[Talk-GB] Yorkshire Dales or Forest of Bowland - unmapped areas?
Hi, Am thinking of getting away for 2 or 3 days early in the new year (1st-4th Jan) to somewhere hilly in the north of England within easy reach (by train/bus) of the Manchester area I haven't been to very often before, which would mean the Dales or the Forest of Bowland. Anyone from that area familiar with any areas which have good scenery and haven't had much in the way of footpath mapping? Looking round the area on OSM it seems fairly well covered but then I don't know it too well. If I decide on somewhere likely I can always organise a mapping party. Thanks, Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Yorkshire Dales or Forest of Bowland - unmapped areas?
Well, the scenery around Malham and upper Wharfedale, Nidderdale, Swaledale is simply the best in the world ... Though I do admit to a slight bias. The beer int half bad neether. I have very extensively mapped and cross-referenced Wharfedale+ paths and tracks from Npe, os25k and Bing but the area is crying out for extensive ground truthing, in particular adding modern official designations (hallo Freemap!) Perhaps only 20 - 40% is done? I only get to do one or two walks per year. Mike On 17 Dec 2012, at 14:31, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Hi, Am thinking of getting away for 2 or 3 days early in the new year (1st-4th Jan) to somewhere hilly in the north of England within easy reach (by train/bus) of the Manchester area I haven't been to very often before, which would mean the Dales or the Forest of Bowland. Anyone from that area familiar with any areas which have good scenery and haven't had much in the way of footpath mapping? Looking round the area on OSM it seems fairly well covered but then I don't know it too well. If I decide on somewhere likely I can always organise a mapping party. Thanks, 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] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire
Should it not be highway=track, access:motorcar=no (access:foot=yes, etc if desired). That lets me know I can cycle 2-abreast, it is fairly firm (track grade could also be specified), and if I fall off then an ambulance driver can follow his specialised satnav to get to me. I have had a situation a few years ago where OSM some adrenalin helped me get an ambulance on the C2C, the printed cycle map we had was unhelpful. I'd also make a point about route relations, but that has been done already. Greg. On 16 December 2012 08:26, Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: A trail such as Monsal (and many others that follow disused rail lines) is normally accessible by vehicle for maintenance purposes. It's not open to the general public as it's a leisure route for walkers, cyclists and horse riders (though I can't recall ever seeing a horse on there in all the times I've visited). Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] Sent: 16 December 2012 01:07 Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire On 15/12/2012 18:44, SomeoneElse wrote: A couple of weeks ago I spent a very cold day walking up and down part of the Monsal Trail - essentially from Little Longstone to the A6. It has been remapped since the tunnels reopened, but is in places a bit of a hodge-podge, so I propose to standardise it a bit as follows: o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path and highway=track that exists currently, replace with highway=track throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail maintenance folks' Land Rovers), but with appropriate access tags (which is I think* foot and bicycle=yes or permissive, and probably horse=yes or permissive, vehicle=no) and also surface and lit tags. I don't know this route; do motorised vehicles have access to all of it? If not I don't think highway=track should be used throughout. According to the wiki it is accessible to all vehicles. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Track. o Where the name tag incorporates both a tunnel name and a trail name (like with way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/116465140) move the tunnel name to some other tag. Although I'm normally sqeamish about having paths labelled after the most well-known trail that uses them, in the case of the Monsal Trail I'm tempted to leave the name=Monsal Trail labelling, because that's what the locals would refer to it as. Route relations were invented to specifically solve this problem. The Monsal Trail is a route that uses these ways. Other named routes could also use them, now or in the future. Putting the route in a relation avoids naming clashes. See the numerous NCN routes as examples. o Some of the ways that formed the old Monsal Trail before the tunnels reopened are still present in OSM (and in some cases far from obvious on the ground). Where these are tagged as bicycle-appropriate but clearly aren't I'll remove that tagging; Again, I don't know the specifics, but just because the route has be moved does that mean you can't cycle on the old ways? 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 -- 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] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire
