[Talk-gb-westmidlands] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Go Map!! is in the Apple app store
Hi folks, If anyone has a iphone and/or an ipad and wants to try this new OSM app out then I would be very interested in feedback. Perhaps a few sentences and we can upload it to the mappa mercia blog too. All the best, Rob -- Forwarded message -- I'd like to highly recommend a brand-new, native, and free* iOS OSM editor: Go Map!! https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=592990211mt=8 The author is a member of the Seattle OSM community, so I'm biased, but I think it rocks. Regards, Jeff * as in free beer! -- Jeff Meyer Global World History Atlaswww.gwhat.org ___ Talk-gb-westmidlands mailing list Talk-gb-westmidlands@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-westmidlands
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
Hi Barry, On 24 Jan 2013 11:38, Barry Cornelius barrycorneliu...@gmail.com wrote: Please can you confirm that the routes are now better... The Devon kml data looks spot on now. thanks, Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way
All this discussion of rights of way reminds me: is there a consensus about how (and whether) to map rights-of-way which are either impassable or invisible? I've encountered examples of both round here, and have so far chosen not to map them at all, on the grounds that we're trying to map the actual state of the ground, not some legal fiction. Do people concur? -- Cheers, John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
On 24 Jan 2013, at 14:34, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Not entirely tangential question - Is there any chance that the designation tag will be rendered in the default mapnik anytime soon / ever? Or is there somewhere that already exists that renders designations? Yes - www.free-map.org.uk. (at least for southern and northern England and Wales) sad to say it doesn't appear to cover the chilterns - I think it might have done a while ago, but not now :'( On 24 Jan 2013, at 15:01, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: Since the public rights of way tagging using designation=* is a very British (actually English and Welsh) thing, I doubt it will ever be rendered on the main OSM map. :-( I'm sure you're probably correct, but are we sure designation doesn't apply outside of the UK? I think it's worth pursuing - anyone know what the process is to request it's added - it would add some much value to the UK map that I really do think it's worth making the case to have it added. However, depending on what you're interested in, there's a nice view from ITO that highlights ways tagged with the main PRoW designation tags: http://www.itoworld.com/map/87#fullscreen That's awesome, although depressingly it shows just how few I have actually managed to tag with a designation :'( Thanks all! Adam___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
Not entirely tangential question - Is there any chance that the designation tag will be rendered in the default mapnik anytime soon / ever? Or is there somewhere that already exists that renders designations? Yes - www.free-map.org.uk. (at least for southern and northern England and Wales) sad to say it doesn't appear to cover the chilterns - I think it might have done a while ago, but not now :'( It covers most of the counties at: http://download.geofabrik.de/openstreetmap/europe/great_britain/england/ plus Wales (all - easier to deal with being a more sparsely-populated area hence less data) It's just about impossible on my server to import the whole of England, let alone the UK, into postgres using osm2pgsql, so I'm having to do it county-by-county. Consequently I'm restricted to using (most of) the counties on Geofabrik. I could add Oxfordshire (available on geofabrik) to the coverage area, would that help for your area? I do have one or two possible offers of server space so there is the possibility of extending Freemap back to the whole of the UK. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] PRoW surveying authorities (Was: Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=)
On 25 Jan 2013, at 10:42, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Not entirely tangential question - Is there any chance that the designation tag will be rendered in the default mapnik anytime soon / ever? Or is there somewhere that already exists that renders designations? Yes - www.free-map.org.uk. (at least for southern and northern England and Wales) sad to say it doesn't appear to cover the chilterns - I think it might have done a while ago, but not now :'( It's just about impossible on my server to import the whole of England, let alone the UK, into postgres using osm2pgsql, so I'm having to do it county-by-county. Consequently I'm restricted to using (most of) the counties on Geofabrik. completely understand. I could add Oxfordshire (available on geofabrik) to the coverage area, would that help for your area? Annoyingly I straddle the border between South Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire - if I had to choose I'd go for Bucks, as that's where the better walks are ;-) I do have one or two possible offers of server space so there is the possibility of extending Freemap back to the whole of the UK. that would be awesome :-) Best, Adam ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 10:09 +, John Aldridge wrote: All this discussion of rights of way reminds me: is there a consensus about how (and whether) to map rights-of-way which are either impassable or invisible? I've encountered examples of both round here, and have so far chosen not to map them at all, on the grounds that we're trying to map the actual state of the ground, not some legal fiction. Do people concur? Broadly, yes. IMHO: Impassable - If you can't traverse a right of way then it shouldn't have a highway tag. There may be a case for adding a way with just the designation tag but I would consider it to be the exception rather than the rule. If someone is interested solely in the definitive legal status of a path then they will use the definitive map not OSM. Invisible - I suppose this would depend on why it is invisible. I've mapped plenty of paths that were invisible because the grass was too short to leave footprints or the ground had recently been ploughed. Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way
