Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis and ITO Map
On 8 April 2011 18:49, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/04/2011 17:27, David Fitzhugh wrote: I am seeking some clarification about the figures presented in the table. Where a road,street,highway, lane etc is deemed to be missing, is it missing altogether or plotted but just not named. It would help to know what is being measured. I live in North Norfolk which seems to have a tremendous amount of catching up to do. Nice to have you on board! If you work on North Norfolk systematically you will find that it won't take that long and even if you only do one part of it then that would be great. Personally I start the the places nearest where I live and clear all the big boxes (relating to long roads) in the area the first day. On the next session I work on the small errors boxes the following day and then do a mopping up exercise of the ones I missed and added my own errors on the final day. I also tend to do the rural areas first and then 'creap up on the big town'. I am working on Colchester at present and am ready to do the town itself now. I do about 100 streets in a session. You may alternatively choose to go slower and add more data richness to the area from Bing and OS Streetview and not even attempt to clear a whole district. One can added lots of paths, zebra crossings, landuse etc from Bing which is really useful. If I find conficts between OS Locator and OSM with different names for the same road (which is less of a problem where these is less mapping already done) I use a variety of methods to decide if there is an clear winner. Firstly I type the street into google search (not google maps) and normally house searches results will come up with a favourite and that is the one I go with. It might also come up with an address for a business on the street etc. If it isn't clear from that then I leave it for a local person to sort out later. I might in that case add a 'fixme=name needs to be checked, OS Locator says 'fdsffds' ' or something. Regards, Peter Can be either. Can also be named, but with a different name. -- Steve ___ 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] OSM Analysis and ITO Map now updating daily. New stats for OSM Analysis. New overlay maps for ITO Map
On 8 April 2011 23:31, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 08/04/2011 17:25, Ed Avis wrote: I've documented it in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_and_OSL_differences_analysis Ta Could you give em an example please? Yes, if was simply that it should have been highway=no rather than highway=not. Confusing the have no, not and none but no is probably the more appropriate value. I didn't spot the error and had flagged it for attention on Monday. I see that Oxford is now at 100% which is great. Also, I did some cleanup work on the wiki page yesterday adding a bit more clarity to the techniques. I will do some more work on it if I feel inspired. We should probably add some screen grabs of the thematic map to the wiki from time to time so we can see the progress over time. Regards, Peter Cheers Dave F. ___ 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] Maxspeed tagging for the UK
On 6 April 2011 16:53, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Richard wrote: I'd put the number for cars (ie 70mph for a dual carriageway), and the source if it's not the number that's on the sign. This is similar to what I've done. For areas where a national speed limit applies I have used maxspeed= (maximum speed for cars, which is the maximum maximum I believe, if you see what I mean) I was also tagging maxspeed:type=national or maxspeed:type=national_dual_carriageway (no others apply locally). I added these mainly for my use in case the government ever change the maximum speed for cars on such roads, as has been rumoured on occasion in the press, so that I can use XAPI or JOSM or similar to update the maxspeed values more easily). We seem to be nudging towards something close to a conclusion. Can I suggest that the following two methods are valid, however the second one should be considered to be 'better' and where it is used then it should be retained to avoid edit warring. I have worked a bit on the 'type' tagging to allow it to include the county which might be GB or UK depending on how Northern Ireland interprets the rules - is it always the same as the rest of the UK? On reflection the convention used elsewhere to put the IT:urban or whatever into the source:maxspeed tag seems to be misunderstanding the purpose of source tag which should be for such explanations as 'survey' or 'TfL open speed data' or whatever. Notice that I am have used 'GB:urban' for the 30mph no sign situation to match up better with 'IT:urban' etc. Method 1 maxspeed=national source:maxspeed=survey Method 2 maxspeed=60 mph maxspeed:type=GB:dual_carriageway (or GB:motorway, GB:rural, GB:urban) source:maxspeed=survey If we can agree on the above I will add it to the relevant wiki pages. Regards, Peter Then chriscf splattered a load of source:maxspeed tags across the roads, so I added those too to other national speed limit ways I tagged (to save him doing it) - after reading the wiki it seems to be a fairly well used tag in some other countries, though chriscf made up the UK values he used; I suggested he add them to the wiki but apparently past experiences means he doesn't want to touch the wiki until there's a *major* shift in mindset there. Again he distinguishes between single carriageway and dual carriageway with the values he chose. Ed ___ 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] Maxspeed tagging for the UK
