Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way - Image vote
On 10 May 2012 23:46, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: * It has previously been suggested that a suspected=* tag be used for when a mapper is undecided. Unless there are objections, I will add suspected=* (where * is one of the 4 options - public footpath/bridleway/BOAT/RB) and a generic suspected=row to the wiki guidelines. This may help us to help councils find lost way before the 2026 deadline. I don't think this proposed tagging is particularly helpful as it fails to distinguish between two issues: whether the way in question is suspected of being a recorded right of way (ie appearing on the definitive statement), or whether its known to be unrecorded (ie not on the definitive statement) but is suspected of being an right of way anyway. I think any proposed tagging in this area would need to distinguish between these cases. Also suspected is really too generic a name to use, since it doesn't tell us what key the suspected value belongs to. Maybe suspected:designation=* would be better? If the right of way is recorded in the Definitive Statement, then its 100% verifiable that it is indeed a right of way, and we can (given permission to use the Statement) record that in OSM. I think it's also useful for us to indicate that a way might fall into this category but we don't currently have sufficient evidence for a definite tagging. I don't think we necessarily need a special tag for this, since it's essentially the same issue we have in lots of places where we're unsure of how to tag things. fixme=* (or maybe even designation=fixme with a suitable note=*) could do the job here. Suspecting that a currently unrecorded route should be a right of way is quite a different thing. It's much more subjective, and I don't see how it would be verifiable that whatever legal requirements have been met, or indeed what class of right of way it would be found to be if an application was made. I'm not sure this sort of subjective data really belongs in OSM. The one thing we could say with certainty though is that there is no officially recorded designation for the way. So maybe a tagging along the lines of designation=unrecorded and access=customary (or foot=customary etc) might be a better way of expressing things. If it's been checked that the route doesn't appear on the definitive map and statement then designation=unrecorded is verifiable. access=customary would express the opinion that people are used to using the way as if it was allowed, but it's not known to be a legal right or explicitly permissive. (I guess there's technically another state for an unrecorded right of way that it might be useful to know about -- that an application to record has been submitted to have the route recorded, but the application hasn't been determined yet. In this case it might be useful to add a reference number or web link to the application in question if it's known.) Any thoughts? Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way - Image vote
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: If the right of way is recorded in the Definitive Statement, then its 100% verifiable that it is indeed a right of way, and we can (given permission to use the Statement) record that in OSM. Indeed - but it's helpful if a source:designation indicates that, so that people know that there isn't a sign on the ground, but the source is legitimate. There are occasional misunderstandings where newbies think designation=public_footpath is how all footpaths are tagged regardless of legal status, and sometimes things turn up without any obvious verifiability (I'm thinking particularly of the recent issue with byways in England, and also C roads). Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On 07/05/12 13:19, Stephen Colebourne wrote: As a relatively new mapper, two things stand out to me. 1) What Potlatch offers will be used. That means h=footway/cycleway/bridleway/track will be used over h=path 2) The footway/cycleway/bridleway classification scheme makes perfect sense to me. Any path I see I in town I can easily classify into one of the three - most are footways, some are dedicated cycleways, and on somewhere like Wimbledon Common there is a dedicated bridleway. Thus h=path is something I would perceive as a fallback. Note that at no point am I caring about designated rights of way. That is a much more complex thing to determine it would seem, and not something that a casual or new mapper would be bothered by. Tag the broad view of what you see. The PROW or other stuff is *detail*. Let normal mappers add the basic footway/cycleway/bridleway/track, and expert mappers add the detail later. This. I agree with this *so much*. People map to the level of detail they're comfortable with, and that's a strength not a weakness. Legal designations, access rights and surface type are pointless detail to a new mapper. Therefore whatever docs we write should encourage the use of the most expressive single-tag scheme for a thing up front because that enables new users to enter fairly informative data in the most comfortable way for them. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
People map to the level of detail they're comfortable with, and that's a strength not a weakness. Legal designations, access rights and surface type are pointless detail to a new mapper. Sorry but I do have to say this. In an area (UK outside of Scotland) where sadly, you're not free to roam where you like, access rights are *absolutely vital detail* for walkers and other users of the countryside and indicating them explicitly where known, either via designation, or foot/horse/bicycle = (designated/yes - the two I consider equivalent), permissive or private is essential. They should only be left out where they are not known. I don't see it as a problem for new mappers to understand the meaning of the designation or access tags. They're quite straightforward really! When I walk in a new area I need to know which paths are OK and which are unfortunately off limits. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
