Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
At that time, and for many years later, OS maps did not explicitly show rights of way, and always had a disclaimer on them along the lines of "The depiction of a track or path on this map does not imply the existence of a public right of way". Roger On 30/12/2019 12:02, Nick Whitelegg wrote: This reminds me of the old First Series maps last published around 1958-ish. Looking at an area I'm very familiar with: it does not show public rights of way; it merely seems to show paths which are physically present on the ground. Some of these are rights of way, and some are not. Nick *From:* Martin Wynne *Sent:* 29 December 2019 22:52 *To:* talk-gb@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render On 29/12/2019 22:23, Andy Townsend wrote: > Looking elsewhere in a couple of areas I'm familiar with, as well as > missing data, there are plenty of of basic digitisation errors around, > e.g. gardens seeming to be significantly larger then they should be. > This is, I guess, only the free version - maybe there's a parallel > complete version for paying customers? Hi Andy, No there isn't - I'm a Premium subscriber. The "Standard" base map is rubbish as a map in its own right. For example it has contour lines, but no height indications on them, or even which direction is uphill. What's the use of that? It is used as a base map for other coloured overlays in addition to the Street map, such as the National Park Paths, Cycle Map, Greenspace maps. None of which work very well. On mobile devices there is also a low-brightness Night map which is useful. However, the Aerial, 25K and 50K maps are fine -- and the 3D stuff and fly-over functions are great. The main reason for subscribing however, is the ability to view a large database of routes, create your own custom routes to add to it (or not), and have an easy URL of your route which you can send to friends. cheers, Martin. ___ 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 -- Roger Calvert ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render
This reminds me of the old First Series maps last published around 1958-ish. Looking at an area I'm very familiar with: it does not show public rights of way; it merely seems to show paths which are physically present on the ground. Some of these are rights of way, and some are not. Nick From: Martin Wynne Sent: 29 December 2019 22:52 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Which paths are shown on this OS 'Standard' render On 29/12/2019 22:23, Andy Townsend wrote: > Looking elsewhere in a couple of areas I'm familiar with, as well as > missing data, there are plenty of of basic digitisation errors around, > e.g. gardens seeming to be significantly larger then they should be. > This is, I guess, only the free version - maybe there's a parallel > complete version for paying customers? Hi Andy, No there isn't - I'm a Premium subscriber. The "Standard" base map is rubbish as a map in its own right. For example it has contour lines, but no height indications on them, or even which direction is uphill. What's the use of that? It is used as a base map for other coloured overlays in addition to the Street map, such as the National Park Paths, Cycle Map, Greenspace maps. None of which work very well. On mobile devices there is also a low-brightness Night map which is useful. However, the Aerial, 25K and 50K maps are fine -- and the 3D stuff and fly-over functions are great. The main reason for subscribing however, is the ability to view a large database of routes, create your own custom routes to add to it (or not), and have an easy URL of your route which you can send to friends. cheers, Martin. ___ 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] New Entertainment venue - what tags?
I think 3 nodes. While all operated by the one company .. do they all have the same fees, opening hours, contact details? The building can have the address .. and the company if it has all of the building. But each facility can have its own node or area (if you have that detail). The bar and restaurant may be separate facilities too, if so may them as separate nodes too (or areas again if you have that detail). On 30/12/19 04:27, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote: Hi In your example they're all different companies with different addresses & contact details, FHRS etc Tony's is one company, one address etc, so I think it should be one node, or if mappable, a building part area.. The facilities should be listed in sub tags - bar=yes, restaurant=yes etc On 29/12/2019 11:20, Chris Fleming wrote: On 29/12/19 at 10:40am, Tony OSM wrote: Hi In Chorley a new entertainment business has opened - https://www.escapeentertainmentvenue.co.uk/ It's primary offering is TenPin bowling, Gator Adventure golf (a form of indoor golf) and a bar & restaurant. What is the best way to tag? One node or three nodes? The new building is multi-tenanted and includes M Food and a cinema (already tagged). I would tend to map these all as individual nodes. An example is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/55.94187/-3.21604=N Sometimes, it makes sense to tag the building with the main occupant then add any cafe's or restaurants as nodes, in your case this would be the bowling then add the others as nodes. I would also tend to do this for a big store which may also have a cafe or restaurant. Cheers Chris ___ 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 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