On 9 April 2011 08:15, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 6 April 2011 16:53, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Richard wrote: I'd put the number for cars (ie 70mph for a dual carriageway), and the source if it's not the number that's on the sign. This is similar to what I've done. For areas where a national speed limit applies I have used maxspeed= (maximum speed for cars, which is the maximum maximum I believe, if you see what I mean) I was also tagging maxspeed:type=national or maxspeed:type=national_dual_carriageway (no others apply locally). I added these mainly for my use in case the government ever change the maximum speed for cars on such roads, as has been rumoured on occasion in the press, so that I can use XAPI or JOSM or similar to update the maxspeed values more easily). We seem to be nudging towards something close to a conclusion. Can I suggest that the following two methods are valid, however the second one should be considered to be 'better' and where it is used then it should be retained to avoid edit warring. I have worked a bit on the 'type' tagging to allow it to include the county which might be GB or UK depending on how Northern Ireland interprets the rules - is it always the same as the rest of the UK? On reflection the convention used elsewhere to put the IT:urban or whatever into the source:maxspeed tag seems to be misunderstanding the purpose of source tag which should be for such explanations as 'survey' or 'TfL open speed data' or whatever. Notice that I am have used 'GB:urban' for the 30mph no sign situation to match up better with 'IT:urban' etc. I have added some more examples for each method for clarity Method 1 maxspeed=national source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=xx mph source:maxspeed=survey Method 2 maxspeed=60 mph maxspeed:type=GB:dual_carriageway (or GB:motorway, GB:rural, GB:urban) source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=70 mph maxspeed:type=GB:motorway source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=60 mph maxspeed:type=GB:rural source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=60 mph maxspeed:type=numeric sign source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=30 mph maxspeed:type=GB:urban source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=30 mph maxspeed:type=numeric sign source:maxspeed=survey If we can agree on the above I will add it to the relevant wiki pages. Regards, Peter Then chriscf splattered a load of source:maxspeed tags across the roads, so I added those too to other national speed limit ways I tagged (to save him doing it) - after reading the wiki it seems to be a fairly well used tag in some other countries, though chriscf made up the UK values he used; I suggested he add them to the wiki but apparently past experiences means he doesn't want to touch the wiki until there's a *major* shift in mindset there. Again he distinguishes between single carriageway and dual carriageway with the values he chose. Ed ___ 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] Maxspeed tagging for the UK
On 09/04/2011 08:15, Peter Miller wrote: maxspeed:type=GB:dual_carriageway (or GB:motorway, GB:rural, GB:urban) I don't like the urban/rural dichotomy for the UK as it doesn't correspond to anything in the legislation here - unless you believe that street-lighting is a specifically urban phenomenon. In UK law, the implicit 30 mph speed limit is associated with a 'restricted road', which is any road having 'a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart' (except, presumably, one where an explicit speedlimit or the 'national' speed limit applies). So maybe GB:restricted_road would be better? -- Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Analysis and ITO Map now updating daily. New stats for OSM Analysis. New overlay maps for ITO Map
Here are some examples of not:name and highway=no: http://oscompare.raggedred.net/?zoom=14lat=51.54846lon=-0.21501layers=B0TF From the comparison report you can see only two errors remaining. That is because the others have been checked, and where OS was wrong a not:name has been tagged. If you download the map for that area you'll see some ways tagged with highway=no. This is where I visited and found there was no road there any more. The highway=no way is just a placeholder to mark the not:name tag for the check. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Maxspeed tagging for the UK
On 9 April 2011 08:49, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/04/2011 08:15, Peter Miller wrote: maxspeed:type=GB:dual_carriageway (or GB:motorway, GB:rural, GB:urban) I don't like the urban/rural dichotomy for the UK as it doesn't correspond to anything in the legislation here - unless you believe that street-lighting is a specifically urban phenomenon. In UK law, the implicit 30 mph speed limit is associated with a 'restricted road', which is any road having 'a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart' (except, presumably, one where an explicit speed limit or the 'national' speed limit applies).So maybe GB:restricted_road would be better? I assume you didn't mean to shout in the above comment ;) (part of it is in large characters on my computer) For sure, let's finesse the actual text to relate to UK legislation. GB:restricted_road is clearly a better definition that GB:urban. Here is the definition - it mentions England, Wales and Scotland but not Northern Ireland, so GB is correct http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/82 Can we find the relevant legal definitions of a motorway and a dual carriageway for GB or for UK? Regards, Peter -- Steve ___ 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] Maxspeed tagging for the UK