-Original Message- From: Andrew Chadwick [mailto:a.t.chadw...@gmail.com] Sent: 11 May 2012 10:38 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject On 07/05/12 13:19, Stephen Colebourne wrote: As a relatively new mapper, two things stand out to me. 1) What Potlatch offers will be used. That means h=footway/cycleway/bridleway/track will be used over h=path 2) The footway/cycleway/bridleway classification scheme makes perfect sense to me. Any path I see I in town I can easily classify into one of the three - most are footways, some are dedicated cycleways, and on somewhere like Wimbledon Common there is a dedicated bridleway. Thus h=path is something I would perceive as a fallback. Note that at no point am I caring about designated rights of way. That is a much more complex thing to determine it would seem, and not something that a casual or new mapper would be bothered by. Tag the broad view of what you see. The PROW or other stuff is *detail*. Let normal mappers add the basic footway/cycleway/bridleway/track, and expert mappers add the detail later. This. I agree with this *so much*. People map to the level of detail they're comfortable with, and that's a strength not a weakness. Legal designations, access rights and surface type are pointless detail to a new mapper. Therefore whatever docs we write should encourage the use of the most expressive single-tag scheme for a thing up front because that enables new users to enter fairly informative data in the most comfortable way for them. +1 As mappers (regardless of experience) we are not the authoritative body with respect to access rights and while of course we want to encourage good and complete tagging we should not insist on it. We have always accepted the low hanging fruit approach to adding data and long may that continue. What we need are better tools to help the more experienced mapper identify missing data, especially now that our mapping looks complete from the simple map view. Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On 11/05/12 10:45, Nick Whitelegg wrote: People map to the level of detail they're comfortable with, and that's a strength not a weakness. Legal designations, access rights and surface type are pointless detail to a new mapper. (That was somewhat incautiously worded. Maybe we should make it into a strength, not a weakness is a better rallying cry. Ho hum.) Sorry but I do have to say this. In an area (UK outside of Scotland) where sadly, you're not free to roam where you like, access rights are *absolutely vital detail* for walkers and other users of the countryside and indicating them explicitly where known, either via designation, or foot/horse/bicycle = (designated/yes - the two I consider equivalent), permissive or private is essential. They should only be left out where they are not known. Yes, but no. Yes I agree that it's information we should gather, and anyone more into this thing than a casual mapper probably should. However in order to broaden OSM's appeal we can't demand it at the entry level. Particularly if there are no handy buttons for it in Potlatch. Most of the general public don't know or care, or just bimble along anything with tarmac whether it's marked footpath or not. New OSM users are drawn from this population, demonstrably don't record the information, and aren't really fussed about it if we're honest. They can slap down a path, ideally for us a nice intuitive h=footway, and call it a day quite happily. And I have no problem with the data being fairly minimal: itsawiki, after all. Obviously we work on the raw recruits and turn them all into good public-spirited citizen hero mappers striding the land and quelling dragons, like ourselves, but it takes time. Hence my argument that there's an intermediate stage somewhere in there for those levelling up. This is the stage where we should be saying that a sign looking like [photo] means you should add a public_[whatever]way tag in addition, but leave it at that. Experts can set additional access tags if they want and need to. IMO the full sets for a particular designation are a pain to remember, large, demonstrably quite difficult to understand in combination, and easy to get wrong. They're best done either a) in full with the presets, or b) minimally, tagging only the exceptions to what you perceive as the general rule implied by the other tags. I don't see it as a problem for new mappers to understand the meaning of the designation or access tags. They're quite straightforward really! Individually yes; together in a big lump: haha no. Particularly not when the access tags we recommend in the docs have been a bit outdated with everyone fearful of updating them, as has happened in the past. Being honest (and a bit snobby) I'd rather *not* have new users attempt access tags at first if they're more likely to mess things up. When I walk in a new area I need to know which paths are OK and which are unfortunately off limits. Me too, luckily it's normally signposted :D That's OK for the vast majority of map users even if it's a bit pants for data consumers and we should be pushing for designations and access tags in the long run. But let's convey it in a way tailored to the levels of involvement of our users. -- Andrew Chadwick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On 11 May 2012 11:59, Andrew Chadwick a.t.chadw...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/05/12 10:45, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Sorry but I do have to say this. In an area (UK outside of Scotland) where sadly, you're not free to roam where you like, access rights are *absolutely vital detail* for walkers and other users of the countryside and indicating them explicitly where known, either via designation, or foot/horse/bicycle = (designated/yes - the two I consider equivalent), permissive or private is essential. They should only be left out where they are not known. Yes, but no. Yes I agree that it's information we should gather, and anyone more into this thing than a casual mapper probably should. However in order to broaden OSM's appeal we can't demand it at the entry level. Particularly if there are no handy buttons for it in Potlatch. I could equally claim that information on the surface of paths is absolutely essential for cyclists with road bikes, and that toilet opening hours are absolutely essential for people with weak bladders. In many areas OSM is completely hopeless at accurate routing for cars, motorbikes, HGVs, but we don't stop people adding roads unless they've got every last routing detail correct. Of course more detail is useful, and we can gently encourage and facilitate that through presets in editors and documentation on the wiki. But we shouldn't demand that anybody helpfully adding a footpath or toilet add in every last detail. 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
