Re: [Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

[Luke Smith]

Dudley was quite right, if there's a section of path in the PRoW dataset
our code would fill in the gap, on the assumption it was incomplete. If
there's a clear logical way of indicating a legal right of way that can't
be used in reality then I'll gladly update the code to reflect it. It's a
difficult one, because in theory without a Public Path Order, the highway
authority could turn up tomorrow and enforce the right of way, not that it
happens often.

I understand most highway authorities have mailing lists for updates to
public rights of way, which include interested parties on parish councils,
Ordnance Survey and sometimes Harvey Maps etc. Because grough has a good
working relationship with the Lake District NPA they offered to add us to
theirs (though ironically, haven't published any PRoW opendata), but I was
considering contacting other authorities and requesting to be added to any
PRoW mailing lists they have.

If successful in getting signed up to enough of these lists, we'd happily
develop and maintain some sort of database for the information we receive,
which might help keep track of new footpaths and diversion orders. Where
footpaths have their references in OSM it should be trivial to find them.
In other cases you'd need to consult the OS map accompanying the order. I'm
not sure the authorities would consent to these being publicly accessible
online, if they're not already.

Luke


On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:12 PM, SK53  wrote:

> On 9 September 2016 at 12:35, Richard Fairhurst 
> wrote:
>
>> Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>> > it would be interesting to know what routers make of highway=no.
>>
>> From
>> https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/blob/master/pro
>> files/foot.lua:
>>
>>   ...
>>
>> I'm not enormously comfortable with highway=no - it's a bit like the
>> justly
>> discouraged amenity=pub, disused=yes. The designation= tag should be
>> enough
>> on its own for something that isn't actually a highway on the ground.
>> (Maybe
>> one could invent a namespaced highway tag but I can't immediately think of
>> anything suitable...)
>>
>> cheers
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
> This is exactly what we did with this PRoW which is signposted but never
> used as the track round the edge of the field is more convenient:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/293561685.
>
> I was looking at  East & West Sussex council websites the other day
> (following up a note from a MapBox mapper) and they have lists of
> temporarily closed and obstructed PRoWs. If this type of information could
> be put into a common format (something like prow_ref, start GR, end GR,
> closure dates) and either provided by councils or crowd-sourced then this
> could be a useful way of identifying paths which ought not to be shown.
> Gating orders in towns are another consideration.
>
> Fortunately Carmarthenshire haven't released their data: working out which
> footpaths are viable is a tough task for much of the authority's area.
>
> Jerry
>
>
> ___
> 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] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

[Luke Smith]

taken from OSM and maybe we’ll indicate the discrepancy
between the real path and the legal status in some other way.

Richard Fairhurst:
> The major thing you need to look at, I would suggest, is access tagging.

Absolutely. One thing I am concerned about is making it too complex (i.e.
having to consult the legend all the time), but it’s clear we need to
improve on the access tagging we have at the minute. Watch this space.

Paul Berry:
> It's a great effort; please keep at it!

Thanks – hopefully we’ll keep updating this once every few weeks.
Unfortunately we can’t update as often as OSM does, because of all the data
matching.

Ed Loach:
> both the correct route for the Essex Way (as in OSM, here-ish
http://osm.org/go/0EHx9iB1-- )
> where it has been diverted north and south of where it passes under the
railway, and also show
> the pre-diverted footpaths (not in OSM) which used to cross the fields
diagonally

I’ll look into this. The official data I have downloaded might be old. Over
time I want to move to also comparing timestamps on OSM updates, to deal
with these changes more sensibly. The same issues likely apply to
buildings, because OS OpenMap hasn’t been updated since 2015 so could have
reinstated some demolished buildings.

> PS: I just tried searching for the grid reference without spaces, and
then it seemed to work.

Oops. Fixed now.

Thanks once again for all your comments.

Cheers

Luke


[1]
https://github.com/lukessmith/grough-map/blob/master/bin/linux/gm-import-prow.sh