On 09/04/11 08:20, Peter Miller wrote: On 9 April 2011 08:15, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com mailto:peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 6 April 2011 16:53, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk mailto:e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Richard wrote: I'd put the number for cars (ie 70mph for a dual carriageway), and the source if it's not the number that's on the sign. This is similar to what I've done. For areas where a national speed limit applies I have used maxspeed= (maximum speed for cars, which is the maximum maximum I believe, if you see what I mean) I was also tagging maxspeed:type=national or maxspeed:type=national_dual_carriageway (no others apply locally). I added these mainly for my use in case the government ever change the maximum speed for cars on such roads, as has been rumoured on occasion in the press, so that I can use XAPI or JOSM or similar to update the maxspeed values more easily). We seem to be nudging towards something close to a conclusion. Can I suggest that the following two methods are valid, however the second one should be considered to be 'better' and where it is used then it should be retained to avoid edit warring. I have worked a bit on the 'type' tagging to allow it to include the county which might be GB or UK depending on how Northern Ireland interprets the rules - is it always the same as the rest of the UK? On reflection the convention used elsewhere to put the IT:urban or whatever into the source:maxspeed tag seems to be misunderstanding the purpose of source tag which should be for such explanations as 'survey' or 'TfL open speed data' or whatever. Notice that I am have used 'GB:urban' for the 30mph no sign situation to match up better with 'IT:urban' etc. I have added some more examples for each method for clarity Method 1 maxspeed=national source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=xx mph source:maxspeed=survey Method 2 maxspeed=60 mph maxspeed:type=GB:dual_carriageway (or GB:motorway, GB:rural, GB:urban) source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=70 mph maxspeed:type=GB:motorway source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=60 mph maxspeed:type=GB:rural source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=60 mph maxspeed:type=numeric sign source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=30 mph maxspeed:type=GB:urban source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=30 mph maxspeed:type=numeric sign source:maxspeed=survey I *hate* the idea that signed speed limits that currently just need maxspeed=x would now need two extra tags. That is exactly what I meant by think of the mapper. Why should I add extra tags? I have surveyed an area, added the road type, name, and a source tag, now to add a speed limit I need to double the number tags?!? This is ill conceived. My suggestion: maxspeed= x mph where it is signed. maxspeed=national where NSL applies, with national=single / dual to distinguish between single and dual carriageway limits. Motorways fall out automatically from the highway tag. Please think of the mapper, and keep it simple. This will also be consistent with existing tagging / renderers etc and stands a chance of being used. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Publishing Self-Devised Walks
Hello all, Over the past couple of weeks, I've come up with a couple of interesting walks from my house. I would like to publish these on my blog, in the hopes that other people looking for walks in the area will find them. However, I haven't yet worked out a good way to do this. One thought I had was to add all the constituent ways to a relation, and then link to the relation shown on the OSM map (as in [0] and [1]). However, I wasn't sure if this was an abuse of relations, given that this isn't a walk that exists anywhere but in my head (as opposed to a more 'official' walk). At the other end of the spectrum is screenshots and using the GIMP to draw my route on (or using a mapping site like BikeRouteToaster to draw the lines on, and taking screenshots of that). However, this seems really lame (as you lose all of the slippy-map goodness, and the updating of the surrounding area/data), so I'd prefer not to have to resort to this. Has anyone else done something like this? Have I missed a project somewhere which is designed to store such things? Any input would be much appreciated. Thanks, Dan [Footnote 0: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=77959] [Footnote 1: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=93785] ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Publishing Self-Devised Walks
On 9 April 2011 13:00, dan...@daniel-watkins.co.uk wrote: Hello all, Over the past couple of weeks, I've come up with a couple of interesting walks from my house. I would like to publish these on my blog, in the hopes that other people looking for walks in the area will find them. However, I haven't yet worked out a good way to do this. One thought I had was to add all the constituent ways to a relation, and then link to the relation shown on the OSM map (as in [0] and [1]). However, I wasn't sure if this was an abuse of relations, given that this isn't a walk that exists anywhere but in my head (as opposed to a more 'official' walk). At the other end of the spectrum is screenshots and using the GIMP to draw my route on (or using a mapping site like BikeRouteToaster to draw the lines on, and taking screenshots of that). However, this seems really lame (as you lose all of the slippy-map goodness, and the updating of the surrounding area/data), so I'd prefer not to have to resort to this. Has anyone else done something like this? Have I missed a project somewhere which is designed to store such things? Any input would be much appreciated. Maybe take a look at something like Show Your Journey http://syj.renevier.net/ -- Matt Williams http://milliams.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Maxspeed tagging for the UK
