On 10 May 2012 23:46, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
* It has previously been suggested that a suspected=* tag be used for
when a mapper is undecided. Unless there are objections, I will add
suspected=* (where * is one of the 4 options - public
footpath/bridleway/BOAT/RB) and
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
If the right of way is recorded in the Definitive Statement, then its
100% verifiable that it is indeed a right of way, and we can (given
permission to use the Statement) record that in OSM.
Indeed - but it's helpful if a source:designation indicates that, so
On 07/05/12 13:19, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
As a relatively new mapper, two things stand out to me.
1) What Potlatch offers will be used. That means
h=footway/cycleway/bridleway/track will be used over h=path
2) The footway/cycleway/bridleway classification scheme makes perfect
sense to
People map to the level of detail they're comfortable with, and that's a
strength not a weakness. Legal designations, access rights and surface
type are pointless detail to a new mapper.
Sorry but I do have to say this. In an area (UK outside of Scotland) where
sadly, you're not free to roam
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Chadwick [mailto:a.t.chadw...@gmail.com]
Sent: 11 May 2012 10:38
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
On 07/05/12 13:19, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
As a relatively new mapper, two things stand out to
On 11/05/12 10:45, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
People map to the level of detail they're comfortable with, and that's a
strength not a weakness. Legal designations, access rights and surface
type are pointless detail to a new mapper.
(That was somewhat incautiously worded. Maybe we should make it into
On 11 May 2012 11:59, Andrew Chadwick a.t.chadw...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/05/12 10:45, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Sorry but I do have to say this. In an area (UK outside of Scotland)
where sadly, you're not free to roam where you like, access rights are
*absolutely vital detail* for walkers and
Hi All,
I've just noticed that parts of Farnham, Surrey above the A31 have been
deleted. A quick skim through the history reveals that the damage was
done in changeset 11477559.
The account concerned was created recently so this is likely to be a
mistake rather than vandalism. Unfortunately I
Thanks Richard Andy,
Just to address Andy's comment about new users tagging all footpaths as
designation=public_footpath regardless
of legal status (as they have seen it used elsewhere). Two points. First
Potlatch hides advanced tags away from the simple point and click drop down
menus; this may
Heard about this on the radio. See link below:
Here's a guy who is photographing post boxes in the UK - could be of real
help for OSM. Anyone have contact with him or any other members of the 'Letter
Box Study Group'?
On Fri, 11 May 2012, Andy Street wrote:
I've just noticed that parts of Farnham, Surrey above the A31 have been
deleted. A quick skim through the history reveals that the damage was
done in changeset 11477559.
The account concerned was created recently so this is likely to be a
mistake
Looks like a case of a new user simplifying the map to give directions to a
friend (not realising that their deletes are implemented for everyone).
There are 3 changesets. If people stay away from editing this area I will
discuss a revert on talk IRC channel this afternoon (not sure how to revert
On Fri, 11 May 2012, Rob Nickerson wrote:
Looks like a case of a new user simplifying the map to give directions to a
friend (not realising that their deletes are implemented for everyone).
There are 3 changesets. If people stay away from editing this area I will
discuss a revert on talk IRC
Royal Mail grid reference every post box
Erm, a request made under the Freedom of Information Act only returned
textual descriptions (usually names of roads, often a side road it is
'near'). I believe Hull has been very hard to find postboxes from this
list. If there is grid reference data for
On Fri, 11 May 2012 14:24:05 +0100
Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote:
Royal Mail grid reference every post box
Erm, a request made under the Freedom of Information Act only returned
textual descriptions (usually names of roads, often a side road it is
'near'). I believe Hull has
On 11 May 2012 14:24, Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote:
Royal Mail grid reference every post box
Erm, a request made under the Freedom of Information Act only returned
textual descriptions (usually names of roads, often a side road it is
'near'). I believe Hull has been very hard to
On 11/05/2012 14:24, Gregory wrote:
Royal Mail grid reference every post box
Erm, a request made under the Freedom of Information Act only returned
textual descriptions (usually names of roads, often a side road it is
'near'). I believe Hull has been very hard to find postboxes from this
list.
Was thinking more along the line of asking him is he minds us using his
photos to add the extra details to OSM (e.g. ref numbers, collection times,
and royal cyphers). This would of course depend on how good the photos are
- the ref numbers and collection times are quite small on the details pane
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Rob Nickerson
rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com wrote:
Was thinking more along the line of asking him is he minds us using his
photos to add the extra details to OSM (e.g. ref numbers, collection times,
and royal cyphers).
Or we could invite him to sign up to OSM
NB There's a group on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/postboxbypostcode/
With a reasonably active number of members and photos with varying amounts of
tag info.
Photographs are under the copyright terms of the original taker.
Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then
I could equally claim that information on the surface of paths is
absolutely essential for cyclists with road bikes, and that toilet
opening hours are absolutely essential for people with weak bladders.
In many areas OSM is completely hopeless at accurate routing for cars,
21 matches
Mail list logo