On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Ed Loach <edlo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I’m not sure which of your data sources give which bit of your rendering,
> but at about TM 151 312 (and I can’t get search by grid reference to find
> this location – slightly NE of Bradfield, Essex) you have both the correct
> route for the Essex Way (as in OSM, here-ish http://osm.org/go/0EHx9iB1--
> ) where it has been diverted north and south of where it passes under the
> railway, and also show the pre-diverted footpaths (not in OSM) which used
> to cross the fields diagonally.
>
>
>
> But generally I think it looks great.
>
>
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> PS: I just tried searching for the grid reference without spaces, and then
> it seemed to work.
>
>
>
> *From:* Luke Smith [mailto:luke.sm...@grough.co.uk]
> *Sent:* 06 September 2016 16:03
> *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* [Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)
>
>
>
> I mentioned a while back that grough was developing a composite map,
> blending OSM data with OS OpenData to fill in the gaps, and using public
> rights of way data directly from the local authorities which have released
> it. Over time, hopefully we will rely progressively less on other data
> sources.
>
>
>
> I'm happy to say there's now a beta available, at http://geo.gy/ with
> more details about the project at http://map.grough.co.uk/.
>
>
>
> There'll also soon be a 3D version available, building on the prototype at
> http://3d.geo.gy/ to cover all of Great Britain and improve the controls.
>
>
>
> The source code behind generating the maps is open source, although not
> suitable for on-the-fly tile generation because of the preprocessing. The
> idea was to create a map which could be printed and used at a fixed scale
> (1:25,000 scale), with labels moved around to avoid obscuring detail etc.
>
>
>
> If anyone has comments or advice for us, it would be gratefully received.
> We're aware of some issues already, so this is only a beta release.
> Similarly if anyone would like to use the maps, we'd be more than happy to
> help if you run into problems.
>
>
>
> Luke
>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

[Luke Smith]

I mentioned a while back that grough was developing a composite map,
blending OSM data with OS OpenData to fill in the gaps, and using public
rights of way data directly from the local authorities which have released
it. Over time, hopefully we will rely progressively less on other data
sources.

I'm happy to say there's now a beta available, at http://geo.gy/ with more
details about the project at http://map.grough.co.uk/.

There'll also soon be a 3D version available, building on the prototype at
http://3d.geo.gy/ to cover all of Great Britain and improve the controls.

The source code behind generating the maps is open source, although not
suitable for on-the-fly tile generation because of the preprocessing. The
idea was to create a map which could be printed and used at a fixed scale
(1:25,000 scale), with labels moved around to avoid obscuring detail etc.

If anyone has comments or advice for us, it would be gratefully received.
We're aware of some issues already, so this is only a beta release.
Similarly if anyone would like to use the maps, we'd be more than happy to
help if you run into problems.

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

[Talk-GB] Composite mapping with OSM and OS data etc

[Luke Smith]

There was some talk on this list last week about the increasing number of
other sources of open spatial data now available in the UK, and how some
people are now mixing this together for composite maps.

I thought I'd give you a heads up that next week we'll be announcing a
project intended to make it easier to do just that. We're developing a
suite of open source tools, scripts and workflows to merge together data
from different sources, ideally selecting the highest quality data source
available for an area. This is specifically targeting outdoor leisure maps
and route planning.

Our intention is to create a workflow that allows maps to continually be
updated on this basis, rather than the single release approach taken by the
OSMGB project that Richard Fairhurst mentioned last week.

If that's of any interest to people, you'll find more information at
http://map.grough.co.uk/.

As examples, contour information is produced by merging Environment
Agency/NRW data with OS Terrain 50. Paths and tracks are taken from
OpenStreetMap, but supplemented by the PRoW datasets from the relevant
local authority if they're available, but the database reflects the fact
it's a legal right of way but there may be no path visible on the ground.

We're keen to work out how best to work alongside OSM, as we will
eventually be asking the users of our web and mobile apps to contribute
information back to the map, and volunteer their track logs after they've
been for a walk. We'd like to share this information with the OSM community
but recognise it won't always be good quality and it isn't something which
could be imported wholesale.

I stress that this is a work in progress, especially with regard to missing
labels on features and contours, but feel free to look at
http://map.grough.co.uk/demo/durham.png for an example tile near Durham.

Cheers

Luke

-- 

Luke Smith | Technical Director | grough

tel 07817 961718 | email luke.sm...@grough.co.uk | web www.grough.co.uk

“grough Limited” is registered in England and Wales. Registered number
06881144. Registered office 2 Spring Wells, Oakworth, Keighley, BD22 0QZ.
This e-mail is for the intended recipient only and may contain confidential
information, if you believe you have been sent this message in error please
contact us.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey Public Sector Mapping Agreement

[Luke Smith]

As I understand it, there is both a written record of where the rights 
of way go and the definitive map is in addition, with the written record 
taking precedence?


So if a local authority is drawing their map, and it's offset from the 
line of a wall for example from OS MasterMap, as the written record 
might say, then it wouldn't represent the wall, nor be a substitute for 
it, and it could be used independently of the OS data. Under the new 
derived data rules [1], that seems to make it free to use.


Copies of the definitive map go to Ordnance Survey and are used to piece 
together the 25K and 50K maps, but I'm told Ordnance Survey don't 
actually digitize it properly, just trace it, they claim not to have a 
vector dataset.


I don't know how local authorities are storing their data, but you can 
be sure they all do it differently. If we could get our hands on copies 
of the definitive map to trace (since the only feature you're copying, 
was put there by the LA, not OS), would that do?


I fear the problem is that even under the exemption process of the PSMA, 
the LAs don't have a dataset per se of PRoWs that they could just 
release, and might not be able to justify making one.