On 9 April 2011 11:46, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: On 09/04/11 08:20, Peter Miller wrote: On 9 April 2011 08:15, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com mailto: peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote: On 6 April 2011 16:53, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk mailto:e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Richard wrote: I'd put the number for cars (ie 70mph for a dual carriageway), and the source if it's not the number that's on the sign. This is similar to what I've done. For areas where a national speed limit applies I have used maxspeed= (maximum speed for cars, which is the maximum maximum I believe, if you see what I mean) I was also tagging maxspeed:type=national or maxspeed:type=national_dual_carriageway (no others apply locally). I added these mainly for my use in case the government ever change the maximum speed for cars on such roads, as has been rumoured on occasion in the press, so that I can use XAPI or JOSM or similar to update the maxspeed values more easily). We seem to be nudging towards something close to a conclusion. Can I suggest that the following two methods are valid, however the second one should be considered to be 'better' and where it is used then it should be retained to avoid edit warring. I have worked a bit on the 'type' tagging to allow it to include the county which might be GB or UK depending on how Northern Ireland interprets the rules - is it always the same as the rest of the UK? On reflection the convention used elsewhere to put the IT:urban or whatever into the source:maxspeed tag seems to be misunderstanding the purpose of source tag which should be for such explanations as 'survey' or 'TfL open speed data' or whatever. Notice that I am have used 'GB:urban' for the 30mph no sign situation to match up better with 'IT:urban' etc. I have added some more examples for each method for clarity Method 1 maxspeed=national source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=xx mph source:maxspeed=survey Method 2 maxspeed=60 mph maxspeed:type=GB:dual_carriageway (or GB:motorway, GB:rural, GB:urban) source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=70 mph maxspeed:type=GB:motorway source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=60 mph maxspeed:type=GB:rural source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=60 mph maxspeed:type=numeric sign source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=30 mph maxspeed:type=GB:urban source:maxspeed=survey maxspeed=30 mph maxspeed:type=numeric sign source:maxspeed=survey I *hate* the idea that signed speed limits that currently just need maxspeed=x would now need two extra tags. That is exactly what I meant by think of the mapper. Why should I add extra tags? I have surveyed an area, added the road type, name, and a source tag, now to add a speed limit I need to double the number tags?!? This is ill conceived. My suggestion: maxspeed= x mph where it is signed. maxspeed=national where NSL applies, with national=single / dual to distinguish between single and dual carriageway limits. Motorways fall out automatically from the highway tag. Please think of the mapper, and keep it simple. This will also be consistent with existing tagging / renderers etc and stands a chance of being used. I am not suggesting that you need to go and change anything. I am only suggesting that if someone 'upgrades' the tagging by doing that work that it is just fine and dandy and it shouldn't be reverted. There are not 'two extra tags' anyway. The source:maxspeed tag is good practice for any tag and can be considered optional for basic mapping. Lets now consider default values for the maxspeed:type tag to cut down work further. We could agree that the default value for maxspeed:type is numeric. We could go further and say that the default value for maxspeed:type for a single carriageway road with maxspeed=60 mph is 'GB:National' and also that the default value for motorway and motorway_link with with maxspeed='70 mph' is 'GB:motorway'. That way the extra tagging is only required in very few places. With 'Method 1' however there is much less work for application writers and less chance that they misinterpret the rules for some country or other and give out bad data or indeed don't implement that part of the code at all and the mappers work is wasted. ITO, for example are not about to review all the rules around the world in order to convert 'IT:urban' into km/h unless it is made very easy to do. Regards, Peter -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ 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] Publishing Self-Devised Walks