[Talk-GB] Problems in Farnham, Surrey
Hi All, I've just noticed that parts of Farnham, Surrey above the A31 have been deleted. A quick skim through the history reveals that the damage was done in changeset 11477559. The account concerned was created recently so this is likely to be a mistake rather than vandalism. Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to contact the user and revert the changeset. Is there anyone here who is willing to take this on? Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rights of way - Image vote
Thanks Richard Andy, Just to address Andy's comment about new users tagging all footpaths as designation=public_footpath regardless of legal status (as they have seen it used elsewhere). Two points. First Potlatch hides advanced tags away from the simple point and click drop down menus; this may help. Second, when I started out if I came across a new tag I would search it on the wiki before using it. Hopefully others will do the same so if we can get the wiki as clear as possible we should be able to reduce this risk. Both: source:designation= and suspected:designation= both good ideas - thanks. Richard, thanks for the reply, in particular drawing attention to the 3 cases of a suspected/missing/unknown/etc.. right of way. Please see my comments below and let me know what you think: On 11 May 2012 10:07, Robert Whittaker robert.whitta...@gmail.com wrote: On 10 May 2012 23:46, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: * It has previously been suggested that a suspected=* tag be used for when a mapper is undecided. Unless there are objections, I will add suspected=* (where * is one of the 4 options - public footpath/bridleway/BOAT/RB) and a generic suspected=row to the wiki guidelines. This may help us to help councils find lost way before the 2026 deadline. I don't think this proposed tagging is particularly helpful as it fails to distinguish between two issues: whether the way in question is suspected of being a recorded right of way (ie appearing on the definitive statement), or whether its known to be unrecorded (on the definitive statement) but is suspected of being an right of way anyway. I think any proposed tagging in this area would need to distinguish between these cases. Also suspected is really too generic a name to use, since it doesn't tell us what key the suspected value belongs to. Maybe suspected:designation=* would be better? -- I get your point about the 2 different cases. However as you are likely aware any way that is not on the Def Map Statement by 2026 will no longer be a public right of way. As such there is value to checking both cases with equal priority. Essentially my hope with the suspected tag, is that if allows mappers to indicate when they think a way might be or perhaps should be a public right of way. This can then be followed up (perhaps even by a different contributor) to check whether it is on the Def Statement and if not to request it be added. The progress during this stage can be added in the note=* tag. If we can get a few missing ways added to the Def Statement we can put out a positive news article. If the right of way is recorded in the Definitive Statement, then its 100% verifiable that it is indeed a right of way, and we can (given permission to use the Statement) record that in OSM. I think it's also useful for us to indicate that a way might fall into this category but we don't currently have sufficient evidence for a definite tagging. I don't think we necessarily need a special tag for this, since it's essentially the same issue we have in lots of places where we're unsure of how to tag things. fixme=* (or maybe even designation=fixme with a suitable note=*) could do the job here. -- My concern with the fixme tag is that it is used for 1000s of other reasons. With designation:suspected=* it makes it very easy to filter the map database. Suspecting that a currently unrecorded route should be a right of way is quite a different thing. It's much more subjective, and I don't see how it would be verifiable that whatever legal requirements have been met, or indeed what class of right of way it would be found to be if an application was made. I'm not sure this sort of subjective data really belongs in OSM. The one thing we could say with certainty though is that there is no officially recorded designation for the way. So maybe a tagging along the lines of designation=unrecorded and access=customary (or foot=customary etc) might be a better way of expressing things. If it's been checked that the route doesn't appear on the definitive map and statement then designation=unrecorded is verifiable. access=customary would express the opinion that people are used to using the way as if it was allowed, but it's not known to be a legal right or explicitly permissive. -- For unknown classifications you can use the generic designation:suspected=row. As noted this subjective data would then allow someone who is happy to contact the local council, to easily identify suspected missing rights of way and bring this to the councils attention. Perhaps designation=unrecorded can be used if and only if you know that the route is not yet on the Def Map, however how do you reduce the risk of it being misused? Once initial contact has been made with the local council this could be added to the 'notes' tag. -- access tags already include access=yes and access=official. To me it looks like there is no difference and I
[Talk-GB] Post boxes!