Someoneelse wrote: o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path and highway=track that exists currently, replace with highway=track throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail maintenance folks' Land Rovers) To my mind, the duck tagging principle means that highway=cycleway is more appropriate. It quacks like a shared-use cycleway so we should tag it as one, unlike a track that is (say) regularly used by forestry traffic or agricultural vehicles. There are lots of 'rail trails' around Britain that are tagged as highway=cycleway and it would seem a shame to depart from established practice. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/The-Monsal-Trail-in-Derbyshire-tp5740527p5740695.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] Unfit for motors - tagging for routing
[I'm a bit confused about replying to the group, hope this goes to the right destination] Belated thanks for the various comments, I've been away. Of the various views, I tend to like highway=service + designation=unclassified_highway as the most useful. There are a lot of these signs in the Cotswolds - I could probably go out now and find 100 before it gets dark. They include 'Unfit for HGVs' (or sometimes lorries), 'Unfit for wide vehicles'/'Unfit for long vehicles' (but no length/width given), 'Unfit for long and wide vehicles' (but presumably your short and narrow heavy vehicle is OK), etc, etc. 'Unsuitable' is sometimes used, but I think 'Unfit' is more common, I suspect because it avoids a wider sign on a narrow road.. I've been ignoring these signs as too difficult to deal with until now, but I thought there ought to be a solution to the 'Unfit for motors' one. The legal definition is obviously important, but I think something more is needed to make the map useful (IMO, usefulness of the map is as important as accuracy). Many of the Unfit for motors signs are for roads that you would happily drive along as one way streets, it's the lack of passing places that makes them problematic. The same sign is used for a narrow but decent tarmac road with no passing places for 400 yards and a lane to a house that disintegrates into an impassable ORPA (in OS terms) after the house. More generally, there are lots of rural areas where all the roads are minor, but some are more (or less) minor than others. It would be useful to have tags that can distinguish between the useful minor roads and the ones that really are best avoided. I agree highway=service is unsatisfactory, but with designation=unclassified_highway it seems the least worst route to a helpful map. Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Unfit for motors - tagging for routing
Hi, This probably won't help the eventual tagging, but the 'unfit for 'wide / long vehicles' bit is to do with legislation, both UK nowadays European. I think the relevant bit is the 'Construction Use Regulations' which lays down the maximum sizes for normal road usage. If the vehicle exceeds these dimensions (either weight, length, width or height' then they become an 'abnormal indivisible load', and require notifications to the police other specialist departments before they are allowed to move. You also need special training a permit / licence before you can drive one, and may need an escort if it is big enough. The vehicle is fitted with boards marking it as a 'long vehicle' or wide or whatever. In simple terms, the dimensions have been standardised across the EEC, and if what your driving is big, it will be labelled as such you will know anyway. Regards Nick (Tallguy) On 17/12/12 14:35, cotswolds mapper wrote: [I'm a bit confused about replying to the group, hope this goes to the right destination] Belated thanks for the various comments, I've been away. Of the various views, I tend to like highway=service + designation=unclassified_highway as the most useful. There are a lot of these signs in the Cotswolds - I could probably go out now and find 100 before it gets dark. They include 'Unfit for HGVs' (or sometimes lorries), 'Unfit for wide vehicles'/'Unfit for long vehicles' (but no length/width given), 'Unfit for long and wide vehicles' (but presumably your short and narrow heavy vehicle is OK), etc, etc. 'Unsuitable' is sometimes used, but I think 'Unfit' is more common, I suspect because it avoids a wider sign on a narrow road.. I've been ignoring these signs as too difficult to deal with until now, but I thought there ought to be a solution to the 'Unfit for motors' one. The legal definition is obviously important, but I think something more is needed to make the map useful (IMO, usefulness of the map is as important as accuracy). Many of the Unfit for motors signs are for roads that you would happily drive along as one way streets, it's the lack of passing places that makes them problematic. The same sign is used for a narrow but decent tarmac road with no passing places for 400 yards and a lane to a house that disintegrates into an impassable ORPA (in OS terms) after the house. More generally, there are lots of rural areas where all the roads are minor, but some are more (or less) minor than others. It would be useful to have tags that can distinguish between the useful minor roads and the ones that really are best avoided. I agree highway=service is unsatisfactory, but with designation=unclassified_highway it seems the least worst route to a helpful map. Rob ___ 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] Yorkshire Dales or Forest of Bowland - unmapped areas?