Hello Dan, There is Freemap which allows you to store your own walks, it does use OSM ways but stores them locally. It doesn't use relations. Not sure what other peoples thoughts would be but I'd guess storing them in OSM itself would clutter up the database and it's best stored elsewhere. Nick -dan...@daniel-watkins.co.uk wrote: - To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: dan...@daniel-watkins.co.uk Date: 09/04/2011 12:01PM Subject: [Talk-GB] Publishing Self-Devised Walks Hello all, Over the past couple of weeks, I've come up with a couple of interesting walks from my house. I would like to publish these on my blog, in the hopes that other people looking for walks in the area will find them. However, I haven't yet worked out a good way to do this. One thought I had was to add all the constituent ways to a relation, and then link to the relation shown on the OSM map (as in [0] and [1]). However, I wasn't sure if this was an abuse of relations, given that this isn't a walk that exists anywhere but in my head (as opposed to a more 'official' walk). At the other end of the spectrum is screenshots and using the GIMP to draw my route on (or using a mapping site like BikeRouteToaster to draw the lines on, and taking screenshots of that). However, this seems really lame (as you lose all of the slippy-map goodness, and the updating of the surrounding area/data), so I'd prefer not to have to resort to this. Has anyone else done something like this? Have I missed a project somewhere which is designed to store such things? Any input would be much appreciated. Thanks, Dan [Footnote 0: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=77959] [Footnote 1: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=93785] ___ 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] Publishing Self-Devised Walks
On 09/04/2011 12:00, dan...@daniel-watkins.co.uk wrote: Hello all, Over the past couple of weeks, I've come up with a couple of interesting walks from my house. I would like to publish these on my blog, in the hopes that other people looking for walks in the area will find them. However, I haven't yet worked out a good way to do this. One thought I had was to add all the constituent ways to a relation, and then link to the relation shown on the OSM map (as in [0] and [1]). However, I wasn't sure if this was an abuse of relations, given that this isn't a walk that exists anywhere but in my head (as opposed to a more 'official' walk). At the other end of the spectrum is screenshots and using the GIMP to draw my route on (or using a mapping site like BikeRouteToaster to draw the lines on, and taking screenshots of that). However, this seems really lame (as you lose all of the slippy-map goodness, and the updating of the surrounding area/data), so I'd prefer not to have to resort to this. Has anyone else done something like this? Have I missed a project somewhere which is designed to store such things? Any input would be much appreciated. Thanks, Dan [Footnote 0: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=77959] [Footnote 1: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=93785] ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Adding personal walks with relations would certainly be an abuse of OSM: just imagine if we had a tiny fraction of the country's dog walkers doin the same! Such information is not open to verification, and is not related to on-the-ground features. There are plenty of sites for sharing this kind of information: GPSies is one (see for example http://www.gpsies.com/map.do?fileId=szmbmawxbaehsmsf my RA mystery walk http://sk53-osm.blogspot.com/2011/03/not-very-mysterious-mystery-walk.html). There are also sites like Nick Whitelegg's Freemap http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/index.php which are aiming to integrate the sort of information walkers are interested in sharing. If you want to use OSM data to generate the route using routing it is possible to create a GPX or KML file on a number of routing engines (e.g., OpenRouteService, OpenMapQuest). The resulting trace can be displayed using OpenLayers with an OSM background or added to a site like GPSies. Have a look at the OL KML example here http://openlayers.org/dev/examples/kml-layer.html. Obviously the route you choose will depend on how much technical effort you want to expend. Jerry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Publishing Self-Devised Walks
On 09/04/2011 12:00, dan...@daniel-watkins.co.uk wrote: At the other end of the spectrum is screenshots and using the GIMP to draw my route on (or using a mapping site like BikeRouteToaster to draw the lines on, and taking screenshots of that). However, this seems really lame (as you lose all of the slippy-map goodness, and the updating of the surrounding area/data), so I'd prefer not to have to resort to this. Has anyone else done something like this? Have I missed a project somewhere which is designed to store such things? Any input would be much appreciated. I would agree that these 'unofficial' routes don't really belong in OSM. But depending on how your blog works, there are ways of showing the route on a slippy map. eg you could draw the route on Gpsies, then use the IFRAME code that it provides to embed the map on your blog. Note by default this will show it on a Google map, for an OSM map you have to add the mapType=mapnik parameter, see this page for details (in German): http://www.gpsies.com/page.do?page=linkus There are other options for track drawing websites with OSM maps listed here, though I'm not sure which support embedding: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Track_drawing_websites Also note some blogs don't allow iframes. Or if you have a Wordpress.org blog (ie hosted on your own server), then you can use the OSM plugin: http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/osm/ This lets you show an OSM map with a GPX track overlay. See an example on my blog: http://craig.neogeo.org.uk/blog/?p=61 Though I don't think this is possible on a Wordpress.com blog. Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
