Re: [Talk-GB] Somerset Levels Flooding

[Brian Savidge]

I thought temporary information like closures of paths and roads were good to 
put on the map, if nothing else to allow routing to avoid them.
 
The water I agree is likely to be a bit inaccurate and isn't going to help with 
the routing, but like a road, those areas will be wet for quite some time 
(weeks to months), so as long as the person doing it keeps it relatively up to 
date, I guess there is no real problem.  The real problem comes when its not 
maintained.
 
> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 00:24:31 +
> From: dave...@madasafish.com
> To: talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-GB] Somerset Levels Flooding
> 
> Hi
> 
> About a week ago user Jestr88 added large areas tagged natural=water; 
> name=flooding. to indicate the flooded areas on the Somerset levels.
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/258412163
> 
> Apart from the inaccuracy of these (water levels vary hourly) I thought 
> temporary information was frowned upon. I think they should be removed 
> or am I missing something?
> 
> Dave F.
> 
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
> protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Somerset Levels Flooding

[Dave F.]

Hi

About a week ago user Jestr88 added large areas tagged natural=water; 
name=flooding. to indicate the flooded areas on the Somerset levels.


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/258412163

Apart from the inaccuracy of these (water levels vary hourly) I thought 
temporary information was frowned upon. I think they should be removed 
or am I missing something?


Dave F.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Confirmation of Rights of Way tags

[Rob Nickerson]

@Nick: When we discussed how to tag the yellow arrow on its own the general
conclusion was that "it depends on the normal practice off the local
authority". AndyS cautioned that some permissive paths can be tagged just
with a yellow arrow.

@Jerry: The issue you refer to is a consequence of the way the designation
tag was previously described in potlatch2. A clean up would be nice at some
stage. It's low on my to do list at the moment. Help welcome. Oh, I seem to
recall that 'permissive' can have a legal implication (I think the deal is
that the landowner agrees to keep it open for so many days per year in
exchange for a guarantee that the path will not be made into a public right
of way - I would want to check this though).

Rob
On 5 Feb 2014 10:47, "SK53"  wrote:

> I've just been looking at use of designation on taginfo 
> UKand there are 
> many not very appropriate uses.
>
> The ones which stick out to me are : permissive_bridleway (if its
> permissive it's not been designated), "Holiday Chalet" and "The
> Co-operative Food", as well as a few obvious misues instead of a ref tag.
>
> It would be nice to clean some of this up as it makes the meaning of the
> tag (legal/official designation) unclear.
>
> Quite agree with Nick the yellow markers, usually with name of the Highway
> Authority, are good for Public Footpath.
>
> Jerry
>
>
> On 5 February 2014 10:22, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
>>
>> One comment I will make on the tagging wiki page is that I think in the
>> vast majority of cases, one can assume that a yellow arrow without the text
>> "public footpath" *is* indeed a public footpath.
>> There might be a few cases where there's a yellow-colour-coded nature
>> trail in a country park, but these are in a minority. Certainly in open
>> farmland, moorland, etc yellow arrows are almost certain to be footpaths
>> (and blue, bridleways).
>>
>> I have used the designation tag in these cases many, many times.
>>
>> I think it's better to make the assumption than have an incomplete map
>> where many designation tags are missing. If it's then later discovered
>> *not* to be a right of way, the designation tag can always be removed.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> -Rob Nickerson  wrote: -
>> To: Gregory Marler , Talk-GB <
>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
>> From: Rob Nickerson 
>> Date: 04/02/2014 11:21PM
>> Subject: [Talk-GB] Confirmation of Rights of Way tags
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just to confirm, the tags for a right of way are described at
>>
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions#Public_Rights_of_Way
>>
>> Basically, if its on the ground AND in the councils definitive map as a
>> right of way then use designation=public_footpath (or public_bridleway,
>> etc). You can also use this if it is on the ground AND signposted as such.
>> For other paths you can use suspected:designation=public_footpath or
>> suspected:designation=row, and we will aim to get these followed up before
>> 2026.
>>
>> Rob
>> ___
>> 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] Confirmation of Rights of Way tags

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 5 February 2014 10:47, SK53  wrote:
> I've just been looking at use of designation on taginfo UK and there are
> many not very appropriate uses.

