what other people have said (e.g. recording designation=public_footpath if there's a sign) what I would add is to see please get mapping! Don't worry about getting 100% of the detail at the first attempt (if someone spots later that something was actually a bridleway and not just a footpath they can change it). Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 consensus for using =path in the countryside rather than =footway. I strongly suspect that if you analysed the data in the UK countryside, you would find 80% footway, 20% path. I don't think there's consensus about using highway=path in the countryside, but nor do I think there's much objection. Nobody's in a rush to change all the plain highway=footway in the countryside, but if you go there and feel highway=path is better/clearer, then nobody's much going to object. Whereas there's quite a lot of grumpiness about using highway=path with access tags in towns, and I'd avoid it. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 =footway. I strongly suspect that if you analysed the data in the UK countryside, you would find 80% footway, 20% path. Ah, sorry for making such a rash generalization. What I should have said is that to the extent path is used instead of footway, it has a sense of being an unsurfaced path. Footway is used too even in the countryside. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 consensus for using =path in the countryside rather than =footway. I strongly suspect that if you analysed the data in the UK countryside, you would find 80% footway, 20% path. Ah, sorry for making such a rash generalization. What I should have said is that to the extent path is used instead of footway, it has a sense of being an unsurfaced path. Footway is used too even in the countryside. 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 the country and a noticable preference for its use in the countryside over the town. In Germany the preference is stronger. This map will remain viewable but will not appear in the pull-down list of standard views so do please bookmark it if you want to come back to it. Regards, Peter Miller -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 equivalent forms of footpath differently! Osmarender uses different colours, and Mapnik replaces a dotted pink line with a dashed black one. While lots of other people have already chipped in, here's my tuppenceworth - OpenCycleMap, in contrast to the layers you mention, doesn't give a fig between them, and converts one method into the equivalent tagging on the other[1]. My opinion is that there's no fundamental difference between the two methods; if there ever was a difference then given 95% of people hold differing opinions as to what the difference was; and that it's up to the renderer to ignore pointless differences in tagging (real, imagined, disputed etc) and produce a useful map[2]. Unfortunately the other renderers have taken the soft option and merely given each highway value a different colour and pattern, which helps nobody apart from those who think they are somehow different but has the advantage that the most vocal people one way or another are appeased. If anyone thinks that they mean different things (e.g. paths are muddy, footways are surfaced or somesuch) then the only sensible approach is to explicitly mark those difference (e.g. with the surface tag), due to all the misunderstandings and disagreements that have gone on over the years. Anyway, the rest of your email I agree with, so just crack on with the mapping! Cheers, Andy [1] Which way round is unimportant, but the actual code is at http://gitorious.org/opencyclemap-tagtransform/opencyclemap-tagtransform/blobs/master/transform-paths.xml [2] Oh, and other map styles I've created also abstract the differences away - see the MapQuest and my Transport layers, for example. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
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 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 thought that footway meant an official footpath and path meant an non-official, but obviously well used footpath, not that I used path that often tbh. I'm glad to hear about the designation tag, as that makes things a bit clearer, but how does designation work with highway=bridleway? Should I be adding both? Cheers, Adam On 4 May 2011, at 14:37, SomeoneElse wrote: 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 table that was added also makes the page pretty much illegible. The new method is not wrong, but doesn't add any more information and involves more typing. Personally, I'll record new footpaths as highway=footway, and if someone already mapped one as highway=path, foot=blah I'll leave it at that. Life's too short for edit wars. As well as echoing what other people have said (e.g. recording designation=public_footpath if there's a sign) what I would add is to see please get mapping! Don't worry about getting 100% of the detail at the first attempt (if someone spots later that something was actually a bridleway and not just a footpath they can change it). Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 days as the most definitive indication of rights of way status. Freemap (free-map.org.uk) will only render paths with a designation tag in colour; all other paths are rendered as black lines - but more importantly it makes the data unambiguous. I agree that designation is the most important bit. The rest of the tags are too variable to give a consistent message. There seems to be agreement as to what the desingation tag means and what the possible values are, even if it isn't (wasn't?) used in many places. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 types of ways I wanted as much as possible to simplify the root key/value pairs so that you only needed to refer to a few. My intention therefore was that any highway traversed by foot would a highway=footway. Simples as my little meerkat friends say. Now of course there are many types of footway, some paved, some not, some with access rights (permissive or public) and some which nobody seems to know the status of. Some are just worn down routes in the grass over which folks walk their dogs and after the winter maybe they reappear on a different alignment. In my view all of these are highway=footway, nothing more or less should be implied other than that their highest denominator is that you only pass over them on foot, ie they are not for bikes, horses, cars etc. To my thinking highway=path is meaningless because it doesn't tell me anything useful at all. It's a bit like highway=road which has the same wishy-washy problems. All the other stuff, eg type of construction, access rights etc etc are additional tags you might add if you were so inclined. Of course you can decide to infer that if there are no other tags that the footway carries certain other properties and perhaps depending on location (rural or urban) there is a good chance the larger percentage of instances will be correct. Eg for paved or unpaved surfaces. Not perfect but closer than not considering anything at all. Anyway, I'll be keeping with highway=footway and perhaps will add other tags as I feel like 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 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 =footway. I strongly suspect that if you analysed the data in the UK countryside, you would find 80% footway, 20% path. Ah, sorry for making such a rash generalization. What I should have said is that to the extent path is used instead of footway, it has a sense of being an unsurfaced path. Footway is used too even in the countryside. 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 the country and a noticable preference for its use in the countryside over the town. In Germany the preference is stronger. This map will remain viewable but will not appear in the pull-down list of standard views so do please bookmark it if you want to come back to it. Regards, Peter Miller -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
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 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 thought that footway meant an official footpath and path meant an non-official, but obviously well used footpath, not that I used path that often tbh. I'm glad to hear about the designation tag, as that makes things a bit clearer, but how does designation work with highway=bridleway? Should I be adding both? I'd say yes. In a UK centric thinking it's probably sufficient to ignore it since on the whole if you can take your horse over the route its probably most likely to be an official designated public Bridleway. But I'm sure there will be those that can point to exceptions. Cheers Andy Cheers, Adam On 4 May 2011, at 14:37, SomeoneElse wrote: 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 table that was added also makes the page pretty much illegible. The new method is not wrong, but doesn't add any more information and involves more typing. Personally, I'll record new footpaths as highway=footway, and if someone already mapped one as highway=path, foot=blah I'll leave it at that. Life's too short for edit wars. As well as echoing what other people have said (e.g. recording designation=public_footpath if there's a sign) what I would add is to see please get mapping! Don't worry about getting 100% of the detail at the first attempt (if someone spots later that something was actually a bridleway and not just a footpath they can change it). Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
-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 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 thought that footway meant an official footpath and path meant an non-official, but obviously well used footpath, not that I used path that often tbh.I'm glad to hear about the designation tag, as that makes things a bit clearer, but how does designation work with highway=bridleway? Should I be adding both? Contentious one again. My own view, in an ideal world, (which not all agree with) is to separate out the *physical* characteristic and the *rights* so one could tag it as highway=path (if it resembles a dirt path) or highway=track (if it resembles a 4x4 style track) and then add designation=public_bridleway. *However*, pragmatically, to make the main Mapnik renderer show it, in practice it might be better to tag as highway=bridleway instead. I will admit to doing this currently. TBH my current views are really - give it a designation tag, and don't worry too much about the rest. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Provisional footpaths mapping party - Midhurst area, West Sussex - UPDATE
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 mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
