[Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage map

2009-10-23 Thread Nick Whitelegg
Hello everyone,

Following on from the unintentional rights-of-way coverage map generated 
by zooming out from the OSM/First Edition mashup that I mentioned the 
other day, I've now done a script to generate a real one.

It's available at

http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/stats/statsmap.php

That page also details what I consider rights of way. It shows quite 
well which areas of England and Wales have good ROW coverage and which 
need a lot more work (a project for 2010, perhaps?)

Also see the blog post

http://www.free-map.org.uk/wordpress/?p=19

Note that these maps are generated from Freemap's copy of the OSM 
database, so might be up to a week out of date. I normally update Freemap 
weekly so some animations should be possible in future!

Also note that areas immediately around the big cities are excluded from 
the Freemap database, but then they wouldn't have many rights of way 
anyway!

Nick

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


Re: [Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage map

2009-10-23 Thread Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Sent: 23 October 2009 10:43 AM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage map

Hello everyone,

Following on from the unintentional rights-of-way coverage map generated
by zooming out from the OSM/First Edition mashup that I mentioned the
other day, I've now done a script to generate a real one.

It's available at

http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/stats/statsmap.php

That page also details what I consider rights of way. It shows quite
well which areas of England and Wales have good ROW coverage and which
need a lot more work (a project for 2010, perhaps?)

Also see the blog post

http://www.free-map.org.uk/wordpress/?p=19

Note that these maps are generated from Freemap's copy of the OSM
database, so might be up to a week out of date. I normally update Freemap
weekly so some animations should be possible in future!

Also note that areas immediately around the big cities are excluded from
the Freemap database, but then they wouldn't have many rights of way
anyway!


Couple of comments on that. Quite a lot of PROW within the urban sprawl.
These being ways that have had to be adjusted and realigned when housing
development extended, but at least were maintained as a route.

I assume your render is looking for the designation tag?  A lot of footways
I've added don't have that on them yet so wouldn't show up. How about a
combined map to show the extent of this difference, if indeed that is the
basis of your present version.

Cheers

Andy

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] Proper Rights of Way coverage map

2009-10-23 Thread Nick Whitelegg
Hello Andy,

Couple of comments on that. Quite a lot of PROW within the urban sprawl.
These being ways that have had to be adjusted and realigned when housing
development extended, but at least were maintained as a route.

True, though perhaps these aren't so important to show as most people 
interested in using rights of ways are going to be using them in the 
countryside. 

I assume your render is looking for the designation tag?  A lot of 
footways
I've added don't have that on them yet so wouldn't show up. How about a
combined map to show the extent of this difference, if indeed that is the
basis of your present version.

It's a bit more sophisticated than that; see the URL for what I consider a 
right of way. Note that I tried a version with highway=footway,foot=yes 
added in, and got the same sort of pattern.

Nick

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


Re: [Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage map

2009-10-23 Thread Nick Whitelegg
It's a bit more sophisticated than that; see the URL for what I consider 
a right of way. Note that I tried a version with highway=footway,foot=yes 
added in, and got the same sort of pattern.

Nick

In fact, it's possible to add highway=footway, foot=yes to the definition 
of a right of way by going to:

http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/stats/coverage.php?footyes=1

(compare with http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/stats/coverage.php)

Nick

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


Re: [Talk-GB] Proper Rights of Way coverage map

2009-10-23 Thread OJ W
just wondering: are any of the highway=footpath tags still in OSM
database?  I always used to use those for legal rights-of-way
footpaths with a footpath sign until it became OSM-standard that
highway=footway should be used for all paths regardless of legal
status.

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