Indeed. I think many may have been caused by Potlatch previously
having a "designtaion" box appear by default on a lot of objects,
which caused many people to think they should put something in there.
I think that's been fixed now, but a lot of odd values do persist. I
did have a go at sorting some of them out a while ago, but gave up as
it felt like I was fighting a loosing battle. I do however keep an eye
out for things that might be typos of commonly used legitimate values,
and fix those where there's been an obvious mistake. See
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/designation.html

> The ones which stick out to me are : permissive_bridleway (if its permissive
> it's not been designated),

That's not always the case, though it depends a bit on how you define
"designated". Certainly there is/was some sort DEFRA / Natural England
scheme whereby there are incentives for farmers to open up permissive
routes on their land. These routes are officially agreed, so I think
it's fair to say they've be designated as permissive routes. Also, I
think there's a reasonable argument that if a route is explicitly
signed as a Permissive Bridleway, then it has been 'designated' as
such by the land-owner. In both these cases, I'd say that
designation=permissive_XXX would be an appropriate tag to use. (I
think there may also be a way for land-owners to officially record
permissive routes with the Rights of Way department of the local
council, in order to protect themselves against any future
rights-of-way claims. So if they've done this, it could also be
regarded as officially designated as a permissive route.)

> Quite agree with Nick the yellow markers, usually with name of the Highway
> Authority, are good for Public Footpath.

It comes down to knowing your local area I think. If the local council
typically uses a certain style of yellow markers without an explicit
"Public Footpath" text to mark Public Footpaths, then it would be fine
to use such signs as sufficient evidence to record the route on OSM.
In areas where the council signs normally look quite different, then
you'd be on less firm ground.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] London hack weekend

[Matt Amos]

after the last hack weekend, i wanted to have another around the
beginning of March, and that's rapidly approaching. here's a doodle
poll for the weekends and if you're interested in coming, please
indicate which weekends you'd be available.

http://www.doodle.com/hh4vnx2p8kzrnypv#table

thanks,

matt

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Confirmation of Rights of Way tags

[SK53]

I've just been looking at use of designation on taginfo
UKand
there are many not very appropriate uses.

The ones which stick out to me are : permissive_bridleway (if its
permissive it's not been designated), "Holiday Chalet" and "The
Co-operative Food", as well as a few obvious misues instead of a ref tag.

It would be nice to clean some of this up as it makes the meaning of the
tag (legal/official designation) unclear.

Quite agree with Nick the yellow markers, usually with name of the Highway
Authority, are good for Public Footpath.

Jerry


On 5 February 2014 10:22, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

>
> One comment I will make on the tagging wiki page is that I think in the
> vast majority of cases, one can assume that a yellow arrow without the text
> "public footpath" *is* indeed a public footpath.
> There might be a few cases where there's a yellow-colour-coded nature
> trail in a country park, but these are in a minority. Certainly in open
> farmland, moorland, etc yellow arrows are almost certain to be footpaths
> (and blue, bridleways).
>
> I have used the designation tag in these cases many, many times.
>
> I think it's better to make the assumption than have an incomplete map
> where many designation tags are missing. If it's then later discovered
> *not* to be a right of way, the designation tag can always be removed.
>
> Nick
>
> -Rob Nickerson  wrote: -
> To: Gregory Marler , Talk-GB <
> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
> From: Rob Nickerson 
> Date: 04/02/2014 11:21PM
> Subject: [Talk-GB] Confirmation of Rights of Way tags
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Just to confirm, the tags for a right of way are described at
>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions#Public_Rights_of_Way
>
> Basically, if its on the ground AND in the councils definitive map as a
> right of way then use designation=public_footpath (or public_bridleway,
> etc). You can also use this if it is on the ground AND signposted as such.
> For other paths you can use suspected:designation=public_footpath or
> suspected:designation=row, and we will aim to get these followed up before
> 2026.
>
> Rob
> ___
> 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] Confirmation of Rights of Way tags

[Nick Whitelegg]

One comment I will make on the tagging wiki page is that I think in the vast 
majority of cases, one can assume that a yellow arrow without the text "public 
footpath" *is* indeed a public footpath.
There might be a few cases where there's a yellow-colour-coded nature trail in 
a country park, but these are in a minority. Certainly in open farmland, 
moorland, etc yellow arrows are almost certain to be footpaths (and blue, 
bridleways).

I have used the designation tag in these cases many, many times.

I think it's better to make the assumption than have an incomplete map where 
many designation tags are missing. If it's then later discovered *not* to be a 
right of way, the designation tag can always be removed.

Nick

-Rob Nickerson  wrote: -
To: Gregory Marler , Talk-GB 

From: Rob Nickerson 
Date: 04/02/2014 11:21PM
Subject: [Talk-GB] Confirmation of Rights of Way tags

Hi,

Just to confirm, the tags for a right of way are described at

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions#Public_Rights_of_Way
 
Basically, if its on the ground AND in the councils definitive map as a right 
of way then use designation=public_footpath (or public_bridleway, etc). You can 
also use this if it is on the ground AND signposted as such. For other paths 
you can use suspected:designation=public_footpath or suspected:designation=row, 
and we will aim to get these followed up before 2026.
 
Rob
 
___
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