Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 20:57, ael via Talk-GB wrote: > I would regard this as vandalism if it is removing surveyed real stiles > to suit an ideal world where they are not permitted on bridleways. I favour the definitions used on the English Wikipedia, which make it clear that vandalism is

Re: [Talk-GB] Talk-GB Digest, Vol 171, Issue 52

ad. Richard -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20201214/1e3ca890/attachment-0001.htm> -- ___ Talk-GB mail

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

I've also had an electric fence across a bridleway, and some very grumpy cows the other side of it. Luckily the farmer appeared and was very happy to let me through or it would have been retracing 3km of grassy riding on a touring bike. I'm rather prone to bike-hiking, even if not keen on it,

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

On 14/12/2020 20:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote: A barrier=stile on a long-established UK bridleway is 99.9% a mapping error. Bridleways are open to horses and bikes, and so stiles are forbidden - PRoW officers are pretty hot on this. That may be the case in the comfy Cotswolds but I'm not sure

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 20:58 ael via Talk-GB, wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 08:30:01PM +, Neil Matthews wrote: > > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from bridleways > -- > > pretty sure I've seen this done in other edits -- agree that they're a > > potential anomaly

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

Neil Matthews wrote: > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from > bridleways Um, no there hasn't? The changeset you've pointed to (which is one of mine) has a single stile moved to the side of a bridleway. I've done this a handful of times in the past, too, usually where

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 08:30:01PM +, Neil Matthews wrote: > Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from bridleways -- > pretty sure I've seen this done in other edits -- agree that they're a > potential anomaly but should they really be a mechanical edit (even if by > hand)?

Re: [Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

I have seen at least one bridleway with a stile (not a horse stile). Bridleways that were recently upgraded from public footpaths may still have old barriers. Just because there is a right of way, it doesn't mean that it's fully accessible (e.g a BOAT near Alton that has steps at one end). Jon

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

> I recall some means of tagging a step-over gate on a bridleway but can't remember or instantly find the tag. barrier=horse_stile On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 19:48, Chris Hodges wrote: > Accessibility tagging for bike routes would be great, and mean a lot of > work on the ground. Things like

[Talk-GB] Removing all stiles from bridleways

Looks like there's been an attempt to remove all stiles from bridleways -- pretty sure I've seen this done in other edits -- agree that they're a potential anomaly but should they really be a mechanical edit (even if by hand)? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95739504 Cheers, Neil

Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary

On 14/12/2020 19:21, Edward Bainton wrote: Glad I'm not going mad. Does it say anything useful or interesting that the "GPS trace" is a few metres away from the boundary as marked on the map? (Sorry if this has been answered recently: there was extensive discussion on alignment not long ago,

Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary

Either a datum mix-up or different roundings used in the constants for the back-and-forth conversion.  Either way that's not a real trace On 14/12/2020 19:33, Colin Smale wrote: On 2020-12-14 20:21, Edward Bainton wrote: With plenty of portages... Glad I'm not going mad. Does it say

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

Accessibility tagging for bike routes would be great, and mean a lot of work on the ground. Things like gate/bollard widths would be good, and some of the stuff to keep motorbikes out - though some at least can be tagged; I recall some means of tagging a step-over gate on a bridleway but can't

Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary

On 2020-12-14 20:21, Edward Bainton wrote: > With plenty of portages... > > Glad I'm not going mad. Does it say anything useful or interesting that the > "GPS trace" is a few metres away from the boundary as marked on the map? > (Sorry if this has been answered recently: there was extensive

Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary

With plenty of portages... Glad I'm not going mad. Does it say anything useful or interesting that the "GPS trace" is a few metres away from the boundary as marked on the map? (Sorry if this has been answered recently: there was extensive discussion on alignment not long ago, but too technical

Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary

On 14/12/2020 17:49, Martin Wynne wrote: On 14/12/2020 17:27, Edward Bainton wrote: Any thoughts on why when I enable "public GPS traces" in iD, I get one that near enough exactly tracks the LA boundary South Kesteven:Peterborough (at Deeping St James)? Someone took their tracker with

Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary

On 14/12/2020 17:27, Edward Bainton wrote: Any thoughts on why when I enable "public GPS traces" in iD, I get one that near enough exactly tracks the LA boundary South Kesteven:Peterborough (at Deeping St James)? Someone took their tracker with them when "Beating the Bounds"?

Re: [Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary

I suspect someone has uploaded a GPX version of the boundary from OS Boundary-Line. It doesn't look like an actual trace from a GPS receiver. On 2020-12-14 18:27, Edward Bainton wrote: > Any thoughts on why when I enable "public GPS traces" in iD, I get one that > near enough exactly tracks

[Talk-GB] "GPS trace" tracking county boundary

Any thoughts on why when I enable "public GPS traces" in iD, I get one that near enough exactly tracks the LA boundary South Kesteven:Peterborough (at Deeping St James)? See https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.6543/-0.2655=G It seems unlikey that it really is a GPS trace - or is it?

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

I’d agree with your approach and I’ve raised this before, but haven’t had the time to come back to it. From a routing perspective it would be useful to be able to tag ACCESSIBILITY - ie sections of route that are unsuitable for some users - not related to the legality but so that disabled

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

Yes - step_count is also very useful Jon On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 17:21, Michael Collinson wrote: > FYI, here's the schema I personally use in Sweden, where heavy use is made > of ramped staircases, though not thankfully on major cycle routes. My > objective is to allow routers to intelligently

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

FYI, here's the schema I personally use in Sweden, where heavy use is made of ramped staircases, though not thankfully on major cycle routes. My objective is to allow routers to intelligently route for both sport/club/large group riding and happy meandering or commute: bicycle=yes only on

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a single Royal Mail mailbox with two references

Here is an example to copy from. Note post_box:apertures tag and the semi-colon (no spaces) in the ref. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8172063557 Stephen On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 13:49, Mat Attlee wrote: > > What's the most appropriate way to map a single physical Royal Mail mailbox > with

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

resending as I think I sent it from the wrong email address. However, blue advisory signs about HGVs are tagged as hgv=discouraged, not as hgv=yes despite there being a legal right of way for HGVs (sometimes, similar signs are shown for all vehicles, eg on fords or ORPAs) - see "discouraged" at

Re: [Talk-GB] Mapping a single Royal Mail mailbox with two references

The Wiki says, "Sometimes several post boxes are standing together and can most often be tagged with one single node. If the boxes have different reference numbers this is tagged as ref=12242;23214. You can also use two separate nodes in such cases, which may be more appropriate if the boxes

[Talk-GB] Mapping a single Royal Mail mailbox with two references

What's the most appropriate way to map a single physical Royal Mail mailbox with two signs and references? I recently stumbled upon such a mailbox and created a POI for each sign / reference: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8214997322 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8215022917 However

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

Hello Adam, OK - that's great, thanks! Does the AWS hosting include full shell access? We'll need that to install the relevant software. Let me know if/when the server space is available. In the meantime I will create a Hetzner server to start experimenting, this will be around EUR4/month

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging bike ramp/ bike path down steps

> On 13 Dec 2020, at 19:18, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB > wrote: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2020, 19:14 David Woolley, > wrote: > On 13/12/2020 19:05, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB wrote: > > Also, the steps should have bicycle=dismount, not =yes. This will allow > >