Andy wrote:
I contacted Hampshire County Council last week but haven't had a
response yet.
I haven't made a formal approach to Essex CC, but have been trying
to build up a good relationship with their PROW team by reporting
blocked paths, broken stiles, fallen direction posts and the
On 30 April 2012 10:23, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
Which (yawn) is not a bad thing:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO it's either a track on the main highway
On 02/05/12 16:38, Chris Hill wrote:
On 02/05/12 16:29, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
designation=* has been evolving recently, and has added some open land
classifications:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation#UK_Protected_Areas
With the proliferation of these designation codes, would
P.S. Please don't yawn in your emails, it's rude.
Seconded. There's no need for this sort of disrespectful rudeness and sarcasm
on this list.
Nick
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
- Original Message -
From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Have you contacted a UK local authority in regards to
Rights of Way?
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 16:22 +,
On 02/05/12 16:41, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
One project goal might be to consolidate the various scattered
information on the wiki describing how to map RoWs in the first place.
Come up with *one* consensus approach. We seem to be settling on
designation=* + highway={foot,cycle,bridle}way, by the
Is there a good way to tag flats within a building so that it is clear the
flat numbers (e.g. 1-12) correspond with the building and not with the
street? These are two examples I'm struggling with:
A block of flats, 1-12 Honor Oak Mansions, sits on Underhill Road. The
block doesn't have a number
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 12:58 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
We both agree on using designation. This is good.
+1
Would you also agree that h=paths are generally too narrow to use in a
4-wheeled vehicle? After all, that's what h=tracks or the other road
types are intended for.
Generally, yes.
On 3 May 2012 14:42, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
Is there a good way to tag flats within a building so that it is clear the
flat numbers (e.g. 1-12) correspond with the building and not with the
street? These are two examples I'm struggling with:
A block of flats, 1-12 Honor Oak
I’ve used addr:flatnumber occasionally, but doubt anything currently
uses it judging by the overall low usage figures:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr%3Aflatnumber
So in your example it would be something like
addr:flatnumber=1-12
addr:housename=Honor Oak Mansions
and add the
On Thu, 3 May 2012, Matt Williams wrote:
On 3 May 2012 14:42, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
Is there a good way to tag flats within a building so that it is clear the
flat numbers (e.g. 1-12) correspond with the building and not with the
street? These are two examples I'm struggling
On 3 May 2012 14:59, Derick Rethans o...@derickrethans.nl wrote:
I've done addr:flats=1-18 before which I saw was in use:
14:57 osmbot-test Derick: Tag addr:flats has 1468 values and appears
5220 times in the planet.
14:58 osmbot-test Derick: Tag addr:flatnumber has 68 values and appears
On Thursday 03 May 2012, Tom Chance wrote:
On 3 May 2012 14:59, Derick Rethans o...@derickrethans.nl wrote:
I've done addr:flats=1-18 before which I saw was in use:
14:57 osmbot-test Derick: Tag addr:flats has 1468 values and appears
5220 times in the planet.
14:58 osmbot-test Derick:
* I contacted Hampshire County Council last week but haven't
had a** response yet.*
Is there a standard letter we are using to ask for this information?
David
I was intending to produce a standard letter and will post it here
when its done (might take me a week as I've got lots to do), but
(Where's the path?, Yes it does, doesn't it?)
On 03/05/12 14:47, Andy Street wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 12:58 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
By now, h=footway seems merely a specialisation of h=path. The _only_
information it adds is that it's normally used by pedestrians, or that
it is
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 18:02 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
The thing I dislike about footway, bridleway, etc. is that they mix the
physical characteristics with access information. Using your definition
above I can think of a number of foottracks, bridletracks and even a
footunclassified.
[... (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in this classification,
(i) those that tremble as if they were mad ...]
On 03/05/12 19:11, Andy Street wrote:
This hypothetical track follows the route of an ancient pathway and is
used more by the plethora of dog walkers from the nearby village
On 02/05/12 16:41, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
One project goal might be to consolidate the various scattered
information on the wiki describing how to map RoWs in the first place.
Come up with *one* consensus approach. We seem to be settling on
designation=* + highway={foot,cycle,bridle}way, by the
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 20:08 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
On 03/05/12 19:11, Andy Street wrote:
This hypothetical track follows the route of an ancient pathway and is
used more by the plethora of dog walkers from the nearby village than by
Farmer Giles. Surely by your logic this should be a
19 matches
Mail list logo