Regards,

Luke

[1] 
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/licences/using-and-creating-data-with-os-products/free-to-use-data/index.html


On 24/03/2011 12:20, Peter Miller wrote:



On 23 March 2011 19:25, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk 
mailto:mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:


Hi all,

Here is part of an email I sent to a few councils regarding rights
of way data (footpaths, bridleways, etc):


I have a big and fairly complicated request regarding the
definitive map. I am interested in making data more accessible to
the public (as encouraged by central government [1]). It would be
great if the rights of way data could be released without
restriction, specifically the definite map. As you probably know,
the rights of way data is derived from Ordnance Survey products
which until now has prevented this data being released without
restriction because of copyright. However OS will soon introduce
the Public Sector Mapping Agreement which defines how government
bodies can use OS products [2]. This includes a new mechanism for
public bodies to request datasets that have been derived from OS
products to be release either licensed as OS OpenData or Free
to Use (section 2.5 of the license [3]).
[1] http://data.gov.uk/
[2]
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/sectors/government/psma/

[3]

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/sectors/government/psma/docs/psma-member-licence.pdf



Kent County Council wrote back:


Dear Mr Sheerman-Chase
Thank you for your email.
I will forward your suggestions and comments to the Head of the
Service
and Definitive Map Team.
Kind regards
Countryside Access Service


Does anyone have any ideas on how to actually get the councils to
apply to OS to exempt their data and release it? Currently, I get
the impression that they don't rate data openness as a high
priority - they just nod and smile until I go away. It would be
good to get this data for quality assurance or even ... dun dun
dun... importing. Could we start a petition? Or use any
contacts the community has to make this happen? Any other data
sets worth liberating?

Once we have set a precedent, it should be easier to get other
councils to comply, because of the way the OS exemption process
works.


Technically I believe that the rights of way on the OS mapping is 
derived from the legal documentation provided by the council. As it 
happens I was talking to someone who was in a position to know about 
this recently and he said that the OS don't even claim ownership of 
rights of way data.


Also. my understanding is that Kent are particularly proactive on open 
data. This youtube presentation is worth looking at even though it 
seems to be about their map interface. Clearly they are talking the 
talk on open data.

http://sparkdev.co.uk/showcase/show/open-kent

Here is another link. Carol Patrick seems to be the person to talk to.
http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=9274627


Regards,



Peter



Thoughts?

Regards, TimSC


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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS VectorMap District with LandForm Panorama contours overlay

[Luke Smith]

The beta version of VMD is now available. Details on the OS website at 
http://blog.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/2011/03/os-vectormap-district-graduates-to-beta-release/


Some things have been generalised, others improved. Still not sure what 
to think of it really...


Luke

Luke Smith | Technical Director

grough | the inside view of the outdoor world | news, features  community
tel 07817 961718 | email luke.sm...@grough.co.uk 
mailto:%20luke.sm...@grough.co.uk | web www.grough.co.uk 
mailto:%20www.grough.co.uk
grough Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered number 
06881144. Registered office 2 Spring Wells, Oakworth, Keighley, BD22 
0QZ. This e-mail is for the intended recipient only and may contain 
confidential information, if you believe you have been sent this message 
in error please contact us.


On 15/03/2011 14:01, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
 I had a meeting with OS on Thursday, where they seemed to think the 
1st

 April would see the next release of VectorMap District. I'm going to
 render the whole country in the mean time (will take a few days) and
 work out what all the problems are, then see what's fixed in April.

Good; I'd rather wait and hope that they've fixed things, rather than
trying to work-around it somehow.

From my experiment the main problem is that VMD doesn't show service 
roads - which can make the odd footpath disappear in thin air. This is 
a shame because I'd like to run a lightweight map server where only 
paths with designation tag and foot=permissive are in the database 
(I'm forced into this approach due to limited server capacity) and I 
don't have to add anything else such as service roads.


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] OS VectorMap District with LandForm Panorama contours overlay

[Luke Smith]

Hi Phil,

What did you use for the 3D render? I keep meaning to look properly at 
setting up a WebGL map with the Landform Panorama data.


In terms of tracks, I tried to go for as broad a definition as possible, 
so anything picked out by:
WHERE ( highway IN ( 
'path','cycleway','footway','bridleway','byway','steps' ) AND (access 
IS NULL OR access != 'no') )


Tracks are picked up on a different layer, above paths and below the 
VectorMap roads.


Then I'm just using styling rules for bridleways, private paths and 
steps, everything else being a normal path. Having just looked at 
http://www.cyclestreets.net/journey/help/osmconversion/ I'm probably 
missing a few as well, with more obscure tags like 
designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic and designation=restricted_byway.