Report the problem to your local authority who have a legal obligation to sort it out with the landowner. My local councils do sort it out, occasionally they need a reminder, but it is worth the effort. I only add a PRoW if I have surveyed it on the ground, so if it is impassable I would not add it until becomes passable. --- Cheers, Chris OSM user: chillly Original message From: John Aldridge j...@jjdash.demon.co.uk Date: 25/01/2013 10:09 (GMT+00:00) To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way All this discussion of rights of way reminds me: is there a consensus about how (and whether) to map rights-of-way which are either impassable or invisible? I've encountered examples of both round here, and have so far chosen not to map them at all, on the grounds that we're trying to map the actual state of the ground, not some legal fiction. Do people concur? -- Cheers, John ___ 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] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way
On 25/01/2013 10:09, John Aldridge wrote: I've encountered examples of both round here, and have so far chosen not to map them at all, on the grounds that we're trying to map the actual state of the ground, not some legal fiction. We should be mapping to both conditions, If, on the ground, there's a sign stating its legality, then I think it should be added. The condition of the way shouldn't be the deciding factor, but it should be explained with further sub-tags. Blockages of ways are often just temporary. I disagree with Andy Street's comment: If you can't traverse a right of way then it shouldn't have a highway tag. As Chris Hill suggests contact your L.A. I've done it a few times they did act on it, but only after a bit of difficulty explaining their own path reference numbers to them. Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 13:58 +, Dave F. wrote: Blockages of ways are often just temporary. I disagree with Andy Street's comment: If you can't traverse a right of way then it shouldn't have a highway tag. Okay perhaps I could have been clearer but I wasn't suggesting omitting the highway tag on paths that have the occasional fallen tree or something that is likely to be rectified quickly, what I had in mind was when someone builds a house over a public right of way or where you'd need power-tools because the path is completely non-existent. It's the same principal as roadworks where we don't change how we tag unless they are going to close the road for a significant length of time. As Chris Hill suggests contact your L.A. I've done it a few times they did act on it, but only after a bit of difficulty explaining their own path reference numbers to them. +1 If there is a problem with the path notify the local authority regardless of how you tag it in OSM. Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:52 +, Andy Street wrote: when someone builds a house over a public right of way Does that happen often? Is there not some requirement to then knock the house down again if it's blocking a right of way? hen ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 19:01 +, Henry Gomersall wrote: On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:52 +, Andy Street wrote: when someone builds a house over a public right of way Does that happen often? Is there not some requirement to then knock the house down again if it's blocking a right of way? Not all that often but there are occasions when someone drops the ball. The case I was thinking of when I wrote that seemed more accidental than deliberate and was fixed by the local authority making a diversion order to move the path around the edge of the property. Other interesting paths I've seen include going through the side wall of a barn and across the middle of an effluent pond in a sewage works! Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way
I think normally the footpath will be legally redirected around the new building before its built, but I have heard of a few cases where the footpath never got moved (I think I came across one because there was no sign of a path where the OS map showed there was one, but OS maps can be quite inaccurate at times) and people are obliged to let someone in their front door and let them out the back door and cross their garden. In the situations where footpaths get moved isn't this what OSM is all about - people finding the path has moved and updating the map to show where it actually is long before the ordinance survey people survey or update their maps to show the new location. Ideally the person updating the map will have found the notice board that is put at the start and end of the old route showing the new route is the new official one, so they can designate it as official in OSM and the source is the notice board, otherwise I guess they can only mark it as a path.From: h...@cantab.net To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:01:42 + Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 18:52 +, Andy Street wrote: when someone builds a house over a public right of way Does that happen often? Is there not some requirement to then knock the house down again if it's blocking a right of way? hen ___ 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] Invisible/impassable rights-of-way
On 25/01/2013 18:52, Andy Street wrote: On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 13:58 +, Dave F. wrote: Blockages of ways are often just temporary. I disagree with Andy Street's comment: If you can't traverse a right of way then it shouldn't have a highway tag. Okay perhaps I could have been clearer but I wasn't suggesting omitting the highway tag on paths that have the occasional fallen tree or something that is likely to be rectified quickly, what I had in mind was when someone builds a house over a public right of way or where you'd need power-tools because the path is completely non-existent. It's the same principal as roadworks where we don't change how we tag unless they are going to close the road for a significant length of time. In one case, the location of the path is clear, because it runs between two walls and the green Public Footpath signs are present, but a section of it has become completely and densely overgrown with brambles. It also has a large pile of earth obstructing it, which makes me wonder whether the obstruction is deliberate. It's been like this for at least a couple of years. If there is a problem with the path notify the local authority regardless of how you tag it in OSM. I've done that already, though I would sympathise with the council if they chose to do nothing about it, because the section is only a couple of hundred yards long, and there is an equally convenient alternative walking route. In the other case, the right of way runs diagonally across a field, but on the first few times I first visited it (over a period of a couple of years, so it wasn't just a temporary issue) the field was full of crops, and there was no sign of the path on the ground. There is an alternative path running round two sides of the field, but it is not a right of way. This case is now of only theoretical interest, though, because the last time I went there the farmer had reinstated the diagonal path, and I was able to map it properly. -- Cheers, John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