Heard about this on the radio. See link below: Here's a guy who is photographing post boxes in the UK - could be of real help for OSM. Anyone have contact with him or any other members of the 'Letter Box Study Group'? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142313/Retired-postman-embarks-epic-mission-photograph-115-000-Britains-post-boxes.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Problems in Farnham, Surrey
On Fri, 11 May 2012, Andy Street wrote: I've just noticed that parts of Farnham, Surrey above the A31 have been deleted. A quick skim through the history reveals that the damage was done in changeset 11477559. The account concerned was created recently so this is likely to be a mistake rather than vandalism. Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to contact the user and revert the changeset. Is there anyone here who is willing to take this on? On it. cheers, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Problems in Farnham, Surrey
Looks like a case of a new user simplifying the map to give directions to a friend (not realising that their deletes are implemented for everyone). There are 3 changesets. If people stay away from editing this area I will discuss a revert on talk IRC channel this afternoon (not sure how to revert multiple change sets). Any one contacted him? If not I'll drop him a message at the same time. Regards, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Problems in Farnham, Surrey
On Fri, 11 May 2012, Rob Nickerson wrote: Looks like a case of a new user simplifying the map to give directions to a friend (not realising that their deletes are implemented for everyone). There are 3 changesets. If people stay away from editing this area I will discuss a revert on talk IRC channel this afternoon (not sure how to revert multiple change sets). Any one contacted him? If not I'll drop him a message at the same time. Already on it (both reverting and the message). cheers, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Post boxes!
Royal Mail grid reference every post box Erm, a request made under the Freedom of Information Act only returned textual descriptions (usually names of roads, often a side road it is 'near'). I believe Hull has been very hard to find postboxes from this list. If there is grid reference data for every post box, then Royal Mail may have broken the FoI Act. Although my information may be out of date, or slightly wrong. Mr Willis photographs the base to record the manufacturer’s name and logs a grid reference on a map Hmm, maybe he is making the grid referenced database? I wrote this blog post a while back, which is good to reference if you talk to someone about OSM Postboxes. http://www.livingwithdragons.com/2009/06/my-postbox-obsession On 11 May 2012 13:49, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Heard about this on the radio. See link below: Here's a guy who is photographing post boxes in the UK - could be of real help for OSM. Anyone have contact with him or any other members of the 'Letter Box Study Group'? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142313/Retired-postman-embarks-epic-mission-photograph-115-000-Britains-post-boxes.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Post boxes!
On Fri, 11 May 2012 14:24:05 +0100 Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote: Royal Mail grid reference every post box Erm, a request made under the Freedom of Information Act only returned textual descriptions (usually names of roads, often a side road it is 'near'). I believe Hull has been very hard to find postboxes from this list. If there is grid reference data for every post box, then Royal Mail may have broken the FoI Act. Although my information may be out of date, or slightly wrong. Mr Willis photographs the base to record the manufacturer’s name and logs a grid reference on a map Hmm, maybe he is making the grid referenced database? I wrote this blog post a while back, which is good to reference if you talk to someone about OSM Postboxes. http://www.livingwithdragons.com/2009/06/my-postbox-obsession On 11 May 2012 13:49, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Heard about this on the radio. See link below: Here's a guy who is photographing post boxes in the UK - could be of real help for OSM. Anyone have contact with him or any other members of the 'Letter Box Study Group'? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142313/Retired-postman-embarks-epic-mission-photograph-115-000-Britains-post-boxes.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Rob ___ There is this website for documenting postbox locations http://www.dracos.co.uk/play/locating-postboxes/ Mike Evans ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Post boxes!