The maps I've put together aren't using the VectorMap raster, so I have 
the roads rendered above the paths - otherwise I'm sure things would be 
all over the place.


Ben Nevis etc is indeed coming from Strategi's selection of major 
mountains and mountain ranges (got a few problems with accents there I 
see). It's not great, but VectorMap District hopelessly misses out the 
major hills altogether. The 50K gazetteer has them in, but far too many 
points aren't categorised. Hopefully fixed in the next version. Text for 
water features is a complete disaster in VectorMap, with the locations 
being massively out and the text sizes being inconsistent, with many 
rivers set to the same style as the North Sea etc.


I had a meeting with OS on Thursday, where they seemed to think the 1st 
April would see the next release of VectorMap District. I'm going to 
render the whole country in the mean time (will take a few days) and 
work out what all the problems are, then see what's fixed in April.


Cheers,
Luke

On 13/03/2011 14:44, Phil Endecott wrote:

Hi Nick  Luke,

Luke Smith wrote:
Funnily enough I've been working on something similar now for a 
while. It's not perfect and needs a bit more work, but I've uploaded 
a couple of tiles (one London, the other Ben Nevis).


http://www.grough.co.uk/lib/documents/tmp/lss/nn17.jpg
http://www.grough.co.uk/lib/documents/tmp/lss/tq28.jpg

That's been put together using a mixture of OS StreetView 
(buildings), OS VectorMap District (roads, forests, water, crags), OS 
Landform Panorama (contours, relief), OS BoundaryLine (civil parish 
names), OS Strategi (national park boundaries, mountain range names) 
and OpenStreetMap (point names, footpaths, parks, schools etc).


Here are some of mine:

http://chezphil.org/tmp/vectormap/lakes_small.jpeg
http://chezphil.org/tmp/vectormap/borrowdale.jpeg
http://chezphil.org/tmp/vectormap/3dlakes.jpeg

What tags are you each using to extract OSM footpaths, tracks etc?

When I tried to do this, I found it difficult to get right: if you 
include too much you end up overlaying e.g. tracks on top of things 
that are shown on the OS data, and if you include less you miss 
things.  For example, Luke, I notice that you have tracks near the 
Fort William distillery that I don't have.  Last time I used something 
like this (PSEUDO-CODE):


if (highway==track) {
  path_type += track;
}
if (highway==bridleway || horse==yes || 
designation==public_bridleway

|| highway==cycleway) {
  path_type += bridleway;
} else if (highway==footway || foot==yes || 
designation==public_footpath) {

  path_type += footpath;
} else if (horse==permissive) {
  path_type += permissive_bridleway;
} else if (foot==permissive) {
  path_type += permissive_footpath;
} else if (highway==path) {
  path_type += path;
}

Luke, do the BEN NEVIS and AONACH MOR labels come from Strategi?  
I've not looked at that.  Bizarrely, the VectorMap data doesn't seem 
to have the name Ben Nevis at all; many other large mountains are 
also missing or mis-placed and too small.  I am hoping that this sort 
of thing will be fixed in their next release (when will that be?), but 
if not, maybe using the Strategi data is one possibility.



Cheers,  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

Re: [Talk-GB] OS VectorMap District with LandForm Panorama contours overlay

[Luke Smith]

Funnily enough I've been working on something similar now for a while. 
It's not perfect and needs a bit more work, but I've uploaded a couple 
of tiles (one London, the other Ben Nevis).


http://www.grough.co.uk/lib/documents/tmp/lss/nn17.jpg
http://www.grough.co.uk/lib/documents/tmp/lss/tq28.jpg

That's been put together using a mixture of OS StreetView (buildings), 
OS VectorMap District (roads, forests, water, crags), OS Landform 
Panorama (contours, relief), OS BoundaryLine (civil parish names), OS 
Strategi (national park boundaries, mountain range names) and 
OpenStreetMap (point names, footpaths, parks, schools etc).


So if there's anything I can help with let me know.

Luke

Luke Smith | Technical Director
-
grough | the inside view of the outdoor world | news, features  community
tel 07817 961718 | email luke.sm...@grough.co.uk 
mailto:%20luke.sm...@grough.co.uk | web www.grough.co.uk 
mailto:%20www.grough.co.uk
grough Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered number 
06881144. Registered office 2 Spring Wells, Oakworth, Keighley, BD22 
0QZ. This e-mail is for the intended recipient only and may contain 
confidential information, if you believe you have been sent this message 
in error please contact us.


On 12/03/2011 12:23, Nick Whitelegg wrote:

Hi,

I've managed to produce a slippy VectorMap District map with LandForm 
Panorama contours overlay at


http://www.free-map.org.uk/expts/vmdlfp200/

Only covers a 20km x 100km section of southern England at the moment.

Next stage will be to overlay OSM rights of way on the map.

Will write up a wiki page on the method used once it's complete.

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