It seems a bit odd for Osmose to be flagging highway=footway, foot=yes as
an error just because foot access is implied by default. Whilst there might
be the tiniest bit of redundancy I can't see any particular reason to
remove it and, indeed, there might be an argument that an explicit tag is
On 10/07/2020 22:27, Nick wrote:
Hi Lester
I think there needs to be some thought as to the "proper channel to feed
corrections to the 'data officer' responsible". It took me months to get
a 'data officer' to correct the location of a single UPRN, so my thought
is that this needs to be a
Hi Lester
I think there needs to be some thought as to the "proper channel to feed
corrections to the 'data officer' responsible". It took me months to get
a 'data officer' to correct the location of a single UPRN, so my thought
is that this needs to be a 'public' (open) channel that shows a)
Hi, I'm the changeset commenter,
I added the foot=yes on the common based on it being a registered common
with definite legal access. I also add foot=yes to signed public footpaths.
I would only add foot=designated where there is a blue person sign or
similar (not a green/wooden public footpath
>I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for
>highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over >from a preset in Potlatch
>1.
>
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607
>
>I got a changeset comment querying the edit.
Hi Andrew,
My understanding is that
Hi,
It's worth pointing out that if Wimbledon Common is (as I assume)
registered as common land then there would normally be a legal right of
access on foot under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, so
foot=yes would be correct.
Kind regards,
Adam
On 10/07/2020 16:00, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote:
After not having any luck in finding out of copyright maps that helped I
wondered, if a FOI request to Ealing Council, naming the exact location
and asking for the name would be fruitful. Did anyone ever try something
like this? Would this
On 10/07/2020 14:21, Lester Caine wrote:
On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
This is, of course, one of the problems with proprietary data. It can
be difficult to spot errors, because the people who are most likely to
spot errors - members of the general public with local knowledge -
On Fri, 2020-07-10 at 11:54 +, Andrew Hain wrote:
> I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning
> for highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset
> in Potlatch 1.
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607
>
>
>
>
>
> I
Thank you for this absolute masterpiece of detective work, Marc! I'd never
thought that looking through old Notes would spark such an interest :)
As reported before, my own dip into having USRN data underlying JOSM at that
particular point showed that this stub (in USRN the part where the
Jul 10, 2020, 14:49 by ajt1...@gmail.com:
> On 10/07/2020 12:54, Andrew Hain wrote:
>
>> I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for
>> highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset in Potlatch
>> 1.
>>
>>
On 10/07/2020 13:35, David Woolley wrote:
> On 10/07/2020 13:11, Colin Smale wrote:
>> What does "legally accessible" mean? Are they Public Footpaths? Do we
>> tag all Public Footpaths with an explicit "foot=yes" or is
>> "designation=public_footpath" enough?
>>
>
> I don't know the situation in
On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
This is, of course, one of the problems with proprietary data. It can be
difficult to spot errors, because the people who are most likely to spot
errors - members of the general public with local knowledge - tend not
to have easy access to the data.
(apologies for the double reply)
I just remembered I wrote a diary entry last year about this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/391053 . That has
some useful links in such as a pointer to the start of "designation"
tagging, in 2009:
On 10/07/2020 12:54, Andrew Hain wrote:
I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning
for highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset
in Potlatch 1.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607
If Osmose is flagging "highway=footway;foot=yes"
On 10/07/2020 13:11, Colin Smale wrote:
What does "legally accessible" mean? Are they Public Footpaths? Do we
tag all Public Footpaths with an explicit "foot=yes" or is
"designation=public_footpath" enough?
I don't know the situation in Wimbledon Common, but most footpaths in
public park
The changeset comment seems backwards to me, foot=designated is more
specific than foot=yes (which would be the default for any mapped footpath).
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 1:12 PM Colin Smale wrote:
> What does "legally accessible" mean? Are they Public Footpaths? Do we tag
> all Public Footpaths
What does "legally accessible" mean? Are they Public Footpaths? Do we
tag all Public Footpaths with an explicit "foot=yes" or is
"designation=public_footpath" enough?
On 2020-07-10 13:54, Andrew Hain wrote:
> I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for
>
I have always believed that highway=footway in the UK implies foot=yes (and
not foot=designated), though I actually don't know if UK tagging practice
is successfully documented. IMHO the use of "designated" is quite specific
and probably shouldn't be assumed as an invisible default.
Best
Dan
Op
I have been doing some tidying based on Osmose, including the warning for
highway=footway foot=yes, which is often left over from a preset in Potlatch 1.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87672607
I got a changeset comment querying the edit.
* I note you have removed foot=yes
Hi Mark
Brilliant comment - "because the people who are most likely to spot
errors - members of the general public with local knowledge - tend not
to have easy access to the data". Now we need the evidence (errors)
collated centrally (OSM?).
On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
Apologies
Hi,
On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
So this is a bit of a warning, really, for the open mapping community.
Although the open data release of USRN ids and coordinates is welcome,
don't be tempted to look up street names on the street list published,
with a restrictive licence, on
Apologies for the long read, but this may be interesting to some folk.
This follows on from my earlier response to Kai Michael Poppe about
"Fairfield Road" in Ealing.
On 04/07/2020 12:02, I wrote:
To find the USRN of the path, you need to use the lookup tables supplied
by OS. Doing that, we
23 matches
Mail list logo
