Hi Adam,
Adding designation=public_footpath would be worthwhile (as long as the
paths are signposted as such), however as noted with the Classic vs
Alternative debate there is no need to change highway=footway.
Regards,
Rob
p.s. Check out my previous email about the wiki pages and let me know
Robert Norris [mailto:rw_nor...@hotmail.com] wrote:
Sent: 13 May 2012 20:53
To: adam.li...@dotankstudios.com; talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject
I always use Potlatch an editor, and so the majority of the paths I have
added are highway
Hey All,
This is a very interesting discussion - wish I'd spotted it a bit earlier.
My primary interest as someone-adding-to-OSM is places I can / can't walk, so
this discussion definitely affects the walking routes/paths I (feel I am)
looking after in/around South Bucks.
I always use
I always use Potlatch an editor, and so the majority of the paths I have
added are highway=footpath, unless I know it's designated as a bridleway in
which case I've set it as highway=bridleway. If I use a path, but it's not
actually signed as a public or otherwise footpath then I think I
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 other users of the countryside
and indicating them explicitly where known, either via designation, or
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 me
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
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,
On 07/05/12 10:34, Jonathan Harley wrote:
On 06/05/12 17:22, Andrew M. Bishop wrote:
Andy Streetm...@andystreet.me.uk writes:
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
I'd agree that generic consumers will struggle with highway=path,
designation=* but that is a wider OSM
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 me. Any path I see I in town I can easily classify
On a slightly different tangent, how if at all do we have have timed
restrictions on access types?
As the other day I was walking around the Ridgeway:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.422242618282993lon=-1.8314579782714844zoom=15layers=B000FTF
1. Some byways have permissions of no
And on another slight different tangent, I've noticed a lot of 'implied
surfaces' in both versions
eg *Please note*: omitting the
surfacehttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
=* tag implies it *is unpaved*
What's the background for suggesting not providing a surface tag will
result in an
Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk writes:
and allows multi-layer rendering such as
that done on Freemap.
Not sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify? If it's just
designations that make this happen, I think both systems work.
See www.free-map.org.uk and note how the
Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk writes:
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
I'd agree that generic consumers will struggle with highway=path,
designation=* but that is a wider OSM issue and not limited to the
path/footway, etc. debate. Anyone using OSM data should be
On 03/05/12 21:34, Andy Street wrote:
So you are saying that we should tag paths by who uses them but not do
the same for tracks. IMHO that is rather inconsistent.
Not quite. I'm advancing that one should classify according to the
primary use or build when one has sufficient evidence. Schemes
On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
On 03/05/12 21:34, Andy Street wrote:
No. Designation tags imply nothing in OSM right now, as currently
documented, and by design IIRC. Also, I refer you to the recent mailing
list post regarding other countries and what they might
P.S. It would appear that this thread is at risk of turning into a
difference of opinions between two individuals rather than a
discussion
amongst the wider community. Out of consideration for the other
users of
this list I will therefore not be making any further replies to
this
thread.
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 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.
(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
In view of recent interest in UK rights of way, should we set up a wiki
project, possibly at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/RightsOfWay
It would seem to be a good addition to the current UK projects.
Current Projects
Mapping of this country has been split into a
Peter Rounce wrote:
In view of recent interest in UK rights of way, should we set up a
wiki project, possibly at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/RightsOfWay
If you do that what would be helpful would be to include some reference
to the other wiki pages that
On 02/05/12 12:38, Peter Rounce wrote:
In view of recent interest in UK rights of way, should we set up a wiki
project, possibly at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom/RightsOfWay
It would seem to be a good addition to the current UK projects.
Are you planning to
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 looks of it (full
disclosure; it's the
31 matches
Mail list logo