On 11 May 2012 14:24, Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote: Royal Mail grid reference every post box Erm, a request made under the Freedom of Information Act only returned textual descriptions (usually names of roads, often a side road it is 'near'). I believe Hull has been very hard to find postboxes from this list. If there is grid reference data for every post box, then Royal Mail may have broken the FoI Act. Although my information may be out of date, or slightly wrong. See http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/postbox_data_in_central_collecti Royal Mail fought really hard not to release the location data they have, and despite my best efforts managed to convince the Information Commissioner that the public interest lay in withholding the coordinates. :-( But then they released a rather nice CSV file including two columns of numbers that look remarkably like numerical OS grid references... Go figure. I'm planning to ask for an updated list in June (when it will have been a year since that release). Unfortunately the coordinates in that file are not consistently good. Most seem to be accurate to within a few meters, but there are quite a few that are 50-200m out. And then I've found a few that are completely out -- probably with the coordinates from another box altogether put in by mistake. From their responses to my FOI request, I can't see Royal Mail giving us permission to import the coordinates. Though I don't think we'd want to anyway, since the accuracy isn't good enough, and it would be a hard job to deal with the merging with existing data. Nevertheless, the file can be useful for finding where to look for boxes that might be missing from OSM. I haven't polished this up yet, but if you want to see a quick comparison and indications of missing or incorrect boxes in OSM when compared with Royal Mail's data, have a look at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postboxes/2/map.html . You can use the results to suggest where you might want to go and survey, but shouldn't directly copy any Royal Mail data into OSM. Other postbox tools can be found at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/postboxes/ Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Post boxes!
On 11/05/2012 14:24, Gregory wrote: Royal Mail grid reference every post box Erm, a request made under the Freedom of Information Act only returned textual descriptions (usually names of roads, often a side road it is 'near'). I believe Hull has been very hard to find postboxes from this list. If there is grid reference data for every post box, then Royal Mail may have broken the FoI Act. Although my information may be out of date, or slightly wrong. Mr Willis photographs the base to record the manufacturer’s name and logs a grid reference on a map Hmm, maybe he is making the grid referenced database? The article is unclear, but it may be referring to the Letter Box Study Group database. I'm not sure whether that database is based on the Royal Mail lists, or just what members of the group have surveyed. So I don't know how complete or accurate it is. They do have a website ( http://www.lbsg.org/ ), though it seems the database is only available to paid-up members. Craig ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Post boxes!
Was thinking more along the line of asking him is he minds us using his photos to add the extra details to OSM (e.g. ref numbers, collection times, and royal cyphers). This would of course depend on how good the photos are - the ref numbers and collection times are quite small on the details pane of the postbox. Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Post boxes!
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote: Was thinking more along the line of asking him is he minds us using his photos to add the extra details to OSM (e.g. ref numbers, collection times, and royal cyphers). Or we could invite him to sign up to OSM himself! __John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Post boxes!
NB There's a group on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/groups/postboxbypostcode/ With a reasonably active number of members and photos with varying amounts of tag info. Photographs are under the copyright terms of the original taker. Be Seeing You - Rob. If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
I could equally claim that information on the surface of paths is absolutely essential for cyclists with road bikes, and that toilet opening hours are absolutely essential for people with weak bladders. In many areas OSM is completely hopeless at accurate routing for cars, motorbikes, HGVs, but we don't stop people adding roads unless they've got every last routing detail correct. +1 I haven't had time to write on the tag voting document, but I did notice the for 'private' bridleway pic, I would probably tag this as a highway = service. This probably more as tag for the render, but in IMHO there's not much difference between a h=service and h=track,surface=asphalt,(or tracktype=grade1). The bonus is the service is currently rendered in Mapnik and Cyclemap etc... Sometimes I think it would be good if OSMers had more focus on aspects that *all* the other map providers don't do (especially OS). As Tom notes above, it's generally impossible even using OS maps to tell if one would like to take a road bike down a Bridleway. One doesn't really want to have to keep accessing the OSM data directly for these bits. If A N renderer or routers showed/considered such detail (as appropriate for eg road bike users, pram/wheel chair pushers, wheelchair users and various use cases) then it would be much more powerful. Also for toilets it is nice to know if they required a fee too! Be Seeing You - Rob. If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