I'd recommend a bit further North - Weardale is one of my favourites at the moment (around Stanhope or Froserley). I'm pretty sure you can get a bus from Darlington or Bishop Auckland. There is still plenty to do - the Weardale Way is complete, but there are loads of footpaths branching off it that are just stubs, and a marked Mineral Valleys Walk which needs following. A nice mixture of scenery and industrial archaeology if you like that sort of thing! Graham. -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Yorkshire Dales or Forest of Bowland - unmapped areas?
+1 From: Michael Collinson [mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz] Sent: 17 December 2012 13:54 To: Nick Whitelegg Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Yorkshire Dales or Forest of Bowland - unmapped areas? Well, the scenery around Malham and upper Wharfedale, Nidderdale, Swaledale is simply the best in the world ... Though I do admit to a slight bias. The beer int half bad neether. I have very extensively mapped and cross-referenced Wharfedale+ paths and tracks from Npe, os25k and Bing but the area is crying out for extensive ground truthing, in particular adding modern official designations (hallo Freemap!) Perhaps only 20 - 40% is done? I only get to do one or two walks per year. Mike On 17 Dec 2012, at 14:31, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Hi, Am thinking of getting away for 2 or 3 days early in the new year (1st-4th Jan) to somewhere hilly in the north of England within easy reach (by train/bus) of the Manchester area I haven't been to very often before, which would mean the Dales or the Forest of Bowland. Anyone from that area familiar with any areas which have good scenery and haven't had much in the way of footpath mapping? Looking round the area on OSM it seems fairly well covered but then I don't know it too well. If I decide on somewhere likely I can always organise a mapping party. Thanks, Nick = ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb _ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5965 - Release Date: 12/16/12 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire
On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 06:22 -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Someoneelse wrote: o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path and highway=track that exists currently, replace with highway=track throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail maintenance folks' Land Rovers) To my mind, the duck tagging principle means that highway=cycleway is more appropriate. It quacks like a shared-use cycleway so we should tag it as one, unlike a track that is (say) regularly used by forestry traffic or agricultural vehicles. There are lots of 'rail trails' around Britain that are tagged as highway=cycleway and it would seem a shame to depart from established practice. +1 I have walked the Monsal Trail many times, and cycleway does seem to me the way it should be tagged. Maybe add horse=yes if appropriate. Phil ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire
Hi I use to walk this route before the tunnels were open. Please keep the paths that use to run around the tunnels. The might be less used with the tunnels now open but they have spectacular views. I was never sure of their designation but presumably if the stiles still exist access can still be obtained. It also appears to be open access South of the Trail so the designation may not matter. In terms of tagging it appears that highway=cycleway is used for the Tissington and High Peak Trails (also disused railway lines in the region), although cycleway=track has been used on the Tissington Trail as well. Horses are allowed to use the trail so: horse=yes would be appropriate. Regards Dudley From: p...@trigpoint.me.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:30:52 + Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 06:22 -0800, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Someoneelse wrote: o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path and highway=track that exists currently, replace with highway=track throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail maintenance folks' Land Rovers) To my mind, the duck tagging principle means that highway=cycleway is more appropriate. It quacks like a shared-use cycleway so we should tag it as one, unlike a track that is (say) regularly used by forestry traffic or agricultural vehicles. There are lots of 'rail trails' around Britain that are tagged as highway=cycleway and it would seem a shame to depart from established practice. +1 I have walked the Monsal Trail many times, and cycleway does seem to me the way it should be tagged. Maybe add horse=yes if appropriate. Phil ___ 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
